Issue with multis - leaf flopping over

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
One brief comment; remember that pot growing restricts the roots severely. Most paphs in the wild have very big root systems as compared to a pot-bound plant and will therefore be able to capture more nutrients. To compensate for that, we need to add the nutrients as a higher dose, which may, or may not have negative side-effects.
I agree with this completely. Some epiphyte roots are measured in tens of feet. Up to 30 feet long on a little plant!! That is a HUGE surface area and does not come close to our poor plants!
No wonder they need feeding. Or does the extra feeding inhibit this massive root growth? either way the results are the same. I have never observed the massive breakdown that Rick keeps quoting:confused:
 
One brief comment; remember that pot growing restricts the roots severely. Most paphs in the wild have very big root systems as compared to a pot-bound plant and will therefore be able to capture more nutrients. To compensate for that, we need to add the nutrients as a higher dose, which may, or may not have negative side-effects.

However, we normally see root rot before root bound.:poke:

It takes NPKCaMg to make roots as well as leaves and flowers. So adding more concentrated NPK to make bigger leaves unsupported by big roots doesn't make sense.

Also more roots really means more water before more nutrients. Plants are 99% water and carbon. Only 1%NPK. Also plants inhale/exhale (evapotranspiration) water, but the inorganics stay in the plant to work.

Kind of like gasoline goes in and out of a car when its running, but the nuts and bolts that hold it together are constant (and relative to the size of the car). Little cars few nuts and bolts, big cars more nuts and bolts. Also they only need to be replaced for maintence, not to make the car go down the road.

Plants need big roots to support big leaves, and bigger leaves allow you to pump more water (which takes more roots to get the water). Vicious circle.
 
No wonder they need feeding. Or does the extra feeding inhibit this massive root growth? either way the results are the same. I have never observed the massive breakdown that Rick keeps quoting:confused:

What massive breakdown? Everyone else keeps thinking all the N comes from breakdown of aerial leaf litter, insect and frog poop, but I don't believe that. I think it comes from live N fixing bacteria and BG algae. Given the high recycle rates for P and K in epiphytic plants the P and K can be supported by very modest "breakdown".

Root growth and leaf growth on my mounted plants increased with reduced K (remember I dropped K before dropping N). So would indicate that K was inhibitory. Further reducing N over the past year or so has not inhibited root or leaf growth in my mounted plants suggesting that N beyound the 5ppm/saturated spray per day was a waste.

BTW did you check out the roots on my sturatiana? They completely cover the mount, and drop down off the mount almost to the bench 2 ft below where its hanging. Not "10's of feet" but pretty extensive for a GH Phal. My Vandas are crazyier then that.
 
Some epiphyte roots are measured in tens of feet. Up to 30 feet long on a little plant!! That is a HUGE surface area and does not come close to our poor plants!

Unless I'm missing some sarcasm, I think you just agreed with my long term premise that the environment is dilute/ impoverished.

And that root water data for PK isn't missing something.:wink:
 
Bjorn said:
No wonder they need feeding. Or does the extra feeding inhibit this massive root growth? either way the results are the same. I have never observed the massive breakdown that Rick keeps quoting.

What massive breakdown? Everyone else keeps thinking all the N comes from breakdown of aerial leaf litter, insect and frog poop, but I don't believe that. I think it comes from live N fixing bacteria and BG algae. Given the high recycle rates for P and K in epiphytic plants the P and K can be supported by very modest "breakdown".

Root growth and leaf growth on my mounted plants increased with reduced K (remember I dropped K before dropping N). So would indicate that K was inhibitory. Further reducing N over the past year or so has not inhibited root or leaf growth in my mounted plants suggesting that N beyound the 5ppm/saturated spray per day was a waste.

BTW did you check out the roots on my sturatiana? They completely cover the mount, and drop down off the mount almost to the bench 2 ft below where its hanging. Not "10's of feet" but pretty extensive for a GH Phal. My Vandas are crazyier then that.

??? I did not say that? BUT according to my theories, accumulation of cations, particularly potassium, may cause Your roots to rot. Look into another thread(repotting) for more on that
 
What massive breakdown? Everyone else keeps thinking all the N comes from breakdown of aerial leaf litter, insect and frog poop, but I don't believe that.

