Silicon the forgotten macronutrient?

[Ray]

I deserve that medal, too.

I'll answer that question from the middle: to the best of my knowledge, only two people have any kind of "stock" in this, if not necesarily in fertilizer companies. Rick (for his reputation), and me (for having purchased the material from the fertilizer company, so needing to resell it).

Those of us who have been in the orchid game long enough know Rick well enough that his reputation is not at stake.

I spent more on wine over the weekend than I have tied up in my fertilizer inventory, so I don't care. (No, I didn't drink it all.) And there's the fact that I am still a bit worried about potential deficiencies - haven't seen them, but there's still a little question mark stuck in the back of my brain.

 

[gonewild]

And I did, til the end.

I'm not willing to compare epihytes with mussels,

Why not? You already know all life's secrets?
Once you declare you are not willing to consider a new idea you have shut the door to learning more.

My tap water contains 1.500 - 2.000something ppm, so I know what I am speaking of, I don't drink that stuff nor use it for my orchids nor my freshawater fish und shrimps.

What do you drink? What problem have you had using your tap water?

I do not say, that K-(P-) lite does not work, but I don't agree with the conclusions in how it does. (If it does in the long term.)

You don't say it does not work.
You don't agree how it does.

I'm not sure why you comment about K-lite beyond saying you think it might work but have not tried it but also doubt that it will work in the long run because orchids are not mussels.

 

[gonewild]

I spent more on wine over the weekend than I have tied up in my fertilizer inventory, so I don't care.

So there is a reason you need to sell more fertilizer!
Something has to pay for the wine, it ain't cheap.

Does Rick also have a drinking problem?

Now we are getting to the bottom of this scam.

Maybe I should start selling K-lite so I can afford to drink wine?

 

[Rick]

The major ions influential in aquatic
toxicity are the same critical ions for all
plants, including orchids.

I don't drink that stuff nor use it for my orchids nor my freshawater fish und shrimps.

Why do you disagree with my statement, and then turn around and claim that your own water is unfit for use (to non orchid targets) due to a major ion issues. That's exactly what I said!!

 

[Rick]

I'm not willing to compare epihytes with mussels

What you missed in the use of mussel toxicity in the paper has nothing to do with comparison of mussel versus orchids or any other species.

The argument was of environmental relevance. Mussels exist downstream of orchid terrestrial habitats. So if mussels are found (which are acutely sensitive to K) then K is not present in the orchid terrestrial environment either.

You wouldn't drink (or expose your plants and aquarium critters to high chloride water), and your aquarium critters would not survive long at standard fertilizer levels of K either.

So why do you think it is neccessary to expose your orchids to concentrations of K that are orders of magnitude higher than they are exposed to in the wild?

 

[Rick]

Does Rick also have a drinking problem?

I will soon!

 

[gonewild]

I will soon!

Now that K-lite sales are taking off you can afford it!

 

[gonewild]

So why do you think it is neccessary to expose your orchids to concentrations of K that are orders of magnitude higher than they are exposed to in the wild?

Grow or die you lowly plant!

 

[DavidCampen]

No David you did not say that....I was just trying to get your attention about a point. It worked and you revealed what you are basing your comments on.

Hmm, what was it that you felt you would need to trick me into revealing?

The concept of Potassium toxicity reveals itself after long term growth. It is not seen as one symptom. In fact it does not really have a symptom. It manifests as many different problems or none at all.

So then it seems you are saying that the benefits of "K-lite" is not a testable hypothesis; one just has to believe.

Perhaps there may be an issue with the term "toxic". Potassium is not toxic but in excess amounts it looks like it creates a "toxic" condition within the plant. By reducing the application ratio of Potassium, users of K-lite are discovering that the toxic condition is reversed.

A toxic condition that can't be seen; it seems that we are back to unicorns.

In Rick's research he has formed a theory and given reasons to prove it as being possible.

What research, you can't mean library research since in a few more sentences you will disparage the utility of "going to the library".

Users testing the theory are all reporting positive results. Based on those results it is correct to believe the theory is correct.

Yes, there are these anecdotal reports. Many people believe in homeopathy also but I don't. Did you hear about the homeopath who forgot to take his medicine? ...... He died of an overdose.

Over the years that I have been involved in horticulture I don't remember hearing anyone suggest that excess Potassium might be a serious problem. When Rick first presented his theory the lights came on and what he said made perfect sense and well worth trying. This theory can not be discredited by library research or quoting conventional horticultural practices.

