Paph Watering Philosophy

[xiphius]

One of my favorite parts was the fact that the hydrogen bubbles to the top and goes away but the oxygen stays in the water.

Yes, that was about the part I snorted into my coffee and got weird glances from everyone else in the office .

Maybe it's heavy oxygen for cold fusion?

Lol! Good one!

 

[richgarrison]

well isn't this a happy coincidence....

At the paph symposium in Apopka last fall, Jason Fisher introduced that product to the audience. Said he was moving to eb and flow with the product providing water oxygenation as advertised... Turns out there are a few products on the market that do similar things... one from Dramm (See this link - http://www.dramm.com/html/main.isx?sub=616)

so that had me wondering about any orchid growers incorporating the theory into their growing. Seems like you'd want to be able to make some measurements of something (yes that broad) in order to know what it is you are actually doing, and then some other metrics (other than confirmation bias) to determine that it truly helped...

Certainly seems like there are no listeners on this thread that have poked around at that....

 

[shade131]

I doubt it'll hurt but I'm very skeptical about the "science" underpinning their claims.

 

[southernbelle]

*blink*



What is this nonsense? It sounds like pseudoscience at best - outright lies at worst. I hadn't heard of this before, but it basically sounds like an airstone-type setup with much smaller bubbles (from the product page, it just looks like an electrolysis system?). Granted, lots of smaller bubbles have a larger surface area than fewer, larger, bubbles and will dissolve gas into liquid more efficiently (and electrolysis will contain a higher percentage of oxygen). However, unless the bubbler was kept on continuously, I can't really see this doing much. Even if the bubbler is kept on continuously, I have a hard time believing that this would yield better results (in terms of plant health/growth) than a good-quality micro-airstone (which can be had for just a few bucks). As Ray mentioned, if you just treat the water before pouring it over a plant, all of the extra oxygen will dissipate relatively quickly. I would think much too quickly to be of any real benefit to the plant. To that end, it would probably be easier (and much cheaper) to dump dilute hydrogen peroxide on your plants (which will also generate oxygen as it breaks down). This would also be more protective against root rot since it is an active anti-bacterial/fungal agent.

The people I know (and trust) who use this say it helps protect against root rot after using it (and directly comparing with other plants of same type using other water.) Also more prolific root growth. Direct comparison experiment. Did you watch the actual use video? I guess I would say,

First, I find it very suspicious that their website contains a "research" section that name-drops some horticultural professors, but contains no links to any actual publications (peer-reviewed or otherwise). Also, the claims are very "hand-wavey" with very little numerical data (or sound theory) to support them. I also find it suspicious that, on reading more, I can find absolutely no comparisons between O2 Grow and regular airstones. The "research" linked on their website that I can see only shows comparisons for oxygenated versus non-treated water. The difference doesn't even look to be that huge, only reinforcing my thoughts that a regular micro-airstone would provide exactly the same benefits. Any researcher worth their salt would have included regular AND micro-airstones in these studies as a basis for comparison. The fact that they did not tells me that they are either not very good scientists, or they are selectively omitting parts of their research which they don't like.

Their claim that the system can "provide 50% more dissolved oxygen than a bubbler" is meaningless since they don't tell us how they arrived at that number (theoretical calculations? empirical test?). There is also no evidence presented that shows that adding "more" is necessary or even better. There is always going to be a limit as to how much and how fast the plant can use oxygen, adding anything beyond that is just a waste. In a similar vein, I can always add more fertilizer, but if the plant is already uptaking nutrients at max efficiency, then I may as well just be flushing that down the drain.

you can’t argue with someone’s experience when you haven’t tried it.

 

[southernbelle]

What "THEY" do has absolutely no bearing on what WE should do! Their overall growing conditions are probably nothing like yours, and that and the particular potting media and pots chosen determine "what's right" for the plants.

