K-Lite has been around a few years now... updates?

[lepetitmartien]

I believe the only way we'll ever see an end to this discussion is when a large-scale, controlled study is done.

"My stuff just keeps getting bigger and better.", "Mine are getting bigger and better too", and my own comments about how well my plants are doing are relatively meaningless - about as good as "I feed at half strength".

I may add, some thorough explanations on the water used and its qualities may help too. The focus on the fert isn't the whole picture, just like we can't quantize the skill of the growers (save when it's people known for years and years with plants flowering and florishing…)

It'd help focus on the similar uses and avoid the tragic errors, like the person the other year who had a massive cultural issue and was reducing it to K-lite and it wasn't the problem firsthand. I'm not saying it'll clear all querels but at least we can harmonize a little common ground. :evil:

 

[Stone]

The focus on the fert isn't the whole picture, just like we can't quantize the skill of the growers (save when it's people known for years and years with plants flowering and florishing…)

And therein lies the reality. It may be inconvenient, but the truth is that THERE WAS NEVER ANY NEED TO DEVELOP K-LITE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

*The reasoning was the potassium interfered with the healthy metabolism of the orchid plant ( for various reasons) which lead to ''plants expiring before their time''.

*The above reasoning is VERY PLAINLY WRONG.

*Why is it wrong? Because the all the worlds best orchids are grown without low potassium by millions of growers around the world. THAT IS THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE.

*This fact proves beyond any doubt the above reasoning is wrong. I find it very strange that some people just refuse to accept that fact.

*So what caused the early demise of all those dead plants?
2 things: A lack of experience or skill on the growers part or not being able to properly house or care for the orchid.

*Surely any rational scientifc overview can only come to the same very simple and glaringly obvious conculsion?

*To continue to ignore the above while arguing the merits of a low/no K feeding program is just wrong.

*The argument should not be ''why do I need all that K'' It should be ''this is why I don't need all that K'' (and no one has ever shown that beyond doubt)

*Once again, THERE WAS NEVER A NEED TO DEVELOP K-LITE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Some nice ''high'' K orchids to look at:https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...=isch&q=+orchid+species+cultural+certificates

Ok I'm done:crazy:

 

[consettbay2003]

I have a feeling that a study would show that most house plants 'expire before their time'. I think more orchids expire prematurely because of improper watering.

 

[Lmpgs]

I have a feeling that a study would show that most house plants 'expire before their time'. I think more orchids expire prematurely because of improper watering.

More or less watering?

 

[consettbay2003]

More or less watering?

Less would result in fewer loses.

 

[DavidCampen]

I am comfortable assuming that monopodial orchids have some finite life span - whatever that may be, ...
__________________
Ray Barkalow, Orchid Iconoclast
Using science and logic to advance orchid growing

http://www.orchidboard.com/community/scientific-matters/84942-orchids-live.html

 

[DavidCampen]

How many more years do I need to wait for the hammer to fall. My stuff just keeps getting bigger and better.:wink:

I can say the same about my collection which receives a normal level of potassium(N:K 2:1:2). OTOH, in the 1st several pages of this thread, a number of people have stated that they saw the hammer fall on their collections after a year or 2 of using k-lite.

 

[gnathaniel]

The regrettable problem with this thread, as all others I've read on the subject, is that virtually every significant argument on BOTH sides is purely anecdotal, with very little contextual situation that might at least help us better evaluate the import of the various anecdotes. The nay-sayers are certainly correct that K-Lite isn't supported by verifiable evidence, but they've blithely (or disingenuously?) omitted the key qualification that their arguments against K-Lite likewise lack scientific support, especially considering what strong claims have been made/implied. Or have I just missed those copious scientific trials establishing the 'ideal' nutrition regime for 'orchids' in 'culture,' by any definitions of the various ambiguous terms? While I realize this thread was started to invite anecdotal reports, the extrapolations from those anecdotes too often go ridiculously beyond their relatively weak evidentiary import.

 

[paphioland]

The regrettable problem with this thread, as all others I've read on the subject, is that virtually every significant argument on BOTH sides is purely anecdotal, with very little contextual situation that might at least help us better evaluate the import of the various anecdotes. The nay-sayers are certainly correct that K-Lite isn't supported by verifiable evidence, but they've blithely (or disingenuously?) omitted the key qualification that their arguments against K-Lite likewise lack scientific support, especially considering what strong claims have been made/implied. Or have I just missed those copious scientific trials establishing the 'ideal' nutrition regime for 'orchids' in 'culture,' by any definitions of the various ambiguous terms? While I realize this thread was started to invite anecdotal reports, the extrapolations from those anecdotes too often go ridiculously beyond their relatively weak evidentiary import.

