That "note" was precisely what I was going to point out. N, K, Ca, & Mg can compete for sites in the plant chemistry. I certainly cannot argue with field data, but what I wonder is if the symptoms originate directly from a K deficiency as much as a Ca/Mg "toxicity"? One could argue that the symptoms correlate with either low-K or high-Ca, and the data does not confirm causation. Your "K deficiency" assessment might be dead on, or maybe not.
Are those numbers from dry tissue analysis? If so, they are a great deal higher than what I've read for wild-collected samples, which would make me wonder if they were overfed.
I feed my plants a regular regimen (100 ppm N weekly) using K-Lite as the only fertilizer. It is 12.9% N (12.3% nitrate, 0.6% ammoniacal) -1.3% K2O-1.3% P2O5-10% Ca-3% Mg. My tap water supply is almost pure, and has had about 50 ppm Ca added. I have not seen such leaf tip issues, despite the fact that the N is almost all nitrate and my Ca:K ratio is pretty much the same as your "brown tips" example.
As to the MSU publications, I don't know if I'd call it "voodoo", but the formulator has told me "we tried it and it worked." I don't think there's anything magic about the formula, but it was the first fertilizer marketed for orchids that contained calcium, which may seem simple, but was a nutritional "breakthrough" in educating growers about the need.
I would be more inclined to agree that K-Lite might be more "voodoo-like", but only as it originated with the serendipitous collaboration of a ceramist aware of the negative effects of K on the stability and durability of glass and ceramic bodies, and a microbiologist studying toxicity in fresh water mollusks that had shown K to be toxic, especially if Ca was deficient. Those facts soon became "what about K in plants?" and there was a new formulation born. Once again, the "we tried it and it worked" conclusion was met. Since then, digging in the literature has turned out to back up the concept through analyses of the solutions to which wild plants are exposed and their tissue analyses.
The numbers are indeed from dry leaf analysis, and I do have as well in the database 'quite a few' samples from wild plants and leaves, of genera that we are concerned with...
The people who publish analysis in research are usually amateurs, at best, and that's why too there can be weird results. You need to sample a fixed leaf, of a fixed age ( like the 2nd mature leaf from the top of a Phalaenopsis, or the new fully expanded leaf on a Cattleya, or the one expanding at the same size as the sheat...) and strictly do the same for all the research. If you take a spent leaf, or the leaf at the wrong season in the wild, the results vary very, very wildly.
There are protocols in horticulture and agriculture, which leaf, what age, what protocols exactly for the analysis, etc... and in many studies I see antique, imprecise protocols for analysis as well... Usually the best is to use an ISO certified lab, with all protocols that are normalized...
But for those figures, they are really normal for even wild plants...
As for the potassium deficiency, it depends as well on how much stress the plants have, if they are grown slowly compared to their normal speed, etc... then they have time to accumulate and move onwards. If the plants are grown optimally, or even with supplemental light ( and that would depend on the spectrum of the light, the varieties, etc...), then deficiencies can be very fast to appear.
If we take the rothschildianum as an example, in the wild when a growth is blooming, it already has a near mature growth or two new growths, and new growths already formed on those new growths. Hence, yearly blooming, if not faster. I saw them myself, and that's what I noticed. So when people are blooming a single growth + a smaller new one, something is wrong, and the plants are not optimally grown...
https://pbase.com/rogiervanvugt/image/142283210
Phrag kovachii, we see a lot of wild plants sold in the US and Europe, and they have mature, near mature, newer, and smaller growths in many cases. Anything that does not have a NBS growth on the blooming growth, and a new one on the NBS one is not properly grown for the species... etc...
I call MSU Voodoo, for a good couple of reasons:
- They tested the well water formulation, and calculated the RO water by using only nitrates...
- They did not do any analysis to prove that the formulation is superior.
At a point, putting ice cubes at the base of a Phalaenopsis will induce a spike, so 'we tried and it works', but is it a really good solution, after all?
The MSU 'pure water', 'all nitrate' was in fact a big step backwards compared to the urea/etc... based fertilizers that were used before. A lot of plants have a yellowish, chlorotic cast, and they are not as dark green and healthy as they used to be 20-30 years ago... It can work in some conditions, but it is very far from optimal.
The K-Lite is not supported by the data of most of the commercial nurseries, on the opposite in fact.... When a plant drains 30% of the potassium of the leaves at the time of its blooming, it is obvious that the plant needs more potassium...
Fresh water mollusks can be nice, but they have nothing to do with us. If you take another example you can kill cows with Molybdenum. Doses that we would easily take without any problems... Or some plants need toxic levels of boron to grow compared to others. What goes for an African Adenia will kill a pelargonium in days.
What would have been a good case would be, use it for a year or so, test with a normal K feeding, with adjusted pH for both groups, and make leaf analysis as well as soil analysis. Then it is possible to give advice. Otherwise, indeed it is more hearsays, anecdotical and voodoo...