# Feed your Phals and watch them grow!



## Stone (Jan 6, 2015)

First pic was taken in June 2012. If you have a look and compare the schillereiana and speciosa (lower right) then and now, you can see the results of feeding agressively. (Well what I call agressive anyway)





They have been fed constantly with 75/25 Nitrate/ammonium and urea at about 90ppm K at about 60 to 70 ppm (and etc with all the others) 2 or 3 times per day by dunking. pH is always around 6 or a bit less.
They also get sprayed with fermented fish fert whenever I have it in my hand (at least every week) No plain water until this week as I need to wet them 5 times a day (very hot now) 

Today... The same schill.

Opinions welcome...






And the speciosa


----------



## NYEric (Jan 6, 2015)

Not bad.


----------



## orchidsimplicit (Jan 6, 2015)

Wow, that's some growin'!


----------



## naoki (Jan 7, 2015)

Nice growths, Mike!

ranwild's owner (wild Phal specialist) says the same things. With mounted Phals, he uses about twice more concentrated liquid fertilizer. In addition, he has to hang organic solid fert in tea bags (during the growth), and it dramatically improved the growth.

When I was doing 100ppmN MSU, the potted Phals (all species) weren't growing many roots (leaves grew well), so I reduced the rate to 30ppmN. I don't feel like mixing higher concentration fert. just for mounted Phals (only tricky ones like Aphyllae, Parishianae, and P. lowii and P. cochlearis), so I'm stuck with lower N. I feel like that their growth (mounted ones) is a bit slower than when I was giving more fert., and potted one seems to grow more roots with lower fert. (so I'm happier with 30ppmN), but this may be just Placebo effect.

What are you covering the roots with? Fern root?


----------



## Lmpgs (Jan 7, 2015)

Gorgeous!!


----------



## eggshells (Jan 7, 2015)

Great growing Mike.


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 7, 2015)

naoki said:


> Nice growths, Mike!
> 
> ranwild's owner (wild Phal specialist) says the same things. With mounted Phals, he uses about twice more concentrated liquid fertilizer. In addition, he has to hang organic solid fert in tea bags (during the growth), and it dramatically improved the growth.
> 
> ...


That explains why my Phals don't grow anything but roots... I need to up the fertilizer then. Thanks!


----------



## Secundino (Jan 7, 2015)

... as I need to wet them 5 times a day (very hot now) 

Don't panic - he lives where it's hot now. We can still wait a few months! No leaves growing now...


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 7, 2015)

Secundino said:


> ... as I need to wet them 5 times a day (very hot now)
> 
> Don't panic - he lives where it's hot now. We can still wait a few months! No leaves growing now...


My Phals don't grow leaves, only roots no matter which time of year it is.


----------



## naoki (Jan 7, 2015)

The Mutant said:


> My Phals don't grow leaves, only roots no matter which time of year it is.



Maybe it is something other than fertilizer if that is the case. There are several papers showing the ratio of leaf and root production changes with fertilizer availability and irrigation frequency (in orchids and other plants).

You are not talking about Chinese Phals (Aphyllae), right?


----------



## Rick (Jan 7, 2015)

There's no doubt that mounted Phals are fast and easy to grow mounted. Here's the oldest pic (2006) I have left of my schilleriana purchased as a little 2 leaf seedling in 2002. Leaves are over a foot long at this time.




In this pic from 2009 the mother plant is burried in the back of the GH, but you can see 4 spikes and the largest schilli plant is a keiki on an old spike with leaves about a foot long.



All this was when I was feeding "weakly weekly" MSU at 100ppm N.

However this plant "collapsed" (presumably from old age) in 2010 and now I'm regrowing what is left of that small keiki in this photo.


----------



## Rick (Jan 7, 2015)

Here's the first blooming pic of my stuartiana in 2009. Picked up as a 2 leaf seedling, in 2007 I think.





Fast growing and healthy with MSU at 100ppm N.

But hear it is in 2013, 2 years after low K and pushing a year of overall low (but frequent) feeding applications. It's even bigger this year so you don't have to bury your Phalaes in food to get them to grow.