If we are willing to accept their technology, we have to understand that the "super-oxygenated" water is unstable, and it will naturally go to back to whatever the O2 saturation equilibrium happens to be with air at a given temperature. That water, when poured into soil, may retain the oxygen a relatively long time, as the air exchange rate is so low, and in hydroponic systems (for which the technology was invented), it tends to be more enclosed and/or the system operated continually. For oxygenating water that is poured over an orchid potting medium, the equilibration is probably a lot faster, so may be of minimal benefit.

I’m not an expert or a scientist, but do know a scientist who uses this. I have learned this about it: The optimum temp of water to hold the O2 is 65 degrees, I believe. The statements about 50% more dissolved oxygen were based on measuring with a TDO meter. I don’t have one, as the ones I could find are quite expensive. The time frame of repeating the procedure is once a day, so that would indicate how long it takes it to dissipate (at least in a bucket of water). It’s certainly not hurting anything. Why not ask the company the questions? That’s what I did. They were more than willing to talk to me.

 

[southernbelle]

What "THEY" do has absolutely no bearing on what WE should do! Their overall growing conditions are probably nothing like yours, and that and the particular potting media and pots chosen determine "what's right" for the plants.

If we are willing to accept their technology, we have to understand that the "super-oxygenated" water is unstable, and it will naturally go to back to whatever the O2 saturation equilibrium happens to be with air at a given temperature. That water, when poured into soil, may retain the oxygen a relatively long time, as the air exchange rate is so low, and in hydroponic systems (for which the technology was invented), it tends to be more enclosed and/or the system operated continually. For oxygenating water that is poured over an orchid potting medium, the equilibration is probably a lot faster, so may be of minimal benefit.

(QUOTE: What "THEY" do has absolutely no bearing on what WE should do!)
I understand and that was mentioned by them, but obviously if all those things (that you mentioned as variables) are taken into consideration it is helpful to some people.

 

[xiphius]

The people I know (and trust) who use this say it helps protect against root rot after using it (and directly comparing with other plants of same type using other water.) Also more prolific root growth. Direct comparison experiment. Did you watch the actual use video? I guess I would say

First off, I did indeed watch the video they provided. I see no real discernible differences between the groups except in the case of the dendrobium and possibly the macodes. But the dendrobium was the only one that showed a stark difference. However, there are a number of other explanations as to why those might be different. The roots on the phrag he pulled out didn't look the least bit different to me (I saw approximately the same amount of unhealthy/healthy root mass in both). The hard and fast truth of it is, show me some numbers, and I will believe it. They didn't actually quantify anything, and the number of plants they had in their comparison was too small to actually make any claims (they only had like 4-5 of each plant... at that level ANY differences could easily just be natural variability).

Second, I have no problem with them (or you, or anybody) saying that this helps stimulate growth in their plants. It might, who knows (and, like any grower, I have my fair share of things that I do for my plants that probably make no difference other than to make me feel better). What I do have a problem with is them saying that difference in growth rates has to do with dissolved oxygen content when they have absolutely no evidence that this is the case. There are a number of alternative explanations and factors that could be leading to increased growth here. For example, electrolysis also produces weak acid and base (along with a host of other compounds depending on what is dissolved in the source water) that has been shown to have antibacterial/fungal properties. This could be leading to reduced root rot in and of itself and has absolutely nothing to do with increased availability of dissolved oxygen. In summary - to say "using electrolyzed water seems to improve plant vigor" is a perfectly acceptable statement that I have NO problems with; however, to say "using electrolyzed water improves plant vigor due to increased dissolved oxygen" with absolutely no proof whatsoever that this is actually what is going on only serves to spread misinformation and myths among growers. These then get perpetuated and can cause serious problems and misunderstanding in the future. Unsubstantiated claims like the above are the enemy of good science and good horticultural practice.

I’m not an expert or a scientist, but do know a scientist who uses this.

And what does your science friend think of them making broad claims based on presenting only circumstantial evidence? Or of presenting plots with no error bars?

