K-lite fertilizer

[keithrs]

What is the flushing agent? Do you know a name for it or a link to the product?

It a chemical used to flush salts out of mediums.... Drip clean, Royal flush, sludge hammer are a few

Sludge Hammer

Royal Flush

Drip Clean

Maybe fertilizer without potassium?

They generally don't lower the P or K, just formulate it differently so the bond is not as strong and add lime or a high mark of Ca to rise the PH of the substrate and make it more stable.... They rely on the grower to use a flushing agent.

 

[gonewild]

It a chemical used to flush salts out of mediums.... Drip clean, Royal flush, sludge hammer are a few

Sludge Hammer

Royal Flush

Drip Clean

The only one that lists ingredients was "Drip Clean"...
"Derived From: Phosphoric Acid and Potassium oxide"

Based on that I doubt it's usefulness for orchid growing. And flushing with potassium and phosphorous will not lower the potassium level in the media but rather increase it.

They generally don't lower the P or K, just formulate it differently so the bond is not as strong and add lime or a high mark of Ca to rise the PH of the substrate and make it more stable.... They rely on the grower to use a flushing agent.

They raise the pH to benefit the P and K then flush it with acid which would lower the pH?

Maybe this has more use for true hydroponics or in soil less culture?

 

[Rick]

The cation exchange capacities have been documented for CHC, bark, and sphagnum moss. Also even at complete exchange download there is still residual K locked into old dead cells (remember how you used to get potash?).

There have been studies that showed, yes fresh CHC has K in it. That is not surprising given above. But I have not seen any studies analyzing for K content after 6 months to a year of being used in a potting mix, and getting hit with 100+ ppm K from fertilizer once a week.

Given the reaction of plants in organic based potting mixes (I don't care if its bark, CHC, or dead moss) and knowledge of the CEC potential of these products my guess is that old mixes probably have orders of magnitude more K in them at the end of a relatively short time than they do at the beggining of trial.

Subsequently you may be fertilizing at 100 ppm K once a week, but the plant ends up sitting in a constant sink of 1000 mg/Kg K of potting mix after a few months of a heavy fertilizing campaign. Root burn???

 

[Stone]

The cation exchange capacities have been documented for CHC, bark, and sphagnum moss. Also even at complete exchange download there is still residual K locked into old dead cells (remember how you used to get potash?).

There have been studies that showed, yes fresh CHC has K in it. That is not surprising given above. But I have not seen any studies analyzing for K content after 6 months to a year of being used in a potting mix, and getting hit with 100+ ppm K from fertilizer once a week.

Given the reaction of plants in organic based potting mixes (I don't care if its bark, CHC, or dead moss) and knowledge of the CEC potential of these products my guess is that old mixes probably have orders of magnitude more K in them at the end of a relatively short time than they do at the beggining of trial.

Subsequently you may be fertilizing at 100 ppm K once a week, but the plant ends up sitting in a constant sink of 1000 mg/Kg K of potting mix after a few months of a heavy fertilizing campaign. Root burn???

From the information that I have, K and Ca do not cause toxicity (in plants) in the same way as we see from eg. Cu, Zn, Nh4 etc. but rather an over-supply of one shows up as a dificiency of the other.

Some of the old orchid books I have recommend dipping or drenching pots in free lime water ( Calcium hydroxide ) once or twice a year to help counter the acidity caused by frequent ammonium or urea use. ( some of the old timers in our society haven't even heard of Cal Nitrate! ) No doubt this also helped flush out some of the K build up as well as restore some Ca.

I used to do this a few years back and the temporarily high ph lift didn't seem to cause any issues that I could notice. Even better than hydrated lime would be a Dolomite solution ( for Mg ) although its probably hugely less soluble. The modern use of Nitrates probably does away with the need to soak in lime water. But it still could help as a ''quick fix''.

And another thing :rollhappy: when considering K, or other nurients for that matter, don't we need to take into account the suface area of our individual mix ingredients? For instance its only the first couple of mm of a piece of bark which interacts with plant roots compared to All of a piece of chc. A mix made up of fern fiber, leaves, moss ect will have infinately higher surface area
than one made of large pieces of bark and stones hence potetially more availability of nutrients. shouldn't we be feeding at a much reduced rate with these fiberous type media?
Also we need to be aware of the fact that bark behaves differently from fresh/clean to say 6 months in a pot when humus formation from bacteria means that Cation exchange/nutrient /water holding capacities go higher and higher with increasing age. This suggests reducing feed rate along with the time a plant occupies a pot?

