K-lite fertilizer

[gonewild]

OK, the request for "something akin to 10-1-1-5Ca-2Mg, with the trace elements along the lines of the 'Orchid Specials'" has been sent to Bill.

If you need more people to chip in to make the purchase let me know. I don't know if I'll be able to use in in the near future but will help make sure others can get a chance to try it. We need to see the results that different growers have with it.

 

[gonewild]

What I have been trying to convey is the fact that the enviroment you create around your plants (temp air light water humidity air for roots etc.) has infinately more influence on your ultimate results than the composition of your fertilizer. For instance, If you planted 2 identical orchids, using the same p/mix, one in a pot and one in a basket, used a low K feed in the pot and ''regular'' feed for the other, which plant would perform better?

The same goes for air, water, heat etc etc. Thats all I'm trying to say. Why do we go to so much effort and expence to create the right enviroment?
Because we are trying to replictate NATURE( Lance::wink

Mike

I completely agree with you about the importance of the environment. :clap: Without the right environment (light, temp, water, air, ect) no fertilizer will help.

But of all of the environmental factors, nutrition is the one we know the least about and is the most difficult to replicate. No human can replicate the exact fertilizer program Nature uses. All of the other environmental factors can be easily controlled with machines and tools because they are something that exists outside of the plant in the area that we can control with a switch. Nutrients on the other hand are used internally by the plant in secret and we can not control how that is done nor even really understand how each species does it differently.

When it comes to trying to replicate Nature all you say is true but I don't agree that we need to stop at the point that we "think" we have mimicked Nature. Nature has a collection of plants that it cares for. In any given hectare of a tropical rainforest how many species are living there all under the same exact conditions? To care for all the different species Nature has developed an "average" system to apply it's care. Under the average care plant all the species present have enough of what they need to survive.
When we take a couple dozen similar species and put them into a captive environment we suddenly have the option to IMPROVE on Natures average system for those specific species.

In our captive environment we can increase the Nitrogen supply and the orchids will grow big and fat. But at the same time the moss dies off because it can't tolerate the amount of nitrogen an orchid can. Do we really care about the moss? No, we care more about what the orchid looks like so we choose to "improve" on Natures supply of nitrogen where only the orchid is our concern. Nature has to be careful to care equally for all species in it's collection. We do not have to care about the moss if what we really want is a big beautiful plant with 1000 flowers to makes us smile. On the other hand if moss make a person smile who cares if the orchid plant blooms of not?

In my above examples I mentioned orchids and moss as the two main species. BUT there is also another that concerns us, that is micro organisms. Fungi, bacteria, virus are all species that Nature must think about when it cares for it's collection. In our captive environment these species are generally not welcome so we must "improve" on Natures average methods.

That is what I'm talking about when I say we need to strive to improve on Nature rather than replicate it.

Nature is not perfect, if she were we would not be communicating on the world wide web we would be wiping web off of our faces.

 

[cnycharles]

It is real easy to add extra phosphorous with a few drops of Phosphoric acid.
Here is one possible source: Phosphoric Acid

ah, probably 'pH Down' in my aquarium supply box
or just use bone meal every so often

 

[gonewild]

ah, probably 'pH Down' in my aquarium supply box
or just use bone meal every so often

Yes, it is easy to add Phosphorous in a bunch of different forms, pH Down may just be phos acid diluted.

 

[Ray]

Every Kiss Begins with K... Chemical ramblings.

No, not chemically-induced ramblings.... (Even if it may seem so)

OK, Rick's obsession with potassium content had me wondering about Rick - at first. Then I got to thinking about it more, and much as I might hate to admit it, his connection of Ca, Mg, and K might have a lot more going for it that it may have originally seemed. I am basing that on chemistry alone, not plant nutritional parameters, as that is a field I cannot claim to have that great of a grasp on..

This may bore the crap out of most of you, so stop reading now.

Orchid "sap" is a solution of a wide variety of chemicals in an aqueous base. Aqueous solutions - whether they be fertilizer solutions or the sap - can only hold "so much" solute. Not just because they reach their solubility limits (hence the precipitation of some components when you try to make too concentrated of a solution), but because the dissolved species can be "antagonistic" to one another, even in dilute solutions, forcing one to "drop out" and be unavailable in response to the increase in another.

Consider, for example, the use of sodium chloride to replace the calcium-, magnesium-, and iron carbonates in "hard" water. All are well below their solubility limits, yet the process goes on. Bob Wellenstein's article about CHC treatment with calcium nitrate and magnesium sulfate to "force" extraction of sodium salts from coir is another example of utilizing that chemical-solution antagonism. I use them to clean manufacturing residues from LECA on a regular basis.

