Early K-lite results

[keithrs]

What do you think about this? The color change has happened on new growth and no leave have fallen. It's an Epi. capricornu

Update.....

With the few waterings I have done with the small amount of k-lite(1 cup of concentrate) left. The plant has rid its self of the yellow leaves. All the leaves have greened up. I have watered with roughly 15 ppm N k lite. No kelp, no fish. Straight RO and k-lite! On top of that I bloomed Masd coccinea outdoors here in SD. Everyone... even any Andy suggested i would fail unless i grow it cooler! I truly believe THIS $h!T WORKS!

 

[Stone]

I truly believe THIS $h!T WORKS!

Hallelujah ! Now get down on your knees and FEEEEL the power of the Klite brother!

 

[keithrs]

I don't think I'll be putting my knee slippers on any time soon... But I'll rise my arms and lift my head for the all mighty K-Lite god!

 

[lepetitmartien]

Fleurs d'ecorces. Classified pine bark from France. Name of firm maybe Cenfora???? I don't know, I order it via a Hungarian gardening, but there is olny French writing on the bag. I can't speak French. I mix it with clay balls and Akadama.

After verifications, I could grab a bag and it's the bark used by all orchid professionals here in France save maybe one: La Canopée, that is importing Orchiata for some months now.

 

[limuhead]

For me the debate is over. I've used K-lite and have found that I haven't seen any significant differences as far as the HEALTH of my plants, which consists of Paphs, Phrags, Cymbidiums, Cattleyas, Dendrobiums, Vandas, Miltoniopsis, as well as a few other genera mixed in, both species as well as hybrids. If anything they were a little slower growing but that may have to do with the weather; tons of rain, cooler temps, and less sun. Of all the fertilizers I have used, Miricle Grow, MSU type formulas, Fish emulsion, the list goes on and on I have found one thing that made for the healthiest, fastest growing and most productive flowering. That thing is Nutricote 16-16-16 180 day formula applied when repotting along with a generous top dressing of oyster shell. I think maybe the people that are having great success with K-lite may be growing under less than ideal conditions(under lights, inside where there isn't enough humidity ect.) and for whatever reason it is beneficial. I am no scientist but I have found that in ideal conditions fertilizer is by far the least important factor. My healthiest and most vigorous plants are those in baskets with Nutricote pellets that get almost no foliar fert and tons of light, air, and rain.

 

[reivilos]

For me the debate is over. I've used K-lite and have found that I haven't seen any significant differences as far as the HEALTH of my plants, which consists of Paphs, Phrags, Cymbidiums, Cattleyas, Dendrobiums, Vandas, Miltoniopsis, as well as a few other genera mixed in, both species as well as hybrids. If anything they were a little slower growing but that may have to do with the weather; tons of rain, cooler temps, and less sun. Of all the fertilizers I have used, Miricle Grow, MSU type formulas, Fish emulsion, the list goes on and on I have found one thing that made for the healthiest, fastest growing and most productive flowering. That thing is Nutricote 16-16-16 180 day formula applied when repotting along with a generous top dressing of oyster shell. I think maybe the people that are having great success with K-lite may be growing under less than ideal conditions(under lights, inside where there isn't enough humidity ect.) and for whatever reason it is beneficial. I am no scientist but I have found that in ideal conditions fertilizer is by far the least important factor. My healthiest and most vigorous plants are those in baskets with Nutricote pellets that get almost no foliar fert and tons of light, air, and rain.

Thanks for the feedback. I guess there's no silver bullet.

 

[gonewild]

For me the debate is over. I've used K-lite and have found that I haven't seen any significant differences as far as the HEALTH of my plants, which consists of Paphs, Phrags, Cymbidiums, Cattleyas, Dendrobiums, Vandas, Miltoniopsis, as well as a few other genera mixed in, both species as well as hybrids. If anything they were a little slower growing but that may have to do with the weather; tons of rain, cooler temps, and less sun. Of all the fertilizers I have used, Miricle Grow, MSU type formulas, Fish emulsion, the list goes on and on I have found one thing that made for the healthiest, fastest growing and most productive flowering. That thing is Nutricote 16-16-16 180 day formula applied when repotting along with a generous top dressing of oyster shell. I think maybe the people that are having great success with K-lite may be growing under less than ideal conditions(under lights, inside where there isn't enough humidity ect.) and for whatever reason it is beneficial. I am no scientist but I have found that in ideal conditions fertilizer is by far the least important factor. My healthiest and most vigorous plants are those in baskets with Nutricote pellets that get almost no foliar fert and tons of light, air, and rain.

Nutricote is slow release correct?

Did you ever test the water coming out of your pots when you were growing with K-lite or MSU? Since you are getting the best results with a slow release and you say you get tons of natural rainfall the other fertilizers probably were very diluted by the rainfall and a high % of the time the plants did not have adequate nutrients available between your applications of fertilizer.