The best commercial growers don't use K-Lite and grow amazingly on a large scale from flask to bloom. I have tried K-lite in my environment and in addition cut back on fertilization and pretty quickly started having a multitude of problems.
How does the OZ do well with their plants, how does TON???? So it is obvious that the theory that K is toxic at levels used in fertilization and seriously hurts the ability to grow paphs is wrong. Take what you want from it but why take tremendous risk for something that will have minuscule at best benefit. If you can grow equiv to OZ or TON or Hawaii greenhouses great then maybe you want to experiment to do better. Im fine growing at that level if I can achieve it ever.

 

[gnathaniel]

The best commercial growers don't use K-Lite and grow amazingly on a large scale from flask to bloom. I have tried K-lite in my environment and in addition cut back on fertilization and pretty quickly started having a multitude of problems.
How does the OZ do well with their plants, how does TON???? So it is obvious that the theory that K is toxic at levels used in fertilization and seriously hurts the ability to grow paphs is wrong. Take what you want from it but why take tremendous risk for something that will have minuscule at best benefit. If you can grow equiv to OZ or TON or Hawaii greenhouses great then maybe you want to experiment to do better. Im fine growing at that level if I can achieve it ever.

Please go back and re-read what I actually wrote, rather than incorrectly assuming I'm arguing for any side in this debate. My critique was of the procedural or methodological tone these discussions always seem to take, and did not address the relative merits of any particular position on the issues under discussion.

While your experiential anecdotes are about as useful as any in this thread, your broader assertions don't seem to draw on your own personal knowledge. Unless you're the proprietor of OZ, TON, or any of the Hawaii greenhouses to which you referred? Regardless of whether or not you are, your vague allegations of "tremendous risk" for "minuscule at best benefit" from K-Lite use do NOT logically follow from your premise that commercial growers produce excellent plants using higher rates of feeding.

 

[cnycharles]

There's a lot of yelling and not much listening. One thing will not work for everyone. It is good to have all sectors relate their successes or lack thereof, so others can compare their conditions and type of care to see if it is comparable and might work. We've all seen lots of reports from people who were using lots of fertilizer and were having a decided lack of success. There are people who reported that they had lack of success using Klite. It was already mentioned that a trial needs to be done from start to finish just using different food and compare the results



Sent using Tapatalk

 

[paphioland]

Please go back and re-read what I actually wrote, rather than incorrectly assuming I'm arguing for any side in this debate. My critique was of the procedural or methodological tone these discussions always seem to take, and did not address the relative merits of any particular position on the issues under discussion.

While your experiential anecdotes are about as useful as any in this thread, your broader assertions don't seem to draw on your own personal knowledge. Unless you're the proprietor of OZ, TON, or any of the Hawaii greenhouses to which you referred? Regardless of whether or not you are, your vague allegations of "tremendous risk" for "minuscule at best benefit" from K-Lite use do NOT logically follow from your premise that commercial growers produce excellent plants using higher rates of feeding.

There is no way to do a definitive trial at some point you need to use the data, biologic understanding and extrapolate. It is too complicated. You might be able to say with these parameters we can disprove the null hypothesis or that there is a relationship or effect between variables.
What happens if we do a randomized trial and then when you get your data I say No no no with 10 more lumens of light and 5 degree warmer temp your conclusion wouldn't hold true?
I know Terry well for many many years and I know Machan. I know exactly how Terry fertilized for years. Like I said he doesnt use K-lite never did. He feeds a balanced fertilizer generously. Ive been going there for over 10 yrs of my life. If plants can be grown and bloomed that well on such a large scale that is better proof to me that K is not toxic at the levels we fertilize. I'm disproving the null hypothesis. K is toxic to paphs at levels we fertilize So you cant bloom and grow paphs well with normal K levels. Wait no it is not true, there are examples where it obviously is not true. Actually there are many examples. Show me a large operation that blooms consistently from flask to bloom with high quality in a timely manner using k-lite. Then I think this might be a conversation worth having until then I could care less because I know you can grow well on a large scale, efficiently using normal K.

 

[paphioland]

I'm not trying to sound flippant but for me there really is no point. I have vigorous growth and good blooms. There are other factors I've changed that I've noticed huge differences. Lowering K is not one of them. My opinion is growers would do much better focusing on temperature, airmovement, air composition, light and humidity.

 

[paphioland]

Please go back and re-read what I actually wrote, rather than incorrectly assuming I'm arguing for any side in this debate. My critique was of the procedural or methodological tone these discussions always seem to take, and did not address the relative merits of any particular position on the issues under discussion.

