Acceptable loss rate?

[Candace]

In the current thread discussing the problems some indoor growers have with s/h one member stated he had about 10% plant loss in s/h and another member stated he thought that 10% plant loss was unacceptable. This makes me wonder what do people consider as an acceptable plant loss? Of coure no one likes losing plants and 100% is what we strive for. But, realistically, what percentage of loss should dictate changing growing methods, watering or fertilizing practices etc.? I wonder what commercial nurseries loss numbers are?

 

[Hien]

My acceptable loss is equivalent to the amount of space I need for new plants that I urgently need (actually want). Regardless whether it is 5% or 50%.
However if it is a very choice plant then, no percentage is acceptable, I would feel the pain to the bone.

 

[Marco]

I think any loss is acceptable so long as something is learned.

 

[couscous74]

My acceptable loss is equivalent to the amount of space I need for new plants that I urgently need (actually want). Regardless whether it is 5% or 50%.
However if it is a very choice plant then, no percentage is acceptable, I would feel the pain to the bone.

Well put. That's about how I feel.

 

[Bolero]

I agree with Marco, I had a period when I first started growing difficult paphs where I lost at least 20%.....it seemed like I would lose one or two plants every week for a while.

But over time I learnt the problems and realise that sometimes losses are unavoidable as well.

For instance some seedlings will never grow whether it's because of conditions or genetics. So I would say as long as I keep it to one plant a month and I learn something from my mistakes then I would be ok with that.

More than that and I start to cry.

 

[ScottMcC]

to be fair to me, since I'm the one who said it, I said up to 10% of my collection currently has some problem. now granted, that's much higher than I consider acceptable, but I've only completely killed one plant so far, so my actual loss rate is much lower.

and when I was posting before, I said that it was a combination of factors that likely contributed, among them the fact that a certain number of plants are just going to die, no matter what you do. do I think that explains all my problems? no, and I certainly hope not.

furthermore, of the plants having problems, only one came from a good, reputable vendor. the rest were suspect plants to begin with, so again, it's understandable that they would have problems.

 

[NYEric]

Scott, since I'm the one who stated 10% loss rate is unacceptable, I will try to clarify. When I was learning how and what to grow, I killed everything I could get my hands on [99.9% loss rate for sure]. Now that I've become settled in what I try to grow I find that I can rescue plants and grow successfully with the cultural methods I use. S/H, as established by Ray's, is not the way. My rate of loss w/ what I grow is about 2% per year. With the root structures and habits of Phal's I agree S/H should work. And, as I agreed before, certainly water quality along w/ media, frequence, and technique, are also factors.

 

[NYEric]

My acceptable loss is equivalent to the amount of space I need for new plants that I urgently need (actually want). Regardless whether it is 5% or 50%.

Very fun Hien. What happens when all the new Paph species become available in USA?oke:

 

[Ross]

Acceptable loss rate can depend on whether you're talking mature plants, seedlings or recently deflasked plants. Some times the nature of a cross can also dictate how viable the plants will be.

 

[Candace]

And haven't we all noticed the odds of losing a plants are in direct proportion to how expensive it is?

 

[NYEric]

No, thank god!

 

[Hien]

Very fun Hien. What happens when all the new Paph species become available in USA?oke:

You mean they are not available yet?oke:
I guess I will almost accept a 100% lost then. Or more of them can escape.
PS: Green is, by the way , I heard the color of hope

 

[Ray]

For me, no loss is acceptable, but reflecting what Marco said, if you learn something, it's not a total loss.

 

[paphioland]

Depends on the value of the plant. My highly select plants there is no acceptable loss rate. I watch them closely. Hopefully if you go all out you can stop what ever arises. I have never lost a highly select plant. Obviously if the plant is one growth you can always lose it to crown rot but I try to make sure there is good circulation around these plants.

If I don't care about the plant 50% is fine with me.

 

[paphioland]

Depends on the value of the plant. My highly select plants there is no acceptable loss rate. I watch them closely. Hopefully if you go all out you can stop what ever arises. I have never lost a highly select plant. Obviously if the plant is one growth you can always lose it to crown rot but I try to make sure there is good circulation around these plants.

If I don't care about the plant 50% is fine with me.

 

[littlefrog]

I think for seedlings out of flask, I expect a certain loss rate. Frankly if it doesn't grow under my conditions as they currently are, I don't want it. I'm not going to baby a $2 seedling and ignore a $50 stud plant... I think it is probably a mistake to baby along all the runts from a flask, a poor growing plant isn't worth bench space regardless of how nice the flowers might eventually be (in 15 years...).

Now, established plants should never die... Of course more than a few do. In my hands, I kill plants due to overcrowding (which I try to avoid, unsuccessfully) or renegade drips from the greenhouse ceiling in the winter. I've nailed down the persistent condensation drips, but every winter it seems a new spot wants to drop cold water on my plants... I also kill plants due to optimism. "Of course I can grow that 8000' elevation masdevalia in with the vandas". Sometimes it works to push the envelope, often it doesn't. This I figure is a learning experience.

 

[NYEric]

For sure, established plants are the better way to go for succesfull growing. Especially if it's something you're not good with.