 

[Rick]

And another thing :rollhappy: when considering K, or other nurients for that matter, don't we need to take into account the suface area of our individual mix ingredients? For instance its only the first couple of mm of a piece of bark which interacts with plant roots compared to All of a piece of chc. A mix made up of fern fiber, leaves, moss ect will have infinately higher surface area
than one made of large pieces of bark and stones hence potetially more availability of nutrients. shouldn't we be feeding at a much reduced rate with these fiberous type media?
Also we need to be aware of the fact that bark behaves differently from fresh/clean to say 6 months in a pot when humus formation from bacteria means that Cation exchange/nutrient /water holding capacities go higher and higher with increasing age. This suggests reducing feed rate along with the time a plant occupies a pot?

I think this goes along with what I was stating in the last post. Yes, actual surface area of CHC is much greater than bark (probably comparable to dead/compacted sphagnum moss). CHC is like bundles of straws and does have a very high surface area per volume ratio. That is why it became so popular as a water retentive material compared to bark.

A big part of what got me started on the basket method and this nutrition thing was the relative ease of culture for my mounted plants (including Vandas hanging from wires) that just wasn't comparable to stuff in potting mixes in pots.

However my mounted plants including the wire mounted Vandas are doing so much better under the low K regime, so the nutrition question is not just an artifact of the potting mix.

 

[Rick]

From the information that I have, K and Ca do not cause toxicity (in plants) in the same way as we see from eg. Cu, Zn, Nh4 etc. but rather an over-supply of one shows up as a dificiency of the other.

Off coarse different chemicals have different modes of action in organism cells for every life form on earth. Metabolism requires a bunch of coordinated activities with hundreds of interconnected pathways.

But your statement of K and Ca only being toxic on the basis of antagonism while everything else causes narcosis is inaccurate. As a toxicologist I hear this all the time that just because something doesn't cause mortality at less than a ppm it should not be classified as a toxicant. Some clients that generate lots of TDS want the mortality effects of their effluent to be exempt from being considered as generating "toxicity" (and therefore exempt from regulation) because they think that osmosis should be considered a physical effect and not a chemical effect (and regulations are only supposed to consider "chemical" effects). I think they miss the point that dead is dead regardless at how much "chemical" it takes to cause metabolic disruption and physiological impact.

Check out the tables on the below link.

http://www.ladyslipper.com/minnut.htm

It's interesting on how excess K produces "deficiencies" for almost everything else on the chart (including some of the micronutrients) While "deficiency" symptoms caused by excesses of everything else are considerably more focused.

 

[Stone]

But your statement of K and Ca only being toxic on the basis of antagonism while everything else causes narcosis is inaccurate.

P, Fe, Cu, Zn, B, Mo, Mn, Na, Cl all have distinct recognizable toxicity symptoms when given in excess in plants such as burned margins and tips, yellow-black necrosis, cupping ,rolling, stunting etc. K and Ca do not but show up as deficenies of Ca and K respectively.
I don't know anything about inverterbrates and other aquatic life.

 

[Rick]

P, Fe, Cu, Zn, B, Mo, Mn, Na, Cl all have distinct recognizable toxicity symptoms when given in excess in plants such as burned margins and tips, yellow-black necrosis, cupping ,rolling, stunting etc. K and Ca do not but show up as deficenies of Ca and K respectively.
I don't know anything about inverterbrates and other aquatic life.

I guess you didn't check out the link I posted. I seen similar charts from different agricultural sources.

I also don't subscribe to the notion that symptoms imply particular cellular mechanisms.

The external symptoms of an impending heart attack are the same as flu, heartburn, or heat stroke. None of them are any good for you, some are more likely to kill you, all are likely to keep you from your full potential. You are certainly welcome to ignore any of the warning signs, just like most of us do anyway. No matter how many times I experience chest pains and sweats, I still just insist its just heartburn. The one time I drop dead from heart attack will be the first time I'm wrong

 

[NYEric]

All this NKP talk is hurting my eyeballs! Can someone just tell me if there is a low K commercial fertilizer I can use?!