Now look at a periodic table of the elements. We see that Mg and Ca are alkaline earth metals (+2 ionic charge), with K being monovalent, sitting just to the left of the calcium. Not so coincidentally, Na is just to the left of Mg, analogous to the K and Ca relationship. It seems perfectly logical to me that excessive potassium could antagonize the solution of calcium and magnesium too (water softener-like), leading to nutritional issues, and that by boosting the latter species, you might very well reverse that (as in the CHC treatment).

My only concern is just exactly what is the "correct" balance? Plants need all three (and sodium, for that matter), so we had better not tilt the apple cart too much, or it could roll right off the mountain side!

 

[Stone]

Sorry for ignoring this. Just got back (1200 miles later) from a funeral in NC.

Catching up... I think there is a bit of a flaw in using natural conditions and wild-plant tissue analyses as our yardstick. Plants in nature are in subsistence mode, not in the productive mode we'd like to see. Lance addressed that well.

Ray you say you think there is a bit of a flaw in using natural conditions and wild plant tissue analysis as our yardstick then you go on to advocate Rick's low K regimen which was developed using these exact same methods to gather his information. Which one is it?

If it’s the former, perhaps you will go with the U of Hawaii's College of Tropical Agr.,s Recommendation for optimum nutrient levels for adult paphiopedilum.

Sample taken from most recently matured leaf: Percentages
N 2.25-3.50/P 0.20-0.70/K 2.00-3.50/Ca 0.75-2.00/Mg 0.20-0.75
Values over this were deemed to be approaching toxicity. Values below this were deemed to be approaching deficiency.

If not, then let's continue with wild collected samples.

 

[Stone]

My only concern is just exactly what is the "correct" balance? Plants need all three (and sodium, for that matter), so we had better not tilt the apple cart too much, or it could roll right off the mountain side!

There is no such thing as correct balance. Also it is near impossible to maintain any one given ratio exactly.
It has been proven many times that the same species of plant can grow in media with widely differing K,Ca,Mg ratios as long as there is no GROSS imbalance of one particular element.

 

[Stone]

Weren't you just complaining about having problems with an Oncidium lanceanum?

Thats because i couldn't maintain the required min of 18-20C

 

[Stone]

The low K mix would do better

.

They already were low K

 

[Rick]

OK, Rick's obsession with potassium content had me wondering about Rick - at first.

I'm not sure how to take that Rayoke::evil:

Also you mentioned just coming back from a funeral. I feel it would be insensitive to not take a short moment to offer some condolences for your loss (whoever it may be).

 

[Jim Toomey]

Hi Ray/Rick,
I'm in for a few pounds.

Great discussion and great food for thought, I've often found myself pondering your musings during the day. Though I've had good success with MSU South Florida formula that has more magnesium, I'll be glad to try the low K diet plan.
Jim

 

[Rick]

My only concern is just exactly what is the "correct" balance? Plants need all three (and sodium, for that matter), so we had better not tilt the apple cart too much, or it could roll right off the mountain side!

Now that you mention it. Sodium is much more common in the environment than potassium. People using some type of natural surface or ground water will always be adding more sodium to the plants than those using RO water, and typically the growers with the most consistent problems are strict RO users.

As previously mentioned, my specialty in aquatic tox for the last several years is TDS toxicity. Until recently all aquatic animals (inverts and fish). Only recently aquatic macrophytic plants (endangered rice species in Minnisota/Canada). However I've also done a bunch of work on aquatic alga over the years.

Since 2005 I've been focused on freshwater mussel toxicity, and that is where I've gained a lot of insights into the toxicity of K, interactions with the other 6 major ions (Na, Ca, Mg, SO4, HCO3, and Cl), and the natural ionic balance of watersheds.

In developing K toxicity models for mussels I discovered an unusual situation.

If you put mussels into a solution of 100 ppm of K (regardless of the Ca concentration, but with sodium at less than 100 ppm) they will become paralyzed and bloat up within an hour, and will be dead after 48 hours. Even if you move them back into K lite river water. At low sodium the K induction is irreversible after just minutes of exposure.

If you put the mussels into a solution of 100 ppm K, but the sodium is 200 ppm or higher, the mussels will still freeze up and die by the end of 48 hours UNLESS you move them back to normal K lite river water after 24 hours of exposure. It's completely reversible if the mussels intake more sodium. I've seen the swelling and paralysis completely alleviated in less than an hour of going back into normal river water.

