Early K-lite results

[limuhead]

First, let me comment that my understanding of the low-K concept relates to avoiding a long-term problem, not the enhancement of any type of growth.

The fact that those commercial growers don't use Low-K regimens or even add K doesn't mean that that is the reason the example plants ended up the way they were. There is a great deal more going on than the nutritional part. In fact, I have pretty much concluded that, unless you're trying to "push" your plants for sales, that it is one of the least important aspects of orchid culture.

The compot looks typical of a compot: a bunch of little seedlings get established and then BOOM, the growth begins at a greater rate due to the overall vigor of the plants. I've seen that in compots that were not fed at all.

I think it's a great idea to remain skeptical until things prove themselves out - one way or another. "Buying in" or "writing off" something without giving it a try is often a mistake.

Thank you Ray! That is exactly the point that I am making. One of the Nurseries I am talking about has been in business for 30+ years. I don't think they would be around for that long pushing plants only to have them crash when end consumers got them in thier hands. The plants I have been working on, buying to raise for my own breeding stock, and growing from compot to sell at local shows and online have never looked better.

 

[DavidCampen]

Personally I don't think any of the nutrient tests that have been done answer the question one way or the other. The answer is in the results of the K-lite grower tests.

There we agree - this is no scientific evidence to support the use of "K-Lite" (more accurately "KP-Lite") in preference to the more commonly used fertilizers like the MSU or DynaGro formulations. There are only a few anecdotal reports in support of "K-Lite".

 

[limuhead]

There we agree - this is no scientific evidence to support the use of "K-Lite" (more accurately "KP-Lite") in preference to the more commonly used fertilizers like the MSU or DynaGro formulations. There are only a few anecdotal reports in support of "K-Lite".

I think the 'scientific evidence', in favor of or against, will be seen in the next few years. Time is the only way to tell with pretty much anything concerning orchids due to the relative slow growth. I am encouraged by the fact that people are involved and passionate about this subject...

 

[gonewild]

There we agree - this is no scientific evidence to support the use of "K-Lite" (more accurately "KP-Lite") in preference to the more commonly used fertilizers like the MSU or DynaGro formulations. There are only a few anecdotal reports in support of "K-Lite".

It is OK to agree.
No one has ever said there was. That is the reason K-lite was formulated and distributed. Now the results are coming in.

Because there is a lack of published scientific papers the only answer can come from trial. You can be assured that science does not have all the answers about plant growth and nutrition, especially pertaining to orchids.
Actually science will never learn the answer, that can only come from growers.

 

[gonewild]

I think the 'scientific evidence', in favor of or against, will be seen in the next few years. Time is the only way to tell with pretty much anything concerning orchids due to the relative slow growth. I am encouraged by the fact that people are involved and passionate about this subject...

You are correct. But you won't see "scientific" evidence. K-lite has already been in use longer than most scientific trials would run. The accumulated results are 100% positive so far. The few negitive reports have proven to be due to other causes. You can use MSU and continue to grow great orchids but unless you try K-lite you will never know the answer if it is better. Wouldn't you like to show your 3 old growers how to grow a better plant?

 

[limuhead]

I am using it. I have a section of my greenhouse dedicated to it as a matter of fact. I bought a 2 lb as a sample from Ray and afterwards I bought a 25 lb bag. I am doing research on it as we speak. I am neither in favor of it or against it. I am just trying out different approaches to see what works...

 

[ALToronto]

Can't comment on success with orchids - I just started using K-lite - but my anthuriums have taken off. A new flower spike emerging at the base now grows 5-10 mm per day. You can practically watch them grow. Can't wait till my orchids do the same.

 

[Rick]

I'd like to see the whole paper since it looks at an alternative measure of calculating smaller scale nutrient imput.

Even though 4 gr of K in the study sounds like "plenty" versus "virtually none", the amount listed is cumulative for a large number of trees and amount of rain. Actual K concentration per unit water still looks to be pretty low relative to the concentration of K per unit water of typical orchid feed. For instance if this was based on a 90+ mm rain event, and the amount of K collected per individual tree was 4000 mg in that rain event (calibrated by sq/Meter of tree trunk) then you have 4000 mg collected in about 100 L of rain with a concentration of 40ppm. If this is the sum for 50+ trees, then divide by another 50 so less than 1 ppm (which conforms well with other research on rainforest stemflow and total flux nutrient concentrations which are rarely more than a few ppm once you reduce hectares per year down to the scale of single plants on a day to day basis.

Also would have liked to see the Ca amounts calculated too, but that's pretty typical for rainforest studies to just have 1 or 2 of the minerals in question looked at. Comprehensive data is very rare.

 

[gonewild]

I am using it. I have a section of my greenhouse dedicated to it as a matter of fact. I bought a 2 lb as a sample from Ray and afterwards I bought a 25 lb bag. I am doing research on it as we speak. I am neither in favor of it or against it. I am just trying out different approaches to see what works...