While your experiential anecdotes are about as useful as any in this thread, your broader assertions don't seem to draw on your own personal knowledge. Unless you're the proprietor of OZ, TON, or any of the Hawaii greenhouses to which you referred? Regardless of whether or not you are, your vague allegations of "tremendous risk" for "minuscule at best benefit" from K-Lite use do NOT logically follow from your premise that commercial growers produce excellent plants using higher rates of feeding.

If you read my previous thread when I am paying attention to my paphs Ive never had a problem growing and efficiently blooming paphs. Ive been lucky to have some great mentorship. I tried k-lite and noticed changes for the worse quickly and they kept getting worse. I have gone back and everything is recovering. My thinking is I push my plants growth in many ways and they may not have tolerated it. I think you could grow with lower k-lite but I bet it is less efficient. You probably cant push the plant with temp, light and co2. Regardless I do have personal experience.

 

[Stone]

that virtually every significant argument on BOTH sides is purely anecdotal

Incorrect. There is ample proof (trials) that normal K leves work and do NOT produce deleterious effects. It's not anecdotal

The nay-sayers are certainly correct that K-Lite isn't supported by verifiable evidence, but they've blithely (or disingenuously?) omitted the key qualification that their arguments against K-Lite likewise lack scientific support, especially considering what strong claims have been made/implied. Or have I just missed those copious scientific trials establishing the 'ideal' nutrition regime for 'orchids' in 'culture,' by any definitions of the various ambiguous terms?

Yes it seems you have.

 

[gnathaniel]

Incorrect. There is ample proof (trials) that normal K leves work and do NOT produce deleterious effects. It's not anecdotal

Yes it seems you have.

Very glib, Mike! Could you refer me to the literature you've been reading so I don't have to wade through hundreds of posts to mine for a few potentially relevant 'gems,' assuming the trials to which you refer have been cited here before? And are you sure the trials really say what you claim them to? Your statement that "normal K leves [sic] work and do NOT produce deleterious effects" is both less precise and much broader than the kinds of conclusions I've seen in scientific papers on plant nutrition. I look forward to reviewing the studies you've been reading, though, thanks in advance for the helpful citations!

 

[consettbay2003]

Let's not forget that K-Lite is not only K light but also P light.

 

[Stone]

Very glib, Mike!

Needlessly offensive. Not glib. Succinct with perhaps a sprinkling of intolerance of failure to see the obvious.

Could you refer me to the literature you've been reading so I don't have to wade through hundreds of posts to mine for a few potentially relevant 'gems,' I look forward to reviewing the studies you've been reading, though, thanks in advance for the helpful citations!

Thinly veiled sarcasm as well!? That's the new level now is it?

Your statement that "normal K leves [sic] work and do NOT produce deleterious effects" is both less precise and much broader than the kinds of conclusions I've seen in scientific papers on plant nutrition.

So what more ''precice'' and less ''broad'' conclusions have you seen?
Please show and explain them to me.

You can start with these: (or any of your own which I may not have seen)

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0100-06832010000500014&script=sci_arttext
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/29/4/269.full.pdf
http://marrero3.tripod.com/katia/fertilizer.pdf
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/35/1/60.full.pdf
http://journal.ashspublications.org/content/127/3/442.full.pdf
http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3030/303026557001.pdf
http://world-food.net/download/journals/2014-issue_3_and_4/2014-issue_3_and_4-environment/e13.pdf
http://www.actahort.org/books/1000/1000_35.htm
http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/Arti...ashspublications.org/content/5/3/234.full.pdf
http://www.actahort.org/books/878/878_43.htm
http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-HNSF601.007.htm
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/43/2/328.full

 

[DavidCampen]

Very glib, Mike! Could you refer me to the literature you've been reading so I don't have to wade through hundreds of posts to mine for a few potentially relevant 'gems,' assuming the trials to which you refer have been cited here before? And are you sure the trials really say what you claim them to? Your statement that "normal K leves [sic] work and do NOT produce deleterious effects" is both less precise and much broader than the kinds of conclusions I've seen in scientific papers on plant nutrition. I look forward to reviewing the studies you've been reading, though, thanks in advance for the helpful citations!

I see that we have a mini-Lance.

 

[DavidCampen]

Very glib, Mike! Could you refer me to the literature you've been reading so I don't have to wade through hundreds of posts to mine for a few potentially relevant 'gems,' assuming the trials to which you refer have been cited here before? And are you sure the trials really say what you claim them to? Your statement that "normal K leves [sic] work and do NOT produce deleterious effects" is both less precise and much broader than the kinds of conclusions I've seen in scientific papers on plant nutrition. I look forward to reviewing the studies you've been reading, though, thanks in advance for the helpful citations!

I see that we have a mini-Lance.

I posted copious literature over the period of 2-3 years ago showing that the potassium toxicity conjecture was absurd; only to be met with flippant, disingenuous and sarcastic remarks like you have just demonstrated.