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28882&highlight=stuartiana


----------



## gonewild (Jan 7, 2015)

Rick said:


> However this plant "collapsed" (presumably from old age) in 2010



Not from old age at 8 years old.


----------



## Rick (Jan 7, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Not from old age at 8 years old.



Maybe high feed rates age Phalaes at a faster rate than otherwise.

I heard a talk from a grower in North Carolina that was growing fantastic Phalae violacia and belina in a flow bench setup with high N applications. He had them flowering within a couple years out of flask, and got a bunch of AM's , but it sounds like about 30% of the awarded plants died within a year of getting awarded.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 7, 2015)

Rick said:


> Maybe high feed rates age Phalaes at a faster rate than otherwise.
> 
> I heard a talk from a grower in North Carolina that was growing fantastic Phalae violacia and belina in a flow bench setup with high N applications. He had them flowering within a couple years out of flask, and got a bunch of AM's , but it sounds like about 30% of the awarded plants died within a year of getting awarded.



Maybe higher feed rates cause health issues that lead to an early death but the death is not from "old age".


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 7, 2015)

I've run out of space for mounted plants, or I'd try mounting more of my Phals.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 7, 2015)

SlipperFan said:


> I've run out of space for mounted plants, or I'd try mounting more of my Phals.



Hang them in mid air! Let them spin.
Plenty of space in space. :wink:


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 7, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Hang them in mid air! Let them spin.
> Plenty of space in space. :wink:



Not in my greenhouse. All that above space is filled with multis and Phrags and a few other things.


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 8, 2015)

naoki said:


> Maybe it is something other than fertilizer if that is the case. There are several papers showing the ratio of leaf and root production changes with fertilizer availability and irrigation frequency (in orchids and other plants).
> 
> You are not talking about Chinese Phals (Aphyllae), right?


 Ordinary Phalaenopsis; hybrids and species. I think the average temperatures might also be a contributing factor as to why they don't really thrive at my place. The only Phal that's thriving is my celebensis. The rest are growing, but they only have between 2-4 leaves each and large root systems to go with them, so something is not to their liking.


----------



## Ray (Jan 8, 2015)

Mike, I've got to wonder if this is a "chicken or egg" thing that you've chosen to interpret one way.

Phalaenopsis, if kept very warm, are pretty fast growers in the orchid world. Growth requires nutrition. If they are in a fast growth mode, they will take advantage of the nutrition supply. Keep them cooler so they are not growing so fast, and I doubt that applying more fertilizer will accelerate their growth.

I have several phals in my greenhouse, getting the same 25 ppm N that everything else does, and over the summer, they pretty much all doubled in size.


Ray Barkalow
firstrays.com


----------



## gonewild (Jan 8, 2015)

Phalaenopsis growth is determined by temperature. There are variations and exceptions between species but as a general rule...

At temperatures above 28c degrees the plants are in a vegetative state and grow leaves and do no flower.
Below 28c degrees the plants switch to a reproductive state and leaf growth slows down or stops and flowering is induced.


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 8, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Phalaenopsis growth is determined by temperature. There are variations and exceptions between species but as a general rule...
> 
> At temperatures above 28c degrees the plants are in a vegetative state and grow leaves and do no flower.
> Below 28c degrees the plants switch to a reproductive state and leaf growth slows down or stops and flowering is induced.


Aha... *coughs* Well, then that solved it I guess. Yeah, my Phals need some warmth quite obviously.


----------



## Lmpgs (Jan 8, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Phalaenopsis growth is determined by temperature. There are variations and exceptions between species but as a general rule...
> 
> At temperatures above 28c degrees the plants are in a vegetative state and grow leaves and do no flower.
> Below 28c degrees the plants switch to a reproductive state and leaf growth slows down or stops and flowering is induced.




From the duration of daylight as well.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 8, 2015)

Lmpgs said:


> From the duration of daylight as well.



From what I understand day length has minimal effect on the vegetative or reproductive phase of Phals. Longer days speed up growth but it does not cause growth to start or stop.