No No I mean the boom and then bust you attribute to high rates of fertilizer. The reason your schill went down hill was not because you were feeding it too much. How old was it? They don't just keep getting bigger like other orchids. They have a definite life span. You don't see Phals hanging around from last century like you do with some Paphs and Catts.
 
Unless I'm missing some sarcasm

There is no sarcasm. I don't use it. Please don't take anything personally. In Oz when we want to say something we just say it. It took my American wife ages to get it:rollhappy: Just a different custom I guess...

I think you just agreed with my long term premise that the environment is dilute/ impoverished.

I've always agreed with that. But it's not a premise, but a fact which has been metioned for a century or more. However, in cultivation growing plants in an impoverished state does not get the results.

And that root water data for PK isn't missing something

Well where is the micro nutrient data?
The mychorriza data?
And how much pertinent potential data is there which we don't even know about?
 
Root growth and leaf growth on my mounted plants increased with reduced K (remember I dropped K before dropping N). So would indicate that K was inhibitory.

No it wouldn't. I got massive increase in root and leaf growth when I doubled the fertilizer for the Phals. They now get 100 to 150ppm N 2 or 3 times per day with no plain water in between.
I course I'm definitly not saying you should give all orchids that.

Another example: Now I have all my brachy and ''crack'' Paph seedlings in a pure mineral substrate and hydroponic and feed every few days with about 60ppm N and similar K (a bit lower maybe 40) at every watering. They sit in very shallow rain water and there is no flushing or dilution. They have already put on more growth this spring than the entire last season.

So much better than last year when they were in bark and fed less than half that and with plain water between feedings.
It was not too much feed that was the problem in this case. More probably too much fluctuation in water content of the mix and my inexperience with them. I am more confident as to their needs now
There is nothing wrong with feeding well when everything else is right.

Look at the history of Paph culture. First osmunda and moss and little or no feeding and they got results.
Bark needed much more N to get the same results because it consumed N
Hydro does not consume N but also does not hold it so it must be continuous.
I have found that the so called sensitive brachys actually love being fed as long as there is a constant level of water so there are no wild EC swings and roots remain fully hydrated. That is the key.
You are getting results with sphag, stones and light feeding. Similar to the osmunda and moss with no feed when you think about it. High CEC and high water content.
My kovachii is doing as well with the same treatment. But I'm trialing a couple of barbata types in old (weathered) CHC which I plan to give very little food ( maybe a pinch of blood and bone a couple of times a year) and more flushing. And hope to get a similar response.
So when we talk about feed concentrations we must include substrate as well. I have the feeling that my Hyro paphs and you basket paphs are seeing similar nutrient levels if they are both growing optimally?

But I think your mounted plants may do better with more (except perhaps your wild stuartiana)

Further reducing N over the past year or so has not inhibited root or leaf growth in my mounted plants suggesting that N beyound the 5ppm/saturated spray per day was a waste.

Its not a watse Rick. re-read all the Phal trials.

BTW did you check out the roots on my sturatiana?

Not yet but I will.
 
No No I mean the boom and then bust you attribute to high rates of fertilizer. The reason your schill went down hill was not because you were feeding it too much. How old was it? They don't just keep getting bigger like other orchids. They have a definite life span. You don't see Phals hanging around from last century like you do with some Paphs and Catts.

What is the definite lifespan of a Phal?

Are you saying that the nutrient supply and balance provided to the plant does not directly affect it's lifespan?

Actually I have quite a few Phals hanging around from last century.
:poke:
 
Everyone else keeps thinking all the N comes from breakdown of aerial leaf litter, insect and frog poop, but I don't believe that. I think it comes from live N fixing bacteria and BG algae.

100% correct. That's why orchids have specialized roots that provide an environment that can support the nutrient supplying living organisms.

Not all artificial environments allow the micro organisms to populate well enough to supply the orchid plants needs and that is where liquid fertilizer steps in as an artificial life support system.

That is also why some people can grow fantastic orchids without using fertilizer, because their environment has populated with the correct micro organisms.
 