I am a scientist. I hold a doctorate in chemical engineering, have published in peer-reviewed journals, and have reviewed quite a few papers on behalf of journals myself. So I consider myself qualified to comment on their findings (part of being in science is learning to take criticism from other scientists). In science you are supposed to present the full body of evidence to try and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what you have actually works (and not only works, but works for the reason that you claim it is working). If your data can't convince me that it actually works (or there are alternative explanations as to why it is working), then you shouldn't be making sweeping claims that are so mechanistically specific.

I have learned this about it: The optimum temp of water to hold the O2 is 65 degrees, I believe.

This is just straight-up not true. Where did you find this information? The solubility of oxygen in water at standard pressure increases with decreasing temperature. The "max" dissolved oxygen capacity would technically be at 0 C liquid water (right before it freezes). However, if you watered your plants with this, they would die because it's freezing cold (see this paper - link)

The statements about 50% more dissolved oxygen were based on measuring with a TDO meter. I don’t have one, as the ones I could find are quite expensive.

Ok. So where are their measurements? And what kind of airstone were they using (different kinds produce different size bubbles are going to diffuse oxygen more or less efficiently)? Also, if their claim really is that increased dissolved oxygen is responsible for the increase in growth, then I would expect to see a comparison with a regular micro-bubbler (the micro-bubbler should show some improvement over no bubbler at all (because it provides some oxygen), and then the electrolysis system should show improvement over the bubbler). This would be better, compelling even, but still not sufficient to make such specific mechanistic claims (another key tennent of science that can get you into trouble - "correlation DOES NOT imply causation"). I don't see any evidence that they ever even conducted this test at all on their website. Or anywhere else that I can find. At best, they have anecdotal evidence that isn't even that convincing (in science, this is called "hand-waving" and it can get you into a lot of trouble).

The time frame of repeating the procedure is once a day, so that would indicate how long it takes it to dissipate (at least in a bucket of water).

Where are their measurements showing the oxygen content in the water over that period of time? Just because that is how frequently they used the solution DOES NOT in any universe mean that this is the actual timeframe of dissipation.

It’s certainly not hurting anything.

It may not be hurting the plants. Might even actually be having some kind of beneficial effect. In that respect you are absolutely correct. And if it makes you feel better to use it, then more power to you. Like I said, I have my fair share of superstitious things that I like to use with my plants that probably don't actually do anything other than ease my own mind (but then, I am not going to go try and convince other people that they are scientifically sound and absolutely make a difference). However, it is hurting the hobby in general (new hobbyists in particular) by spreading "facts" based on circumstantial evidence and making sweeping general claims that will be perpetuated and parroted by growers when, in fact, they simply aren't true. Even if it did turn out to be true at a later date (which I am skeptical of) it would be irresponsible to go around, right now, talking about it like it is a proven fact.

Why not ask the company the questions? That’s what I did. They were more than willing to talk to me.

I did send them an email asking for specific data relating to those measurements and whether they did comparison tests with a micro-bubbler. They have yet to respond.

 

[Linus_Cello]

well isn't this a happy coincidence....

At the paph symposium in Apopka last fall, Jason Fisher introduced that product to the audience. Said he was moving to eb and flow with the product providing water oxygenation as advertised...

https://www.orchidweb.com/blog/the-...kovachii/?mc_cid=4aed687dc7&mc_eid=831872681c

"And lastly, if you really want to go the extra mile, you can purchase and use the O2 Grow super oxygenator. This high boost of oxygen results in a 20% growth speed increase after we tested a wide variety of orchid genera."

 

[xiphius]

"And lastly, if you really want to go the extra mile, you can purchase and use the O2 Grow super oxygenator. This high boost of oxygen results in a 20% growth speed increase after we tested a wide variety of orchid genera."

