# To put records straight on MSU



## Roth (May 5, 2008)

For several years a "new fantastic" fertilizer, named MSU, has been promoted and sold. I have some doubts about how it has been initially discovered, or more exactly who discovered it really... 

In France, we have a book, named "Cultures hydroponiques" by Coïc and LeSaint, from 1982, that give the composition of a new fertilizer for tomatoes and several crops ( they explain a couple different composition, including one for rain water, and one for tap water...)

That's the analysis of their tap water composition ( including the Calcium calculated in the solution) :

NO3 13 %
NH4 2 %
P2O5 5.5
K2O 18,5 %
CaO 13%
MgO 2.3%

Note the low NH4 content compared to NO3, the low P2O5 compared to total N, and the ration of that composition ( the others I am calculating, but there are plenty of results in google for "Coïc Lesaint")... 15:5.5:18.5 ( approx 15:5:19 then...).

Makes me think that the MSU is just a copy of that one, and in no way an "original discovery". Coic Lesaint has been promoted worldwide at that time in the horticulture industry ( including the USA) as a way to correct the hard water too. Later it has been recommended by LeSaint to alternate that formulation with a high P fertilizer and a fertilizer containing NH4...


----------



## SlipperFan (May 5, 2008)

There's a whole thread on this subject here:
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3088&highlight=formula

I don't think you can set the record straight on MSU. No one ever said they "discovered" the formula. Here's the story. I've told it before:

MSU is especially known for it's agricultural college. They do a great deal of research into crop propagation and hence fertilizer. It is quite likely their formula is built on formulas from other sources, but they specifically came up with their tap water formula for their ground water. At the time, they had a large collection of orchids, and I understand that was the primary purpose -- although I'm a little vague on that.

A few years ago, when I worked for Porter's Orchids (in mid-Michigan, as is MSU), we had an intern from MSU who told us about their fertilizer. However, we used rain water, not ground water. So this intern asked his Professor to come out and check our rain water -- which he did, and came up with the rain water formula for us. Since MSU does not hold a patent for either formula, and they had Blackmore Company put up their formulas, both are available to anyone from Blackmore. 

So please note that there are *two* MSU formulas. Make sure you are comparing apples to apples, not oranges. 

And for anyone interested in getting some, make sure you get the right formula for the kind of water you use. Don't let anyone tell you it's all the same, because it's not.


----------



## Roth (May 5, 2008)

SlipperFan said:


> A few years ago, when I worked for Porter's Orchids (in mid-Michigan, as is MSU), we had an intern from MSU who told us about their fertilizer. However, we used rain water, not ground water. So this intern asked his Professor to come out and check our rain water -- which he did, and came up with the rain water formula for us. Since MSU does not hold a patent for either formula, and they had Blackmore Company put up their formulas, both are available to anyone from Blackmore.
> 
> So please note that there are *two* MSU formulas. Make sure you are comparing apples to apples, not oranges.
> 
> And for anyone interested in getting some, make sure you get the right formula for the kind of water you use. Don't let anyone tell you it's all the same, because it's not.



That's why it puzzled me. Coic and Lesaint published actually 4 formulas, 2 for acid-loving plants, 2 for normal plants. One of each for hard or pure water, in 1982 they made a book to explain how they arrived to that result. Unfortunately that book is not translated completely as far as I know.

That book provide a way to calculate formulations for hard water depending on the water analysis, that way, with pretty hard water, ends up nearly exactly to the MSU formulations. The pure water formulation ends up to the pure water MSU formulation. 

Coic Lesaint explain why there is additionnal NH4 in the tap water formulation. They found out that NH4 is required in pure water where calcium is supplied as calcium nitrate, because otherwise the pH would raise too much... They were working at first with NFT systems, and hydroponics.

I just want to mention that historically, the low P formulation and high NO3 contents has been discovered by a french team more than 30 years ago, even if to many people MSU fertilizer is a "novelty", most Dutch pot-plant growers were using it as a part of their fertilizer schedule for 30 years.

I will sum up a little bit their book when I finish the other thread. It is very interesting as it explains a lot regarding the MSU fertilizer, how to use it, what are the advantages and inconvenients.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 5, 2008)

Taken directly from the labels of both formulas -- hope this helps.