"Rick" Further reducing N over the past year or so has not inhibited root or leaf growth in my mounted plants suggesting that N beyound the 5ppm/saturated spray per day was a waste.

Its not a watse Rick. re-read all the Phal trials.

Do you have a link to a Phal trial where they applied nutrients daily at various concentrations? I've only seen trials done with longer time span between irrigations.
 
I agree with this completely. Some epiphyte roots are measured in tens of feet. Up to 30 feet long on a little plant!! That is a HUGE surface area and does not come close to our poor plants!

Also keep in mind that roots of epiphytes (especially those giant vanda roots) are not inorganic hollow pipes, but living, organic, photosynthesizing, and productive part of the whole plant.

And also consider the species that are nothing but roots year round or most of the year.


The plant is actually the root, and the leaves/flower just a transient reproductive stage in those cases.
 
No No I mean the boom and then bust you attribute to high rates of fertilizer. The reason your schill went down hill was not because you were feeding it too much. How old was it? They don't just keep getting bigger like other orchids. They have a definite life span. You don't see Phals hanging around from last century like you do with some Paphs and Catts.

This was its last big hooraw in 2009
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11007&highlight=schilleriana

Purchased as a seedling in 2002. The bulk of collapse happended by 2010. 8 years seems pretty pathetic longevity for what grew into such a huge plant.

As mentioned I'm nursing back what's left of one of the keikies from 2009. All the roots and leaves completely turned over, but it keeps spiking every year with a pathetic little 3-5 flower show.

I still have my first phal (a hybrid) from 2001. After a slump in 2009/2010 its coming back with a vengence.
 
No No I mean the boom and then bust you attribute to high rates of fertilizer. The reason your schill went down hill was not because you were feeding it too much. How old was it? They don't just keep getting bigger like other orchids. They have a definite life span. You don't see Phals hanging around from last century like you do with some Paphs and Catts.

Are you sure about this, Mike? This page is in Japanese, but search for "cluster", and you'll see huge Phalaenopsis specimen plants.

http://ranwild.org/Phalaenopsis/monthly/monthlyhead.html

P. pulchra, P. luddemaniana, P. schilleriana, P. stuartiana etc. Each photo is a single individual. They were originally grown in Phillipine, and imported to Japan. It is not easy to achieve this (maybe easier with P. pulchra) in the temperate zone for some reason (maybe higher temp).
 
Naoki your site is in japanese!!!! Pretty pictures but terrible when your searching for info
 
What is the definite lifespan of a Phal?

I don't really know much about them. But the guy who wrote the book on them (name??) sais 10 years is considered old.
Are you saying that the nutrient supply and balance provided to the plant does not directly affect it's lifespan?

Well no, I'm sure they are easy to kill if you really try!
Actually I have quite a few Phals hanging around from last century.
:poke

Ha Ha very good!
 
I don't really know much about them. But the guy who wrote the book on them (name??) sais 10 years is considered old.

What's "the book"?
Is he saying 10 years is old because people kill them with poor culture or they just die of old age no matter what?

Well no, I'm sure they are easy to kill if you really try!

And easy to keep alive if you really try!
 
100% correct. That's why orchids have specialized roots that provide an environment that can support the nutrient supplying living organisms.

But those N fixing organisms are every where in the soil and on leaves and ALL plants and trees utilize them not just orchids and they need a massive root system to gather it. You can grow a plant in the ground well without fertilizer but put it in a pot and you need to feed a lot to get even close to the same growth wether there is N-fixing or not.....and there usually is. So in cultivation the N-fixing factor is largely irrelevant and not to be relyed on.

Not all artificial environments allow the micro organisms to populate well enough to supply the orchid plants needs and that is where liquid fertilizer steps in as an artificial life support system.

Yep.



That is also why some people can grow fantastic orchids without using fertilizer, because their environment has populated with the correct micro organisms.

Show me those fantastic orchids
 
Do you have a link to a Phal trial where they applied nutrients daily at various concentrations? I've only seen trials done with longer time span between irrigations.

Pretty sure many were fed at every watering. But the intervals are not important in this discussion. The responce to concentrations is.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top