Perfect!
I got the impression you were mixing it with other fertilizers to raise the K level.

I'm neither in favor or against it either, my interest is understanding how and why plants grow.

I just don't like to see people discouraged from trying new ideas because there is no "scientific proof". Scientific papers are for scientists to use to write other papers. I have seen, assisted and documented a lot of "scientific" research in South America and the truth is all of it is with fault and error. most researchers are time limited and do what ever it takes to collect enough data... and the biggest problem is they make assumptions to fill in small missing details. Those small details make a difference to someone who wants to grow a plant. So your tests to me carry a lot more value than research done by students assisting a professor or a fertilizer company's tired tech.

FYI it would be very unique for an old timer grower to actually tell you how the grow their plants. They may laugh at your new ideas and you will never know that they are actually trying your idea. You will never know! Maybe old Hawaiians are more into helping their competition but I doubt it. :wink:

 

[gonewild]

Can't comment on success with orchids - I just started using K-lite - but my anthuriums have taken off. A new flower spike emerging at the base now grows 5-10 mm per day. You can practically watch them grow. Can't wait till my orchids do the same.

Have you seen them grow equally as well with other fertilizer?

Anthuriums grow in the exact environment as many orchids, side by side. It would be reasonable to think they have similar nutrient requirements. (think not assume)

 

[DavidCampen]

Actual K concentration per unit water still looks to be pretty low relative to the concentration of K per unit water of typical orchid feed. For instance if this was based on a 90+ mm rain event, and the amount of K collected per individual tree was 4000 mg in that rain event (calibrated by sq/Meter of tree trunk) then you have 4000 mg collected in about 100 L of rain with a concentration of 40ppm. If this is the sum for 50+ trees, then divide by another 50 so less than 1 ppm (which conforms well with other research on rainforest stemflow and total flux nutrient concentrations which are rarely more than a few ppm once you reduce hectares per year down to the scale of single plants on a day to day basis.

Also would have liked to see the Ca amounts calculated too, but that's pretty typical for rainforest studies to just have 1 or 2 of the minerals in question looked at. Comprehensive data is very rare.

If the K is diluted then all the other nutrients are diluted proportionally and the ratios stay the same. Yes it would have been nice if they had looked at calcium instead of magnesium still the ratio of K to Mg was 2 to 1 to 10 to 1 while KP-Lite is 0.4 to 1. So what ratio of K to Ca do you consider to be "virtually no K" and do you have any references?

 

[gonewild]

I'd like to see the whole paper since it looks at an alternative measure of calculating smaller scale nutrient imput.

Even though 4 gr of K in the study sounds like "plenty" versus "virtually none", the amount listed is cumulative for a large number of trees and amount of rain. Actual K concentration per unit water still looks to be pretty low relative to the concentration of K per unit water of typical orchid feed. For instance if this was based on a 90+ mm rain event, and the amount of K collected per individual tree was 4000 mg in that rain event (calibrated by sq/Meter of tree trunk) then you have 4000 mg collected in about 100 L of rain with a concentration of 40ppm. If this is the sum for 50+ trees, then divide by another 50 so less than 1 ppm (which conforms well with other research on rainforest stemflow and total flux nutrient concentrations which are rarely more than a few ppm once you reduce hectares per year down to the scale of single plants on a day to day basis.

Also would have liked to see the Ca amounts calculated too, but that's pretty typical for rainforest studies to just have 1 or 2 of the minerals in question looked at. Comprehensive data is very rare.

The issue I have with these nutrient flow measurements is how relevant they actually are. They are studying big trees and big trees do not account for a very big percentage of the forest coverage. The canopy cover is from big trees but most of the limbs and foliage don't drain down the trunk. No one has taken into account the K content of the big tree. How much K is leaching from the bark as the water flows down? How much K leaches from leaves and twigs that cover the rest of the canopy? Do all tree species have the same K content? No. I don't think they are collecting data correctly to answer orchid related questions. Why is one tree completely covered in orchids but the 100 right next to it have none? Is that because one has more or less K in it's bark? No one looks at that. Orchids don't grow uniformly through the forest, there has to be a nutrient based reason for that and your low K theory points in the right direction.

Orchids that grow on twigs in low growing trees in the cloud forest do not get dripped on by the canopy. They are exposed to the open sky. Their roots do not catch a significant amount of organic matter. Where does their K come from and how does it relate to downfall and flow through? Maybe they get it from the tiny mosses and lichens that grow with them....but where do the mosses get the K?
Not needing very much K comes close to answering that question.

 

[eteson]

Also would have liked to see the Ca amounts calculated too, but that's pretty typical for rainforest studies to just have 1 or 2 of the minerals in question looked at. Comprehensive data is very rare.

First of all I have to say that I´ve started to test K-lite recently to feed some of my plants. Your point of view is very interesting and resulted eye opening to me... but i am still concerned about K deficiencies. So, I´ve started to read some literature about plant nutrition.