Rain/RO/Distilled Water formula:
*Macronutrients* 
Total Nitrogen 13.0%
Nitrate Nitrogen 12.5%
Ammoniacal Nitrogen 0.7%
Available Phosphate (P2O5) 3.7%
Potash (K2O) 15.9%
Calcium (Ca) 8.0%
Magnesium (Mg) 2.6%	
*Micronutrients*
Iron (Fe) 0.177%
Manganese (Mn) 0.088%
Zinc (Zn) 0.044%
Copper (Cu) 0.044%
Boron (B) 0.018%
Molybdenum (Mo) 0.018%

Derived from: boric acid, calcium nitrate, copper sulfate, iron EDTA, magnesium nitrate, manganese sulfate, potassium nitrate, potassium phosphate, sodium molybdate, and zinc sulfate

Tap/Well Water formula:
*Macronutrients*
Total Nitrogen 19.0%
Nitrate Nitrogen 13.6%
Ammoniacal Nitrogen 5.7%
Available Phosphate (P2O5) 4.0%
Potash (K2O) 23.0%
Calcium (Ca) 2.0%
*Micronutrients*
Iron (Fe) 0.160%
Manganese (Mn) 0.080%
Zinc (Zn) 0.080%
Copper (Cu) 0.080%
Boron (B)	0.016%
Molybdenum (Mo) 0.016%

Derived from: ammonium nitrate, ammonium phosphate, boric acid, calcium nitrate, copper sulfate, iron EDTA, manganese sulfate, potassium nitrate, sodium molybdate, and zinc sulfate.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (May 6, 2008)

Many years ago (more than 15...almost 20) I got a pamphlet from the Orchid House, along with some plants, that detailed their fertilizing program...their formula was ver similar to the MSU formula, at least as far as NPK......Eric


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2008)

I have spoken a length with Bill Argo (PhD at Blackmore, and MSU grad), the guy that developed the formulas, and he openly acknowledges that the goal was a formulation good for a broad collection of orchids, and that it was developed from "the literature" not from specific testing of tissues and the like, although those results are part of "the literature", no?

It seems to me that a single fertilizer formula that works well for a variety of genera is a great time- and hassle saver, so I love it. The fact that there is a formula for pure water also means I don't have to make and adjustments (some may, I don't), so it helps simplify my busy life.

If you really want to get specific about it, and understand that your plants' nutrients are the combination of what's in the water and what you add to it, plus realize that it is likely that each plant has its own, unique nutritional needs, then you'd have to create a different formula for each of them. Have fun with that.

In my opinion, the biggest thing to come from that was the high-phosphorus-isn't-a-bloom-booster sidebar, as it blew up one of the old wives tales that had been passed around for decades.

Just a general observation here: nobody at MSU, Blackmore, or Greencare, who actually produced the stuff, ever mentioned that this was a "fantastic" or "magical" formula. That didn't come from their marketing, it came from users. However, the general population of users of any product may not be too reliable. A lot of folks converted their entire collections to Aussie Gold, for example, and were quite happy with the results.

I think that what happens in such a situation is enhanced cultural attention brought about by some novelty: With Jan Sryzen's (I hope I remember her name correctly, and haven't butchered it too badly) AOS article about the MSU formula, a lot of folks jumped at the latest "magic bullet" for orchid care. They used it and their plants grew and bloomed better. *Damn! It really works! See for yourself!* In reality, the reason they got better blooming and growth was because they were now feeding their plants adequately on a regular basis, rather than in the lackadaisical, whenever-I-think-of-it manner they had been doing so. I'd be willing to bet that many of those folks began seeing less dramatic results over time, as their focus faded and they went back to their old ways.


----------



## Roy (May 10, 2008)

"I think that what happens in such a situation is enhanced cultural attention brought about by some novelty: With Jan Sryzen's (I hope I remember her name correctly, and haven't butchered it too badly) AOS article about the MSU formula, a lot of folks jumped at the latest "magic bullet" for orchid care. They used it and their plants grew and bloomed better. Damn! It really works! See for yourself! In reality, the reason they got better blooming and growth was because they were now feeding their plants adequately on a regular basis, rather than in the lackadaisical, whenever-I-think-of-it manner they had been doing so. I'd be willing to bet that many of those folks began seeing less dramatic results over time, as their focus faded and they went back to their old ways."