People say the same about homeopathy - you just have to believe. I was at a rock and mineral show the other day and overheard one person explaining to another the mental benefits of the energies from the various stones - obsidian was said to absorb and remove negativity, I guess I should have bought some obsidian.

As a new orchid grower you should welcome a concept that will make your plants grow better and not try to discredit it by going to the library.

Have you tried K-lite?

You discount library research so the only reason to expect that "K-lite" has an beneficial effects are a few anecdotal reports. So no, I don't see any reason to experiment with using k-lite.

 

[DavidCampen]

Seems like you are more interested in debunking the paper rather than reading and understanding it. What's your agenda?

There used to be a website for discussing Dr. Randall Mills' Theory of Classical Physics and the generation of power by utilizing the hydrogen-hydrino transition that Dr. Mills discovered. People there would ask me the same question.

I am not at all equating you to Dr. Randall Mills that would be a major insult. I used to refer to Dr. Mills as Randy Screwloose. For your amusement here is his website:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/

 

[Secundino]

Well, I feel that my english is far to simple to explain this scientific matters, but I try.

- I would not compare an orchid and a mussel, but would compare the function of orchid roots of groundbound and epiphytic species. I would compare the differences in ion transport - if there are - between velamen-covered roots and those without velamen.

- If there is no K downstream, this does NOT necessarily mean that there is no K where the orchids is growing streamup. Even if it sounds logic, you would have to meassure it in place to make this statement. Of course, it may likely be so, but without evidence it is an assumption.

- I agree that high ion concentrations are toxic to most living organisms. But I prefer to differentiate. Fe is essential to plants but is highly toxic to freshwater shrimps at same concentration. Like K ist obviously for mussels. So, I think you can compare this organisms, but I disagree when you say that BECAUSE K is toxic to mussels it is likely that it is for orchids as well BECAUSE they live upstream. Chaning two assumptions is no good basis for a theory.

- I do not feed my orchids with heavy concentrations. Never said that nor intend to do so.

- I DO think however that most orchids benefit from very low feeding. There is no dissensus here. If reducing the amount of K in fertilizers does not only reduce amount of ions but also enhance the uptake (?), assimilation (?) of other essential minerals, that is great. Sadly there is still no detailed knowlegde of how ion trasport works in velamen-coated roots. (At least I don't know if there is!:rollhappy

- Finally, I do not criticize you or your work, I criticize scientific methods. I need statements that I can verify; to say that there may be toxic effect, or there may be not, but there might be in the long term or not, but the plant will do better either way with k-lite: no, this does not satisfy my scientific ambition.

 

[Rick]

-.

- If there is no K downstream, this does NOT necessarily mean that there is no K where the orchids is growing streamup. Even if it sounds logic, you would have to meassure it in place to make this statement. Of course, it may likely be so, but without evidence it is an assumption.

As an evnvironmental toxicologist I know that very soluble salts like K travel efficiently from upstream to downstream. But if you pull some of the referenced litterature (much of which has been discussed frequently on this forum over the last two years) you would see that there is no sink of concentrated potassium in the trees/rain/or air surrounding the trees, or washing down the cliffs. Limestone is almost completely devoid of K which is why I think that calcerous orchid species are more sensitve to high K compared to other species. Unfortunately for a hobbist article like this paper I cannot fit(nor is it appropriate to fit) every peice of data into the article.

 

[Rick]

If reducing the amount of K in fertilizers does not only reduce amount of ions but also enhance the uptake (?), assimilation (?) of other essential minerals, that is great. Sadly there is still no detailed knowlegde of how ion trasport works in velamen-coated roots. (At least I don't know if there is!:rollhappy
.

On a whole plant basis there is lots of detailed knowledge of the effects of K in plant tissues (Some of which are included in the article references which apparently you have not read).

The most prominent aspect is that K blocks/inhibits the uptake of Ca and Mg. (All plants not just epiphytic orchids). Now in one documented species (Rice) the high uptake rate of K caused a chain reaction (once Ca and Mg were very low) which retarded the uptake of phosphate. So at least in rice you can attribute excess K to inhibited uptake of 3 other vital nutrients. (I can give you more if you really need convincing, but I should be doing something else on the clock!!) One of the papers referenced is a very detailed K uptake mechansim of bromeliads that I suggest you read. Now I know you don't like to compare anything else to orchids, but Stone linked a paper to this site several weeks ago (not in time to add to the article) from a Cornell University study that showed the same leaf tissue drop in Ca/Mg in Phaleanopsis, Cattleya, and Cymbidium hybrids with increasing K. This was only a 9month study, and the only significant health concerns listed was leaf tip burn.