The nutrient content of the media between irrigation with fertilizer is very important.

 

[limuhead]

Never tested the water before or after going into or out of the pot. I know that the water here is supposed to be pretty good coming out of the pipe. Not sure where I heard it but the tap water here is cleaner, less tds than some bottled water. So essentially my tap water is more than likely cleaner than rainfall near big cities on the mainland. The tests I have been using are as follows. If the media has moss growing all over I don't do anything to try to adjust the ph or any other factors, because those are the plants that are growing like gangbusters. On further inspection those are also the ones with Nutricote and oyster shell. The accumulated run off from my orchids flows into my ginger/heliconia patch, which are also growing like crazy and producing flowers sooner than I was told they would by the guy who sold them to me. I think the debate about fertilizers is overdone and way over rated. To me the best grown plants are the only true test. I will go out and take a picture of a plant that was given to me for a sample for my sales plants and post it. Afterwards I will give you the feeding schedule for the plant. Post comments on how you think it was achieved...

 

[limuhead]

This is a Dendrobium Little Atro in a 6 inch pot. It was dropped in the pot from a 4 inch after removing the pot, so it has been in the same media for about 3 years. It is about 30 inches wide, the flowers are spread uniformly around the plant. I estimate it has about 250 flowers. It was grown at sea level the parents, atroviolaceum x normanbyense come from 300 to 750 meters. First bloom for these is usually in compot if they don't have time to plant them out fast enough. What do you think?

 

[limuhead]

 

[gonewild]

Never tested the water before or after going into or out of the pot. I know that the water here is supposed to be pretty good coming out of the pipe. Not sure where I heard it but the tap water here is cleaner, less tds than some bottled water. So essentially my tap water is more than likely cleaner than rainfall near big cities on the mainland. The tests I have been using are as follows. If the media has moss growing all over I don't do anything to try to adjust the ph or any other factors, because those are the plants that are growing like gangbusters. On further inspection those are also the ones with Nutricote and oyster shell. The accumulated run off from my orchids flows into my ginger/heliconia patch, which are also growing like crazy and producing flowers sooner than I was told they would by the guy who sold them to me. I think the debate about fertilizers is overdone and way over rated. To me the best grown plants are the only true test. I will go out and take a picture of a plant that was given to me for a sample for my sales plants and post it. Afterwards I will give you the feeding schedule for the plant. Post comments on how you think it was achieved...

My question about testing the water was not about water quality. It is about what happened to the nutrients when you applied msu and K-lite as compared to nutricote. Nutricote is slow release so every time you water nutrients are released. Every time it rains it releases nutrients so you plants have nutrients available all the time. In contrast I assume you applied the MSU/k-lite in irrigation water at intervals with days between applications. If so then each time you watered with fertilizer water the plants had nutrients available to grow with similiar to what nutricote supplies (not ratio but ppms). But when it rains it washes out the nutrients that you applied with MSU/K-lite applications. So during rain storms the plants have no nutrients to source with MSU/K-lite but with Nutricote they do have.

Forming the opinion that MSU or K-lite is not as good as Nutricote based on one side having constant nutrients available and the other only intermittently available is not an accurate assessment. Nutricote may work better under you "unusual" conditions but it may not work better if you blocked the rainfall.

So my question about testing the water coming out of the pot was to know if there was nutrients still in the pots between your applications of MSU/K-lite. I suspect that most of the MSU/K-lite was flushed out by the heavy rainfall and the plants did not have a chance to use it on a daily basis.
Collecting a sample of the water that drains from your pots and doing a simple ppm test would give you the answer.

I'm not questioning how well you plants are growing on Nutricote, I take your word for it. But Your post here was basically a negative report on the low K concept of nutrient supply. I am curious to know if K-lite showed poor results because the K level was to low or were the results because the plants did not actually have enough nutrients to compare with the constant slow release supply of Nutricote.

 

[gonewild]

This is a Dendrobium Little Atro in a 6 inch pot. It was dropped in the pot from a 4 inch after removing the pot, so it has been in the same media for about 3 years. It is about 30 inches wide, the flowers are spread uniformly around the plant. I estimate it has about 250 flowers. It was grown at sea level the parents, atroviolaceum x normanbyense come from 300 to 750 meters. First bloom for these is usually in compot if they don't have time to plant them out fast enough. What do you think?

It looks great!

 

[Stone]

To me the best grown plants are the only true test.

This statement is the best one made so far. And there really is nothing more to say.