We did experiments to see if increased Ca would help and it kind of did but didn't??? . But actually we have noticed that the ratio of Ca to Mg in control water can effect the overall toxicity of K to mussels (+/- 50% differences) with a minimum 2:1 Ca to Mg ratios producing better results for mussels than a 1:1 mix. But beyond that wrote raising of Ca really didn't decrease the overall toxicity of K to mussels.

You may be asking what all this mussel stuff has to do with orchids? Unionid mussels (actually over 350 species) are found worldwide and are indicators of high water quality wherever they are found. This is the same water draining out of some of the best orchid habitats world wide, and subsequently an indicator of what the final measurement of major ions is in the plants environment.

Plus the more I work with different species (plants and animals) its amazing how much its all the same at the cellular level.

 

[Rick]

One of the things that makes me wonder about the phosphorus being too low, is someone's research that showed that high p (for certain paphs) made them much happier? Also I think they were giving them mancozeb for manganese...

if it were just certain plants and situations that needed more p, then I guess some bloom booster once in a while for them would help. there won't be any perfect one fertilizer, but if k is a 'limiting' factor in most cases trying this out seems to be a good idea

Also was the enhanced P given to plants that had been given a previous diet high in K?

The rice article demonstrated a cascade effect that high tissue K inhibited Ca/Mg uptake, which in tern inhibited P uptake (but only after significant decrease of Ca/Mg uptake).

So demonstrated in the rice paper, the efficiency of P uptake is enhanced by reduced tissue K.

I think it may be 5 years ago, I was on a bonemeal kick because a bunch of my potted plants turned purple (increased anthocynin production, often attributed to Ca or P deficiencies depending on who's chart you read). I didn't understand how this could be possible using MSU, everything was in excess, and had oyster shell in most mixes, but not believing the potential for antagonism I topdressed with bonemeal and powered it out (temporarily). Plants went back to green.

Rick H (Slipperking) started using this as a "cure" for Erwinia too because a few of us noted that boosts of calcium seemed to stop the rot. Then I recently came across the paper relating erwinia to high K because of the inhibition to Ca uptake.

So now we can add two seemingly unrelated problems (turning purple and erwinia) to a common source.

 

[Ray]

Ray you say you think there is a bit of a flaw in using natural conditions and wild plant tissue analysis as our yardstick then you go on to advocate Rick's low K regimen which was developed using these exact same methods to gather his information. Which one is it?

If it’s the former, perhaps you will go with the U of Hawaii's College of Tropical Agr.,s Recommendation for optimum nutrient levels for adult paphiopedilum.

Sample taken from most recently matured leaf: Percentages
N 2.25-3.50/P 0.20-0.70/K 2.00-3.50/Ca 0.75-2.00/Mg 0.20-0.75
Values over this were deemed to be approaching toxicity. Values below this were deemed to be approaching deficiency.

If not, then let's continue with wild collected samples.

Thanks for the attack on what was merely an opinion. It does SO much to make me value your input.

I think my "chemical ramblings" explained my consideration that there might be some validity with the low-K regimen, irrespective of the source.

One reason that I think tissue sampling can be misleading is the fact that plants can and do absorb (via "pumps" ) more of some nutrient ions than they need or use - saving it for the proverbial "rainy day" when the local supply might not offer it in sufficient quantities. In such a case, the measured contents might be much greater than the biological need.

I'd also be willing to bet that if you took tissue samples of every awarded plant of any one species - "awarded" suggesting that maybe we have helped the plant grow and bloom closer to its genetic potential through improved cultural parameters and nutrition - that you would find different chemical analyses among them.

Then there's the fact that plants grown under certain stresses take up, store, and use nutrient ions differently than those under other stresses, or even under different degrees of that same one. That suggests to me that there's the possibility that specific wild-collected samples might not even be representative of the population.

Do I think such tissue analyses are of no value? Not at all - there is a lot of insight to be gained using them. Do I think they offer the final answer? Far from it. Being a good scientist takes a lot more than knowing how to do an analysis. It also involves challenging the veracity of the data and all of the assumptions surrounding the testing.

I have less faith in mussels' ability to tell us about plant nutrition than does Rick, but I agree with his thoughts about the remarkable "universality of theme" across wide-ranging and varying creatures and habitats. I tend to come at this from the chemistry and engineering side of things, courtesy of my material science & engineering background, yet our thoughts happen to coincide...

 

[Ray]

Got a response from Bill...

How much NH4-N do you want? There is about 5% NH4-N in the RO special. About 30% in the well water special.