Now more debatable is the point to which Ca and Mg uptake inhibition is detrimental to orchid growth. Which life stage is most sensitive, standard dose rate/duration curves......plus all the competitve interactions within the plant and in the potting mix (which effects dose rate and frequency).......??????

But yes we do know, and I did supply information of the physiological basis for K toxicity in plants. (read the references).

 

[DavidCampen]

Speaking of references:
In the Orchids article, top of page 168, it says:
"... several articles in the [Antec] reading room ... of the main points to take home ... [is] the ion exchange capacity of coconut husk favoring the monovalent cations (sodium and potassium) in favor of the divalent cations (magnesium and calcium)"

I don't see in the Antec articles where this is said. In fact the article says that it is easy to replace the sodium and potassium with calcium and magnesium by soaking in water with a small amout of calcium and magnesium salts. In fact the article goes on to say that even if you don't pretreat with Ca and Mg salts: "What then happens is that you cation exchange calcium and magnesium for sodium and potassium in your early fertilized irrigations ... [but] If you irrigate heavily as we recommend, the problem is quite temporary and limited."

Emphasis added is mine.

 

[gonewild]

Hmm, what was it that you felt you would need to trick me into revealing?

I did not try to trick you, but you did reveal your limited experience with orchids.

So then it seems you are saying that the benefits of "K-lite" is not a testable hypothesis; one just has to believe.

No not at all. I am saying you can't see the symptoms. And like any hypothesis you either believe it or not or test it to see if it proves true.

A toxic condition that can't be seen; it seems that we are back to unicorns.

Can you see the early symptoms of cancer?
Can you see the early symptoms of a stroke?
Not everything is something you can see and describe.

Maybe what you call unicorns is what I call experience.

What research, you can't mean library research since in a few more sentences you will disparage the utility of "going to the library".

Nothing wrong with going to the library to look up research that has already been done. But sorry I don't give the same value to researching paperwork as I do to experience directly with the subject being researched.

Yes, there are these anecdotal reports. Many people believe in homeopathy also but I don't. Did you hear about the homeopath who forgot to take his medicine? ...... He died of an overdose.

So you consider the reports experienced orchid growers are giving about K-lite as homeopathic?

People say the same about homeopathy - you just have to believe. I was at a rock and mineral show the other day and overheard one person explaining to another the mental benefits of the energies from the various stones - obsidian was said to absorb and remove negativity, I guess I should have bought some obsidian.

The obsidian would not have hurt you.

You discount library research so the only reason to expect that "K-lite" has an beneficial effects are a few anecdotal reports. So no, I don't see any reason to experiment with using k-lite.

I don't discount library research at all but now I begin to discount your input based on your lack of experience and your refusal to consider advances in knowledge beyond what someone else has published.

Now what were you saying about Silica?

 

[gonewild]

There used to be a website for discussing Dr. Randall Mills' Theory of Classical Physics and the generation of power by utilizing the hydrogen-hydrino transition that Dr. Mills discovered. People there would ask me the same question.

How many years ago was that? Was it before or after you were born?
Seems like by know you might have learned the answer.

 

[Rick]

I don't see in the Antec articles where this is said. In fact the article says that it is easy to replace the sodium and potassium with calcium and magnesium by soaking in water with a small amout of calcium and magnesium salts. In fact the article goes on to say that even if you don't pretreat with Ca and Mg salts: "What then happens is that you cation exchange calcium and magnesium for sodium and potassium in your .

You can only reverse the exchange from K to Ca if Ca/Mg has a higher solute concentration than K.

So if you feed even weak solutions of a fert with K higher than Ca/Mg it will preferentilally uptake K and give off the divalent in exchange. If the divalent was easier to move in than the mono, then CHC would not need pretreating for K residue, and you would get unlimited transfer of all ions out of CHC in RO water. But in study it has been demonstrated that it takes solutions (concentration not definced) of divalent cations to pull that last of the monovalents out of the matrix. The below is from the Antec ste. Looks like you took fragments and uncertainties of their material out of context.