It may or may not actually result in a boost in growth. Again, how can we tell for sure? They tell us nothing about how they came up with this 20% figure. Are we talking leaf span? Total plant mass? Root mass? Or did he just look at the tray and say "eh... that looks about 20% bigger"? Once again though, even if there is a boost in growth, we have zero evidence that the increase in oxygen level is the actual cause of that boost.

In fact, the most "scientific" claim I can find about the system is in a review from gardenandgreenhouse.net which states:

"The University of Minnesota and the University of Tennessee have each tested the O2 Grow Oxygen Generators on a variety of plants, all with favorable results. The University of Tennessee saw a 20% increase in yield (root weight) with lavender."

However, although this specifies that the observed increase was in root weight, they do not cite the study, or give specifics, and I can't find any evidence of these results ever being published anywhere (which in academia is never a good sign). Also, if the study(ies) in question were funded by the company, then that seriously calls into question the integrity of the results (conflicts of interest).

I believe this is apropos - http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-02-18

 

[southernbelle]

First off, I did indeed watch the video they provided. I see no real discernible differences between the groups except in the case of the dendrobium and possibly the macodes. But the dendrobium was the only one that showed a stark difference. However, there are a number of other explanations as to why those might be different. The roots on the phrag he pulled out didn't look the least bit different to me (I saw approximately the same amount of unhealthy/healthy root mass in both). The hard and fast truth of it is, show me some numbers, and I will believe it. They didn't actually quantify anything, and the number of plants they had in their comparison was too small to actually make any claims (they only had like 4-5 of each plant... at that level ANY differences could easily just be natural variability).

Second, I have no problem with them (or you, or anybody) saying that this helps stimulate growth in their plants. It might, who knows (and, like any grower, I have my fair share of things that I do for my plants that probably make no difference other than to make me feel better). What I do have a problem with is them saying that difference in growth rates has to do with dissolved oxygen content when they have absolutely no evidence that this is the case. There are a number of alternative explanations and factors that could be leading to increased growth here. For example, electrolysis also produces weak acid and base (along with a host of other compounds depending on what is dissolved in the source water) that has been shown to have antibacterial/fungal properties. This could be leading to reduced root rot in and of itself and has absolutely nothing to do with increased availability of dissolved oxygen. In summary - to say "using electrolyzed water seems to improve plant vigor" is a perfectly acceptable statement that I have NO problems with; however, to say "using electrolyzed water improves plant vigor due to increased dissolved oxygen" with absolutely no proof whatsoever that this is actually what is going on only serves to spread misinformation and myths among growers. These then get perpetuated and can cause serious problems and misunderstanding in the future. Unsubstantiated claims like the above are the enemy of good science and good horticultural practice.



And what does your science friend think of them making broad claims based on presenting only circumstantial evidence? Or of presenting plots with no error bars?

I am a scientist. I hold a doctorate in chemical engineering, have published in peer-reviewed journals, and have reviewed quite a few papers on behalf of journals myself. So I consider myself qualified to comment on their findings (part of being in science is learning to take criticism from other scientists). In science you are supposed to present the full body of evidence to try and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what you have actually works (and not only works, but works for the reason that you claim it is working). If your data can't convince me that it actually works (or there are alternative explanations as to why it is working), then you shouldn't be making sweeping claims that are so mechanistically specific.



This is just straight-up not true. Where did you find this information? The solubility of oxygen in water at standard pressure increases with decreasing temperature. The "max" dissolved oxygen capacity would technically be at 0 C liquid water (right before it freezes). However, if you watered your plants with this, they would die because it's freezing cold (see this paper - link)



Ok. So where are their measurements? And what kind of airstone were they using (different kinds produce different size bubbles are going to diffuse oxygen more or less efficiently)? Also, if their claim really is that increased dissolved oxygen is responsible for the increase in growth, then I would expect to see a comparison with a regular micro-bubbler (the micro-bubbler should show some improvement over no bubbler at all (because it provides some oxygen), and then the electrolysis system should show improvement over the bubbler). This would be better, compelling even, but still not sufficient to make such specific mechanistic claims (another key tennent of science that can get you into trouble - "correlation DOES NOT imply causation"). I don't see any evidence that they ever even conducted this test at all on their website. Or anywhere else that I can find. At best, they have anecdotal evidence that isn't even that convincing (in science, this is called "hand-waving" and it can get you into a lot of trouble).