 

[limuhead]

It gets 15-5-15 on a regular basis, about 200ppm. This is for 2 applications, then the next dose is the same mixed with 20% volume calcium nitrate. Two more does of the 15-5-15, then again, but instead of calcium nitrate 20% volume of 13.7-0-46.3. The only thing different, and here is to me the key, is that when we get prolonged periods of sun, no clouds the plants get a 20-20-20 formula that has a high ammonia concentration every other dose when applicable. I think I recall the term 'potassium toxicity' thrown out there on occasion. My question would is why would this plant not be dead or at least unhealthy. My point is not to discredit the K-lite formula but is to point out that it may not be the low K but rather the addition of CALCIUM in the formula. If you took the MSU formula and changed nothing but the amount of K that might be another story altogether. Changing multiple variables and saying it is because of low K doesn't make sense to me. After having many conversations with a biology major that instead of teaching biology after graduating from UH Manoa here in Hawaii started working in an orchid nursery and lab. That was over 30 years ago. I told him about using K-lite, he has read the article in Orchids magazine and he feels that it is not the low K, but the added calcium. After using it I would have to agree. I am very interested and anticipating a follow up article about K-lite in Orchids magazine. Truth be told I would love to be proven wrong. I would jump on the K-lite band wagon regardless of cost but I personally have not seen anything that changed my mind. Like I stated, the K-lite might work exceptionally well in adverse conditions but here in Hawaii, with ideal conditions, I am not convinced...

 

[gonewild]

It gets 15-5-15 on a regular basis, about 200ppm. This is for 2 applications, then the next dose is the same mixed with 20% volume calcium nitrate. Two more does of the 15-5-15, then again, but instead of calcium nitrate 20% volume of 13.7-0-46.3. The only thing different, and here is to me the key, is that when we get prolonged periods of sun, no clouds the plants get a 20-20-20 formula that has a high ammonia concentration every other dose when applicable. I think I recall the term 'potassium toxicity' thrown out there on occasion. My question would is why would this plant not be dead or at least unhealthy. My point is not to discredit the K-lite formula but is to point out that it may not be the low K but rather the addition of CALCIUM in the formula. If you took the MSU formula and changed nothing but the amount of K that might be another story altogether. Changing multiple variables and saying it is because of low K doesn't make sense to me. After having many conversations with a biology major that instead of teaching biology after graduating from UH Manoa here in Hawaii started working in an orchid nursery and lab. That was over 30 years ago. I told him about using K-lite, he has read the article in Orchids magazine and he feels that it is not the low K, but the added calcium. After using it I would have to agree. I am very interested and anticipating a follow up article about K-lite in Orchids magazine. Truth be told I would love to be proven wrong. I would jump on the K-lite band wagon regardless of cost but I personally have not seen anything that changed my mind. Like I stated, the K-lite might work exceptionally well in adverse conditions but here in Hawaii, with ideal conditions, I am not convinced...

Is the plant growing where it also gets rainfall? What is the "regular basis" that fertilizer is applied?

Isn't K-lite basically MSU with lower K?

Lowering the K content of fertilizer effectively raises the available Calcium to the plant but uses less chemical to achieve the goal. And it appears that the orchids can do quite well with lower K levels.

You are mostly correct it is the extra Ca that is what makes the difference and what K-lite does by reducing K is to increase the plants ability to intake Ca. Many growers have added extra Ca to standard fertilizer over the years but never had as good a result of getting the Ca to the plant as they are seeing with lowered K levels.

The ideal fertilizer for your ideal conditions in Hawaii would be a low K formula slow release Nutricote, I suspect one day in the future they will make it. That is the only possible way for you to apply a constant nutrient supply to plants growing with natural rainfall.

 

[Rick]

Yes dilution is the solution to pollution.

Limuhead you mentioned you were feeding your new basket phrags at 30-50 ppm N.

Are you feeding your big Dendro at 200ppm N or total? Your plant is great, but I know a little old German lady in Shelbyville TN that hasn't fertilized a plant in her 7 green houses in over 50 years. She's in her 70's now but in the 60's and 70's she ran a cut flower/corsage biz. She still has most of her money plants from that operation. She has huge Dendros Catts, and Ceologyne. One got so big if caved in a glass top table then she left it to colonize the steel frame! All nutrients from breakdown of cypress mulch. Most of her big stuff is grown into her benches and the pots all split, so she just adds mulch over the top of the roots occasionally. Its really crazy. Most of her plants are too big for her to carry or fused into the benchs, so the only way to see them is go over to her place in person.

If you keep your pot TDS down (tons of flushing and regular potting mix change) you can grow with just about any fert. Also huge plant in little pot makes for lack of fert retention in the pot.

I couldn't grow a phalae in a pot to save my life, but grew them pretty decent on mounts (no K retention in the mix). But even my mounted stuff is doing significantly better low K.

I could grow a 2ft plant span supardii in a 2 inch pot, but put it in a bigger pot and roots would go away (regardless of all the magic potting mixes I went through).