To prepare the husk we first hydrate the bale in two 32 gallon containers at least overnight , and then transfer the hydrated husk and excess water to a second container that has had a large number of holes drilled into the bottom, and about six inches up the sides. After the husk drains, a steady stream of water is washed through until it appears to run clear from the container. Then the husk is again transferred back to the solid container and again covered with water with a few ounces each of Calcium Nitrate and Magnesium Sulfate (Epsom Salts) added at least overnight. The draining and washing procedure is repeated again using pure water, with the final rinse being extensive. At this point measurements have revealed virtually no significant leachable salts and a pH just slightly below neutral. The conditioning with calcium and magnesium is done because of the moderate Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of the coconut husk. Sodium (Na) and Potassium (K) ions are strongly bound to the CHC. Laboratory comparative analysis of extracts of coconut husk products using distilled water versus a barium chloride solution demonstrate that as much as 2/3 of the Na and K may not be leached by water alone. What then happens is that you cation exchange calcium and magnesium for sodium and potassium in your early fertilized irrigations, creating possible calcium and magnesium deficiencies and sodium and potassium excesses. If you irrigate heavily as we recommend, the problem is quite temporary and limited. Unfortunately, it seems to be more and more common to hear about people using less extensive irrigation practices, and under these circumstances problems may arise. The addition of calcium and magnesium in the wash stages allows for cation exchange to occur then, creating a more balanced state from the start.

 

[DavidCampen]

You can only reverse the exchange from K to Ca if Ca/Mg has a higher solute concentration than K.

This statement is not necessarily correct. The Antec article seems to say the opposite. Do you have a reference.

So if you feed even weak solutions of a fert with K higher than Ca/Mg it will preferentilally uptake K and give off the divalent in exchange.

This would be undesireable for what reason? (When you say "it" I am assuming you mean the CHC)

If the divalent was easier to move in than the mono, then CHC would not need pretreating for K residue,

Geez, you should read the Antec article. They say differently.

and you would get unlimited transfer of all ions out of CHC in RO water.

No, you are wrong. If the K ion is ionically bound to an carboxylic acid moeity in the CHC then RO water will not displace it.

But in study it has been demonstrated that it takes solutions (concentration not definced) of divalent cations to pull that last of the monovalents out of the matrix.

Yes, it takes a cation to displace another cation. The paper demonstrates nothing about the relative binding constants of monovalent vs divalent.

 

[DavidCampen]

The below is from the Antec ste. Looks like you took fragments and uncertainties of their material out of context.

To prepare the husk we first hydrate the bale in two 32 gallon containers at least overnight , and then transfer the hydrated husk and excess water to a second container that has had a large number of holes drilled into the bottom, and about six inches up the sides. After the husk drains, a steady stream of water is washed through until it appears to run clear from the container. Then the husk is again transferred back to the solid container and again covered with water with a few ounces each of Calcium Nitrate and Magnesium Sulfate (Epsom Salts) added at least overnight. The draining and washing procedure is repeated again using pure water, with the final rinse being extensive. At this point measurements have revealed virtually no significant leachable salts and a pH just slightly below neutral. The conditioning with calcium and magnesium is done because of the moderate Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of the coconut husk. Sodium (Na) and Potassium (K) ions are strongly bound to the CHC. Laboratory comparative analysis of extracts of coconut husk products using distilled water versus a barium chloride solution demonstrate that as much as 2/3 of the Na and K may not be leached by water alone. What then happens is that you cation exchange calcium and magnesium for sodium and potassium in your early fertilized irrigations, creating possible calcium and magnesium deficiencies and sodium and potassium excesses. If you irrigate heavily as we recommend, the problem is quite temporary and limited. Unfortunately, it seems to be more and more common to hear about people using less extensive irrigation practices, and under these circumstances problems may arise. The addition of calcium and magnesium in the wash stages allows for cation exchange to occur then, creating a more balanced state from the start.

No, it seems that you lack any comprehension of this article.

 

[gonewild]

Well, I feel that my english is far to simple to explain this scientific matters, but I try.

Lo siento, no se han dado cuenta que tienen en Inglés como su segundo idioma. Le leo las respuestas con un pensamiento diferente.

¿Quieres pruebas de que la teoría K-lite es cierto para satisfacer su deseo científica, pero esta prueba sólo está viniendo ahora. No hay ninguna referencia Rick puede citar para probar la teoría, porque nadie en el pasado ha pensado lo mismo. Este es un concepto nuevo y está demostrando así hasta este momento. Usted debe tratar de K-lite y danos tu opinión sincera después de ver el resultado.


Sorry I have not realized you have English as your second language. I will read your replies with a different thinking.

You want evidence that the K-lite theory is true to satisfy your scientific desire but this proof is just comming now. There is no reference Rick can quote to prove the theory because no one in the past has thought the same. This is a new concept and is proving true until this time. You should try K-lite and give us your honest opinion after seeing the result.