In the article of Ndakara 2012 it is shown:

Stemflow (mg*l-¹)
Nitrogen 0.55
Phosphorus 0.39
Potassium 11.31
Calcium 6.18
Sodium 0.42
Magnesium 4.40

http://www.onlineresearchjournals.org/JPESR/pdf/2012/may/Ndakara.pdf

The K/N ratio and even the K/Ca ratio seem to me very high... What do you think?

 

[gonewild]

First of all I have to say that I´ve started to test K-lite recently to feed some of my plants. Your point of view is very interesting and resulted eye opening to me... but i am still concerned about K deficiencies. So, I´ve started to read some literature about plant nutrition.

In the article of Ndakara 2012 it is shown:

Stemflow (mg*l-¹)
Nitrogen 0.55
Phosphorus 0.39
Potassium 11.31
Calcium 6.18
Sodium 0.42
Magnesium 4.40

http://www.onlineresearchjournals.org/JPESR/pdf/2012/may/Ndakara.pdf

The K/N ratio and even the K/Ca ratio seem to me very high... What do you think?

Consider.....

1. This study was done in Nigeria......What can be trusted from Nigeria?
2. They studied Avacado trees on a farm.... not representing Natural conditions.
3. Avacados are one of the top 10 foods with the highest Potassium content.... You would expect avacado trees to also be high in potassium and thus any leaching from the tree would be high in potassium. Likely tons of avacado fruit falls and rots below the trees depositing potassium in the soil/litter.

 

[eteson]

Consider.....

1. This study was done in Nigeria......What can be trusted from Nigeria?
2. They studied Avacado trees on a farm.... not representing Natural conditions.
3. Avacados are one of the top 10 foods with the highest Potassium content.... You would expect avacado trees to also be high in potassium and thus any leaching from the tree would be high in potassium. Likely tons of avacado fruit falls and rots below the trees depositing potassium in the soil/litter.

I would consider 2 and 3... I am living in a not developped country and I am working in science... :wink: Scientific method is universal and the study is published in a peer reviewed publication.

 

[NYEric]

Consider.....

1. This study was done in Nigeria......What can be trusted from Nigeria?

This is, unfortunately, a definite factor in any study from that location!

 

[DavidCampen]

Why is one tree completely covered in orchids but the 100 right next to it have none? Is that because one has more or less K in it's bark? No one looks at that. Orchids don't grow uniformly through the forest, there has to be a nutrient based reason for that and your low K theory points in the right direction.

There are a variety of reasons for this, some trees produce organic substances to inhibit things from growing on them. But if you want a nutrient based theory then why pick K, perhaps it is N, Ca or P.

Orchids that grow on twigs in low growing trees in the cloud forest do not get dripped on by the canopy. They are exposed to the open sky. Their roots do not catch a significant amount of organic matter. Where does their K come from and how does it relate to downfall and flow through? Maybe they get it from the tiny mosses and lichens that grow with them....but where do the mosses get the K?
Not needing very much K comes close to answering that question.

And then the amounts of the other nutrients would also be reduced proportionally. So you are saying that it is not the ratio of the nutrients but the absolute amounts available. So people should just use very dilute MSU formulation.

 

[ALToronto]

Have you seen them grow equally as well with other fertilizer?

Anthuriums grow in the exact environment as many orchids, side by side. It would be reasonable to think they have similar nutrient requirements. (think not assume)

No, that's my point - they barely moved with Dyna-Grow. I'm growing them alongside my orchids, so they're getting the same feed and growing conditions. I even planted them in lava rock, just like most of my orchids.

 

[gonewild]

I would consider 2 and 3... I am living in a not developped country and I am working in science... :wink: Scientific method is universal and the study is published in a peer reviewed publication.

I live more than half the year in rural parts of Peru so I now well about un developed countries. I was not referring to the level of Nigeria but rather to the fact that Nigeria is flooding the world with fraudulent materials. Perhaps you are not exposed to the problem in your country but Nigeria has a bad reputation to the point we can not automatically believe anything they publish. The entire paper they published leads a person to assume the tests were done in a remote wild forest and it was not.

Read the last sentence and he recommends planting avacado trees in deforested rainforest....

"It is therefore suggested that, growing of P. gratissima should be encouraged in the deforested rainforest areas, to ensure sustainable tree stands in the ecosystem".

What this paper does is to justify the clearing of native rainforests to plant groves of Avacado trees for commercial production. It is recommended by a published paper so the Nigerian government has an excuse to clear more rainforest. There are many more better species to use for reforestation and suggesting Avacado is good because the trees provide nutrients for the soil is....... (a Nigerian scam). (No offense to the country or author)

Besides my negative opinion above the data in the paper does not apply well to orchids.

 

[Rick]

http://cires.colorado.edu/limnology/pubs/pdfs/Pub106.pdf

Because water flows downhill to streams