 

[keithrs]

All this NKP talk is hurting my eyeballs! Can someone just tell me if there is a low K commercial fertilizer I can use?!

Grass folk my be your best shot.....


Not that type of grass... the kind in your front yard... oke: :sob:

 

[eggshells]

All this NKP talk is hurting my eyeballs! Can someone just tell me if there is a low K commercial fertilizer I can use?!

How about High N fertilizer.

http://www.rona.ca/shop/~fertilizer-orchid-fertilizer-25-10-10-plant-prod-236396_horticulture_shop

or that Grow more 30-10-10

 

[keithrs]

How about High N fertilizer.

http://www.rona.ca/shop/~fertilizer-orchid-fertilizer-25-10-10-plant-prod-236396_horticulture_shop

or that Grow more 30-10-10

The Growmore 30-10-10 has a ton of urea in it and no Ca and I don't think it has Mg either.

 

[gonewild]

P, Fe, Cu, Zn, B, Mo, Mn, Na, Cl all have distinct recognizable toxicity symptoms when given in excess in plants such as burned margins and tips, yellow-black necrosis, cupping ,rolling, stunting etc. K and Ca do not but show up as deficenies of Ca and K respectively.
I don't know anything about inverterbrates and other aquatic life.

The recognizable symptoms you refer to have been known and relied on for a long time to indicate certain deficiencies and toxicities. The main thing about them is that they are all based on experiments and studies done a long time ago and may in fact be flawed assumptions. With new technology and added knowledge we may very well decide that they are not correct in reality.
Methods used to demonstrate and index the toxicity levels of the P, Fe, Cu, Zn, B, Mo, Mn, Na, Cl would all have been done with perfect(?) N and K levels as a baseline. They also would not have thought to look at potassium as a possible cause for toxicity or recognized the toxicity symptoms. It may very well be that with low K levels the toxicity of P, Fe, Cu, Zn, B, Mo, Mn, Na and Cl will be greatly reduced.

The real question we should be asking is why do we think plants need to be fertilized with high levels of potassium? The observations that Rick has reported suggest that potassium excess may be showing symptoms that no one has ever recognized...until now.

Potassium toxicity = reduced growth and reduced resistance to pests and disease. ????????????

The truth is that Rick's observations while studying algae (or whatever) may have led to an important new level in the understanding of plant nutrition.
Maybe he will get the Nobel prize? Maybe Rick should have kept quiet? :sob:
Too late!

 

[eggshells]

The Growmore 30-10-10 has a ton of urea in it and no Ca and I don't think it has Mg either.

Yeah I dont know the composition for that fertilizer however that 25-10-10 is a plant prod and Im not sure if NYEric can get it in the US. I add calmax on my RO water if not tap water to compensate of the lack of calcium and magnesium.

 

[Stone]

I give up and officially declare this thread ---- dead!:clap:

 

[NYEric]

Not nec. dead but this is was approaching the reason why I was so rested after every chemistry class!

 

[gonewild]

I give up and officially declare this thread ---- dead!:clap:

As the thread originator I declare you out of order. :wink:
Please refer to a quote from Post#1:

Let's try not to argue if it is a good idea or not but rather lay out what nutrients and sources a person could use if they want to use the low potassium growing method.

The thread is not dead just because you disagree with it's content. :fight:

 

[Stone]

As the thread originator I declare you out of order. :wink:
Please refer to a quote from Post#1:


The thread is not dead just because you disagree with it's content. :fight:

Lance, don't take it too seriously, it was just a jokeoke:
It seems that the only way to go low K is to use exculsively bone meal or Cal nitrate/Mg Sulphate/Monoammonium phosphate or get one made up specially as has been disscused

 

[SlipperKing]

Post one is so far back! I'm so glad you brought it forwad lance! I have a new question! Do these kinds of topics get brought up in other forums and do they, if brought up, go on forever?
PS I never visit others. With this place I don't have the time!

 

[Stone]

It may very well be that with low K levels the toxicity of P, Fe, Cu, Zn, B, Mo, Mn, Na and Cl will be greatly reduced.

Hang on just a sec. If K is antagonistic to Ca Mg Fe Mn Zn CU as Rick's table suggests, how could reduced K levels lead to reduced toxicitiy from the above elements? PS. not arguing just trying to clarify