----------



## Stone (Jan 8, 2015)

Ray said:


> Mike, I've got to wonder if this is a "chicken or egg" thing that you've chosen to interpret one way.
> 
> Phalaenopsis, if kept very warm, are pretty fast growers in the orchid world. Growth requires nutrition. If they are in a fast growth mode, they will take advantage of the nutrition supply. Keep them cooler so they are not growing so fast, and I doubt that applying more fertilizer will accelerate their growth.
> 
> ...



My point is (if it is a point) that in this case at least, increasing fert concentration lead to ingreased growth. (which is what I want) I started with an total EC of about 0.4 dS/m. Growth was ok and the plants grew steadily. Now thay are getting double that (around 0.8 to o.9). But I think I could go up to 1.00 dS/m or even higher (about 1 gram of fert per litre as in many of the trials) without problems and possibly even greater results.
One thing Iv'e noticed with more feed too is leaf width has definately increased. (another desirable quality in my eyes)
According to one of the Wang trials, leaf width was attributed to increasing potassium.
Of course temps have to be high with this feeding rate. (min of 18 to 20C and up to 30C during the day. Hours of light is probably important too) and plenty of air and humidity.
I plan on reducing the rate drastically over the next winter to maybe 0.4 again.


----------



## Stone (Jan 8, 2015)

Rick said:


> > Maybe high feed rates age Phalaes at a faster rate than otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jan 8, 2015)

naoki said:


> What are you covering the roots with? Fern root?



Yes but after a while they completely ignore it.


----------



## paphioboy (Jan 8, 2015)

Phals can take a lot of fert and respond accordingly.


----------



## Rick (Jan 10, 2015)

Don't forget that plants (not just phaleas) are 99% water and carbon. Every new inch of leaf and root you see is 99% water and carbon. So growth is primarily limited by the amount of water and CO2 a plant gets way before worrying about the NPK.....

So the more you water the faster they grow. The higher the humidity the less water lost between watering events, and more CO2 brought into the plant. Dipping in a bucket of water 3 times a day is better than spraying down 1 time per day, or adding an ice cube once a week.


With regard to the inorganic chemistry issues, ammonia is an effective blocker of all the other cations. In a relatively high ammonia feed you may need a ton of K to break through the ammonia antagonism. Wang's conditions includes a lot of ammonia, and ultimately a lot of pesticides and fungicides since the plants are low in Ca and extra susceptible to disease. But you can certainly get them to market faster!!!


----------



## Rick (Jan 10, 2015)

The Mutant said:


> That explains why my Phals don't grow anything but roots... I need to up the fertilizer then. Thanks!



Absolutely no reason to increase feed rate, need to increase watering. 





Mike can you post some pics showing the roots better? Ever since changing my feed to facilitate better Ca uptake, the roots will just about cover the entire mount in about a year.


----------



## The Mutant (Jan 10, 2015)

Rick said:


> Absolutely no reason to increase feed rate, need to increase watering.


I figured out (or rather NYEric did) that it's not the feed rate that's the major issue, but the temperatures. The average temperature in my apartment is too low for Phals, and if it's something I don't need to increase it's watering. I'm a chronic overwaterer already.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 10, 2015)

Rick said:


> Absolutely no reason to increase feed rate, need to increase watering.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you mounting your Phals on trash bags now?


----------



## Stone (Jan 11, 2015)

Rick said:


> > Don't forget that plants (not just phaleas) are 99% water and carbon. Every new inch of leaf and root you see is 99% water and carbon. So growth is primarily limited by the amount of water and CO2 a plant gets way before worrying about the NPK.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jan 11, 2015)

Rick said:


> Absolutely no reason to increase feed rate, need to increase watering.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Next time I'm in there with the camera. I certainly don't get roots like that. But we also have to compare species with species.
If you can achieve that kind of root growth with the nitrate only and low K (which makes sense), it would be an interesting experiment to see just how much explosive growth you would get by maxing out the feed for a while!:evil: (in the summer of course)
If fact that could be a new way of growing???? A root promoting cycle (which may take a year) followed by a leaf and flower cycle then back to the roots..... Interesting!