Your plants may get rained on for days on end. Over here, folks rarely have access to temps conducive to leaving their plants outside in the rain (certainly not year round) or live in dry areas that don't get frequent rain. Most of us have been raised under the notion that plants must by dry before nightfall so that restricts flushing even more and promotes higher overall dose regimes of fert.

Dose = concentration X duration of exposure X frequency of exposure.

 

[Rick]

the addition of CALCIUM in the formula.

not the low K, but the added calcium. After using it I would have to agree.

What makes you think that either myself or thousands of other growers weren't already burying our plants in calcium? For years! Besides the oyster shell or lime or dolomite or bone meal or aragonite I added to the potting mixes (as per recommendation from the masters, the overspray from my fogger (well water) regularly fogged my GH with 150 ppm of Ca. In a lot of my pics you could see white dust all over the plants. Calcium has never been in short supply in my GH. Virtually every orchid resource group has talked about the importance of calcium and adding it via potting amendments, and it made good sense to me as an ecologist for all the cliff dwelling paphs I was doing so bad with.

But (as is well known in the agri science community) K blocks uptake of Ca and high tissue K can cause Ca and Mg deficiency.

That was brought up and referenced in the article, and I've posted links to the Poole paper several times (one of the few that demonstrated the phenomena with orchids).

If I hadn't "been there, done it, got the Tshirt for it" for my previous 9 years of growing (and a 1000+ seedlings down the tubes), I wouldn't have bothered digging into the mechanisms of excess K in plants.

I guess what ends up griping me the most is I've done all the things the "masters" suggested, and when I didn't get the results, all they could come up with is more of the same, or be satisfied with plants that adapt to what you are doing.:sob:

I don't see any point in trying to fix things that aren't broken, unless you are expending a ton of effort and materials to get to where you are trying to get to.

But I don't think the bulk of low K users are imagining the improvements they are seeing in their plants either.:wink:

 

[Stone]

I couldn't grow a phalae in a pot to save my life, but grew them pretty decent on mounts (no K retention in the mix). But even my mounted stuff is doing significantly better low K.

Rick, at the risk of sounding really repetative, why do you think thousands of other people are/were able to grow phalies in pots with all kinds of wild fertilizer programs (not me by the way, I haven't even tried) when you could not?

Doesn't the above fact point to you making some other type of cultural mistake? By the time you you switched to low K you may have also learned to grow Phals in pots. ie: Letting the roots dry out properly like they did on the mount. Nothing to do with K.
I can see no other explanation.

I've only been growing Paphs seriousy for only 3 years. I still have trouble getting the results I expect but I know if I persist I will eventually ''crack the code'' which comes with experience. In the last year I have already learned that my mix was too course and I was not watering enough but no one I asked was able to tell me that . Just had to keep making errors until I stumbled on the answer. Even one of the ''master'' paph growers at our club shrugged his shoulders and said ''Don't know'' when I asked him why I was losing roots. I said, ''Well thanks a lot for your hot tip''
I know that if I asked you how to grow a mastersianum like yours you would tell me to put it into a basket w/moss and feed it k-lite etc. but I also know that I would not be much better off because I haven't ''done the time'' with this difficult sp yet. Hopefully I can keep it alive until I have!

 

[Bjorn]

Mike, how to put this...I have been using K-lite for a couple of years now, with good sucess. Even better when I replaced parts of it with an urea based mix. Simultaneously I reduced the strength, from some 3-400ppm TDS to2-300ppm TDS and now I am getting closer to 100ppm TDS. That is approximately 100mg fertiliser pr liter irrigation water. N is somewhere around 15-20ppm. I still feel that I could dilute my mix even further without sacrifising growth. I have been a firm believer in low K, but have started wondering whether its all a matter of concentration. With the hilariously high fertiliser concentrations we normally apply on our plants (relative to nature of course), K matters and should better be kept low. With a more nature-like fertigation regime (just a few ppm) I feel that a more balanced fertiliser could be in place.
Another thing that I have had thoughts on has been the micro-nutrients. In the fertilisers they are present at a level adjusted to a fertigation regime of several hundreds of ppm (in horticulture 1000ppm is common). What happens when we dilute to less than 1/10th of that? Are we getting too low on certain micro-nutrients? Should we have a fertiliser with more micro and less macro nutrients? Just my 2c.
Bjorn

 

[Stone]

QUOTE] Even better when I replaced parts of it with an urea based mix

??.

Simultaneously I reduced the strength, from some 3-400ppm TDS to2-300ppm TDS

!!

N is somewhere around 15-20ppm.

Something like mine

I have been a firm believer in low K, but have started wondering whether its all a matter of concentration.

!!

With the hilariously high fertiliser concentrations we normally apply on our plants (relative to nature of course), K matters and should better be kept low.

No proof of this.

What happens when we dilute to less than 1/10th of that? Are we getting too low on certain micro-nutrients?

No I believe we are not.