Where are their measurements showing the oxygen content in the water over that period of time? Just because that is how frequently they used the solution DOES NOT in any universe mean that this is the actual timeframe of dissipation.



It may not be hurting the plants. Might even actually be having some kind of beneficial effect. In that respect you are absolutely correct. And if it makes you feel better to use it, then more power to you. Like I said, I have my fair share of superstitious things that I like to use with my plants that probably don't actually do anything other than ease my own mind (but then, I am not going to go try and convince other people that they are scientifically sound and absolutely make a difference). However, it is hurting the hobby in general (new hobbyists in particular) by spreading "facts" based on circumstantial evidence and making sweeping general claims that will be perpetuated and parroted by growers when, in fact, they simply aren't true. Even if it did turn out to be true at a later date (which I am skeptical of) it would be irresponsible to go around, right now, talking about it like it is a proven fact.



I did send them an email asking for specific data relating to those measurements and whether they did comparison tests with a micro-bubbler. They have yet to respond.

Wow, not sure where to begin. You are obviously very passionate about your knowledge. I guess the issue I have is that you are defaulting to criticizing and negativity before you’ve had your questions answered. I called the number on the website. The owner (who was in the video) answered and spoke to me and answered my questions. He will be happy to do the same for you and can (or can’t) give you the research you are questioning. I don’t know, but it might be better to assume the best until you have all the info, rather than the worst, especially on a public forum.

 

[richgarrison]

https://www.orchidweb.com/blog/the-...kovachii/?mc_cid=4aed687dc7&mc_eid=831872681c

"And lastly, if you really want to go the extra mile, you can purchase and use the O2 Grow super oxygenator. This high boost of oxygen results in a 20% growth speed increase after we tested a wide variety of orchid genera."

THanx for posting that.... at least it corroborates what i posted originally....

(and if one keeps their attitude radar turned off ) all the rest of this conversation has also been useful

fun conversation!

 

[Tom-DE]

Watering is always an interesting topic, isn't it? Here is my advice, water your plants when they need it. It can be more general and correct than that!

Take all advice with a grain of salt! Some posts here are genuine while others are for attentions or other motives. Be open-minded but find your own ways also!

 

[xiphius]

I guess the issue I have is that you are defaulting to criticizing and negativity before you’ve had your questions answered. I called the number on the website. The owner (who was in the video) answered and spoke to me and answered my questions. He will be happy to do the same for you and can (or can’t) give you the research you are questioning. I don’t know, but it might be better to assume the best until you have all the info, rather than the worst, especially on a public forum.

and if one keeps their attitude radar turned off

Ok, ok. I perhaps got a little heated and overzealous in my last couple posts. My apologies to both of you if either of you felt personally attacked. Companies using incomplete or misrepresented science to shill products is a big pet peeve of mine and something I tend to get fairly passionate about (as you might have noticed). Like I said, if you feel it is working well, then I am not trying to crush your dreams. I am not even trying to say that it absolutely doesn't work (through some mechanism, perhaps an increase in oxygen, perhaps another route). I certainly haven't tested it, and at $200 for the base system and $60 for replacement electrodes, I don't have any intentions too.

That said, I did email them asking them for additional details about the questions I raised here in a polite and non-confrontational manner. I will post any updates (and promise to try and keep the drama to a minimum). Who knows, maybe they do have the data to back up their claims and, for whatever reason, just decided not to show it.

Tom is right, when it comes to watering, it is all fairly personal and specific to your area and setup. A lot of times it is just something you have to kinda figure out for yourself.

 

[Ray]

Watering aerates and oxygenates the potting medium too.