----------



## Rick (Jan 11, 2015)

Stone said:


> Next time I'm in there with the camera. I certainly don't get roots like that. But we also have to compare species with species.
> If you can achieve that kind of root growth with the nitrate only and low K (which makes sense), it would be an interesting experiment to see just how much explosive growth you would get by maxing out the feed for a while!:evil: (in the summer of course)
> If fact that could be a new way of growing???? A root promoting cycle (which may take a year) followed by a leaf and flower cycle then back to the roots..... Interesting!



Not sure if we have matching species, but extensive root growth isn't limited to this pallens. How about a stuartiana, belina, bastiani, mariae, deliciosa, or parrishii? 

I've had this plant since 2006 (?) so I've seen it grow under the old "weekly weekly MSU" program vs the "lowK starvation" plan with night and day difference so I'm not really interested in going back to the heavier feeding days.


----------



## Rick (Jan 11, 2015)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > If you are worried about low Ca in the plant you can simply feed plain Cal nitrate a couple of times at the end of the growing season. But I doubt that would be necessary.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jan 11, 2015)

Just thinking going from MSU to the work around and finally K lite basically just changed the % calcium and magnesium nitrate salts from about 40% to 90% anyway.

I just never looked back the following summer to switching back to a higher percentage of potassium nitrate. Growth never slowed down to indicate any shortages. In fact I just kept cutting back on concentration and increasing frequency to get better results each year.


----------



## Rick (Jan 11, 2015)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but they get 99 times more water than nutrients anyway. Water and CO2are not really my concern. They always get about the same amount ie; whenever they are dry. Varying the NPK in that water does vary the results though.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jan 12, 2015)

Rick said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > > Actually you missed my point that most of us limit growth not by shortages of inorganic nutrients by by limiting water. Your explosive growth is most likely due to watering 3 times a day as opposed to a grower with a potted phal giving an ice cube a week who is afraid to rot the roots off.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jan 12, 2015)

Stone said:


> That is not the way to look at it. If you tried to supply exactly what the plant ''needs'' you end up starving it. The way to feed (assuming everything else is right), is to increase the EC up to just before the point where any higher increase begins to reduce growth. (over the hill in the graph) Anything before that point is good not bad. That's the was trials are carried out and that's really the only way. This can only be done with close observation of the plants' response to treatment. Trying to work it out mathematically will lead to confusion and probably substandard results.



The sufficiency standards are very broad and flat between "deficiency" and "excess". There's a huge span of minimal need and over the top for the sufficiency standard curves I've reviewed, and I have yet to see a trial for species orchids.

Also I have yet to see a sufficiency curve for parameters outside of a single growth or crop production cycle.

Since I'm feeding at less than 1/50th your rate N and 1/200th your rate of K, how are my plants even surviving (let alone thriving).


----------



## Rick (Jan 12, 2015)

Stone said:


> Trying to work it out mathematically will lead to confusion and probably substandard results.



This is what farmers and county extension agents do all the time, and they don't seem confused.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 12, 2015)

Stone said:


> That is not the way to look at it. If you tried to supply exactly what the plant ''needs'' you end up starving it.



If the plant gets exactly what it needs it won't be starved nor will it be overfed.



> The way to feed (assuming everything else is right), is to increase the EC up to just before the point where any higher increase begins to reduce growth. (over the hill in the graph) Anything before that point is good not bad. That's the was trials are carried out and that's really the only way. This can only be done with close observation of the plants' response to treatment.



The problem with relying on the results of published trials is the time period is always too short. Running the nutrients to the maximum point just before damage occurs may give fast growth results in a short time but a trial with that result does not look at the plants long term response. 
I've always ran my nutrient levels to the max just as you suggest but now I am believing that is a mistake.



> Trying to work it out mathematically will lead to confusion and probably substandard results.



Don't all trials base their procedures on mathematical guesses?
How else would you work out the amount of nutrients to apply?


----------



## Stone (Jan 13, 2015)

Rick said:


> > The sufficiency standards are very broad and flat between "deficiency" and "excess". There's a huge span of minimal need and over the top for the sufficiency standard curves I've reviewed, and I have yet to see a trial for species orchids.
> >
> > Also I have yet to see a sufficiency curve for parameters outside of a single growth or crop production cycle.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jan 13, 2015)

gonewild said:


> > If the plant gets exactly what it needs it won't be starved nor will it be overfed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