If you do want a high nitrate fertilizer, then you will probably need more K, Ca, or Mg. Which of these do you want higher than the level you have in the 10-1-1 (do you want either Ca, Ca and Mg, or all three to go higher as needed to support the high nitrate fertilizer)?

In comparison, it is relatively easy to make a 10-1-1 type formula if I can use ammonical N or urea. But this fertilizer will be very acidic.

My preference would be to replicate the higher nitrate blend, adding Ca and Mg.

Other opinions?

 

[Jim Toomey]

Ditto, higher nitrate Blend adding Ca and Mg.

 

[Rick]

Bill Argo's work goes along with my observations, that nitrate is favored under low alkalinity conditions and ammonia at higher alkalinity.

Since I plan on sticking with a low alkalinity system (RO/dilute well water) I really need the high nitrate low ammonia system.

I'd stick with the present 5% ammonia

 

[chrismende]

Cool to find out more specifically (no pun intended, but I'll accept credit for leaving it in!) about you, Rick! I casually follow these technical threads without joining in often, since I have nothing useful to contribute so far. But I love reading your comments on culture, as well as Ray's and Roth's and Lance's. I learn soooo much from you guys!

 

[Ray]

I responded "I think something along the lines of the 5% NH4+ like the RO special is in order, boosting the Ca and Mg as needed." I had previously reminded him we were looking specifically for a low-K version.

 

[Stone]

Thanks for the attack on what was merely an opinion. It does SO much to make me value your input.

I think my "chemical ramblings" explained my consideration that there might be some validity with the low-K regimen, irrespective of the source.

One reason that I think tissue sampling can be misleading is the fact that plants can and do absorb (via "pumps" ) more of some nutrient ions than they need or use - saving it for the proverbial "rainy day" when the local supply might not offer it in sufficient quantities. In such a case, the measured contents might be much greater than the biological need.

I'd also be willing to bet that if you took tissue samples of every awarded plant of any one species - "awarded" suggesting that maybe we have helped the plant grow and bloom closer to its genetic potential through improved cultural parameters and nutrition - that you would find different chemical analyses among them.

Then there's the fact that plants grown under certain stresses take up, store, and use nutrient ions differently than those under other stresses, or even under different degrees of that same one. That suggests to me that there's the possibility that specific wild-collected samples might not even be representative of the population.

Do I think such tissue analyses are of no value? Not at all - there is a lot of insight to be gained using them. Do I think they offer the final answer? Far from it. Being a good scientist takes a lot more than knowing how to do an analysis. It also involves challenging the veracity of the data and all of the assumptions surrounding the testing.

I have less faith in mussels' ability to tell us about plant nutrition than does Rick, but I agree with his thoughts about the remarkable "universality of theme" across wide-ranging and varying creatures and habitats. I tend to come at this from the chemistry and engineering side of things, courtesy of my material science & engineering background, yet our thoughts happen to coincide...

Ray, Im really dissapointed that you saw my post as an ''attack''. Firstly let me appologise here and now if I caused any offence. It certainly was not my intention. I aim not to offend anyone for any reason. Secondly I think sarcasm is best left out of the picture. Don't you agree? I thought we were all having a robust and sometimes vigourous discussion about a subject which we are all interested in.

I love nothing more than reading peoples opinions and replies. To me it is just an exchange of information, you can take it or leave it.
Anyone that reads some of the replies to my postings would notice various people have attemted to ''shoot me down in flames''.--- All the better I say. My eyes start glazing over when I read everyone agreeing on everything, what would be the point?---- but I have never taken this as a personal ''attack'' At the risk of re-offending I think this would be a touch dramatic. So, if agreed, lets wipe the slate and continue.

With regard to the low K, I'm CONVINCED there is validity. Not so much because of the claimed scarcity in the habitat and the need to duplicte, but more for the reason that modern fertilizer preparations, at least what is available to me in fully soluble form, has very high K%s (higher than N) which when combined with chc in particular may lead to reduced Ca/Mg uptake.

I also agree that you would find differing nutrient values when comparing awarded plants and habitat plants. Probably higher N but also higher K. which would again suggest that they can prosper under a wide spectrum of nutrient values as long as there are no gross imbalances.

I suspect that we are probably over-feeding orchids in general when you take into account Rick's little old lady with award winning plants which are never fed, and the fact that I have some very old established orchids of various species overflowing their containers which hardly ever get anything but water and a dash if blood and bone thrown at then once a year -- if they're lucky.

Ray, I believe I was also remiss in not first offering condolences before responing to your post, Apologies


Mike