RAY, this is exactly right. I have seen this for years. Its not necessarily the ferilizer, its people using it on a regular basis. The correct fertilizer does help though.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 10, 2008)

Jan's last name is Szyren.


----------



## cnycharles (May 11, 2008)

Roy said:


> RAY, this is exactly right. I have seen this for years. Its not necessarily the ferilizer, its people using it on a regular basis. The correct fertilizer does help though.


I know it's the case with me as I have to force myself to fertilize my plants more regularly. Last time I did the next flowering wave was amazing. Am getting better,........


----------



## NYEric (May 11, 2008)

Does anyone know if the MSU rate should be cut for plants [phrag besseae hybrids] grown in water?


----------



## cnycharles (May 11, 2008)

NYEric said:


> Does anyone know if the MSU rate should be cut for plants [phrag besseae hybrids] grown in water?


I can't tell you from orchid experience, but at work we have a house with very large ebb/flood benches and a few others that are ebb/flood floors. Plants that are watered mainly from the bottom the recommendation is to use at least half or maybe less the fertilizer because you usually aren't leaching the salts down and out of the pot. So, you might want to use at least half for flood benches what you normally would for top watering, and if a phrag would get regularly less than other orchids, the amount might be fairly low. That all depends on not watering from the top on a regular basis as well. If you do water only from the top with plain water somewhat occasionally then you might be able to use higher amounts in the flood water. It might be a good idea to do that anyhow (plain water leaching through) so that you don't have the possibility of crunchy crud building up on top of the media or pots.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 11, 2008)

NYEric said:


> Does anyone know if the MSU rate should be cut for plants [phrag besseae hybrids] grown in water?


I water all my plants at 125 ppm N once a week. Except in the Summer when they are all outside and I often water them with a hose using my well water. Otherwise, I use rain water (snow melt in the Winter). Seems like they do fine.


----------



## Roy (May 12, 2008)

NYEric said:


> Does anyone know if the MSU rate should be cut for plants [phrag besseae hybrids] grown in water?



No but how about a 'life jacket'????


----------



## Ray (May 12, 2008)

Dot - thanks for the correction.

Eric - I have all my slippers in S/H culture and keep them flooded with a 125 ppm N solution, and have had no "burn" issues.


----------



## NYEric (May 12, 2008)

Thanx.
BTW Roy, they float! oke:


----------



## Roy (May 12, 2008)

NYEric said:


> Thanx.
> BTW Roy, they float! oke:



Can't swim eh !!!!


----------



## Corbin (May 12, 2008)

SlipperFan said:


> I water all my plants at 125 ppm N once a week. Except in the Summer when they are all outside and I often water them with a hose using my well water. Otherwise, I use rain water (snow melt in the Winter). Seems like they do fine.




So no "rest" period as recommended by many articles?


----------



## SlipperFan (May 12, 2008)

Corbin said:


> So no "rest" period as recommended by many articles?


I've never read to give Phrags a rest. What articles?
I have over a hundred Phrags, and maybe I don't watch each one carefully. But I've never noticed that they stop growing, so I guess my Phrags don't get a rest.


----------



## NYEric (May 13, 2008)

Phrags don't rest! :ninja:


----------



## Corbin (May 13, 2008)

My mistake I took the "all" to mean that Paphs. were included.


----------



## NYEric (May 13, 2008)

Ray has all in S/H. What does rest mean; less fertilizer or less water?


----------



## Corbin (May 16, 2008)

When applied to paphs it seems to mean both.

On the other hand there was a thread here that discussed the pros and cons of resting when growing under lights indoors. The conclusion seemed to be water and fertilize all year.


----------



## Ray (May 17, 2008)

Folks who actually give their semi-hydro-grown plants a rest (I don't - they like it my way or they're goners - I don't have time to give any plant special attention) either treat them like those in ordinary culture, greatly reducing or eliminating all irrigation, or simply stop feeding, but continue to irrigate with fresh water.


----------



## NYEric (May 17, 2008)

So it's less fertilizer in rest season, regardless of lighting technique, Oui?


----------

