Substantial K in rainforest through fall.

[limuhead]

Excess potassium...
http://eprints.nwisrl.ars.usda.gov/917/1/652.pdf

The hypotheses at the end of the report indicate that the sources of the high K are due to natural sources in the soil. Not to sound like an idiot, but what does this have to do with the thread? I was under the impression that this was a post about 'Substantial K in Rainforest Through Fall'. I have followed the High K debate for a while. Seems to me more of a debate about the sake of debating; not conclusive to either side. That's just my opinion though...

 

[gonewild]

The hypotheses at the end of the report indicate that the sources of the high K are due to natural sources in the soil. Not to sound like an idiot, but what does this have to do with the thread? I was under the impression that this was a post about 'Substantial K in Rainforest Through Fall'. I have followed the High K debate for a while. Seems to me more of a debate about the sake of debating; not conclusive to either side. That's just my opinion though...

Because there is very little data (none) published about excess potassium and it's toxicity I posted this link to show that in some plants some research has shown plants are sensitive to excess K. How this relates to orchids, who knows but it is a data source. Some debaters here feel all plants are equal in how their nutrient uptake is achieved (not me) so using data from farm land in Idaho may be just as accurate as using rainfall in China to determine the potassium reaction by orchids that don't grow in either place.

The report illustrates that the high excess K reduces the growth, and yes at very high ppms. We don't know at what level K becomes a "toxic" nutrient for orchids but it does at some level. And now with the majority of growers reporting improved growth using the low K formula fertilizer we can consider that perhaps orchids really don't like or need muck K in their diet.

Besides it's raining hard outside and I had time to google and I read that so I posted the link.

 

[naoki]

No, that paper shows exactly the opposite. Look at figure 2. The rubidium uptake rate does not change, does not increase, over a 2 order of magnitude change in the rubidium concentration. From a change in rubidium concentration equivalent to 8 ppm potassium to 800 ppm potassium the rate of rubidium uptake does not increase at all.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924823/

But the x-axis is the external concentration, right? So this seems to be showing that ion-transoport channel saturate event thought the concentration is high. Plants are still taking up at the maximum possible rate. But this made me think that the data is probably not saying what Rick said: "No break to K uptake". To test the break part, I would say that you have to compare the internal concentration vs uptake rate. In other words, you saturate the plant with K for a month or so, then see if the uptake rate become slower or not. But the paper does show amazing uptake capacity of epiphytes.

 

[Ray]

The hypotheses at the end of the report indicate that the sources of the high K are due to natural sources in the soil. Not to sound like an idiot, but what does this have to do with the thread? I was under the impression that this was a post about 'Substantial K in Rainforest Through Fall'.

Aw c'mon. You're smarter than that!

It is apparently relevant because the rainfall is SO heavy that it - and the minerals in the soil - splash all the way up to the tops of the trees!

 

[naoki]

Well, unlike Mike, I still think that there is something going on with K-lite because quite a lot of people show good results. But the reason for the success might be different from K vs Ca/Mg. So I thought that nutrient-driven morphogenesis could be the part of the reason. This may be a bit interesting with this regard:
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/Special_Issue/1255.full.pdf

N,P deficiency usually increase Root:shoot (R:S) ratio (more allocation toward root). Similar to how auxin addition may work. However, I didn't know that K or Mg deficiency has the opposite consequence: lower R:S ratio. This is because K (and Mg) is required to transport photosynthates to root, so deficiency cause the accumulation of sugar in the leaves.

Several literature indicate that orchids don't need lots of K (i.e. they observe no benefit of additional K, and K in the media is enough). This matches with people's observation here (orchids don't show K deficiency with K-lite). So K-lite could be as good as the conventional high-K.

But could slight deprivation of P in K-lite is the reason of improvement? Similar to auxin products, low P might be causing the vigorous root growth (without causing too much negative effect), which eventually lead to more vigorous plants. One of the big difference between nature and potted culture is the root space (well the crack dweller may be a different story). Also phosphorous controls mycorrhizae association (no association with high P). It's shown that mycorrhizae can be associated with potted plants (I learned this from ST discussion, and saw it in some papers). It is pretty speculative, but Rick's plants are amazing, and there has to be a reason of K-lite advantage (in addition to Rick's culture skill), and I'm trying to think alternative explanation.

 

[Stone]

Well, unlike Mike, I still think that there is something going on with K-lite because quite a lot of people show good results.

No one but Rick has shown good results. (some very nice mastersianums spring to mind) But I'm sure other good growers (probably not many) around the world are growing equally good mastersianums without k-lite. This would automatically negate Rick's claim that success was due to K-like and probably more to good general culture wouldn't it? All others have written short anecdotes saying similar things. Not exactly compelling evidence just yet. The difference between k-lite and high k ferts over several years is probably so small as to be almost impossible to detect without strictly controled, sided by side trials over a long period of time. So.......Don't worry.. be happy!

 

[gonewild]

No one but Rick has shown good results.

Do you read SlipperTalk?

 

[Ray]

No one but Rick has shown good results.

I am now 29 months into the exclusive use of K-Lite, and I am thrilled with the results - I am seeing a lot of active growth and more blooming that I've seen in a while.

And not just paphs.

 

[Stone]

Do you read SlipperTalk?

Shown!!

 

[Rick]

No one but Rick has shown good results. (

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32365

I guess you missed this. But seems like at least 175 folks are giving it a try.

I know of a few dozen others that make their own version too. Emydura, Paul, Ed M. Lots of folks in my society that don't get on ST

But I guess you don't like SlipperKings plants, or Dot's, or Chicago Chad's (his first CCE on a Klite grown Pleuro species), or that Fumi's Delight of Tom Kalina....
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31946&page=2

How bout those walls of paphs grown on calcium nitrate (no K supplementation at all) I think that was in India.

Big specimen plants are not limited to those who hog out on K.

 

[Stone]

[QUOTE]I guess you missed this. ...ge to using it. I believe some already have??

 

[Ray]

An unfair comment. I like any well grown orchid. and aren't FCCs given for flower quality?

Come on, Mike. Are you likely to get an award quality flower out of a poorly grown plant?

OK. Enough of this BS.

The fact is that VERY little is known about plant nutrition, including that related to valuable food crops, for which a great deal of study has been done. Everything we are discussing here is speculation, as we have not been able to do the extensive testing required to actually prove anything.

• Are my plants doing better since moving to K-Lite? It appears so to me, but I have no scientific proof that it's the case.
• Is it possible that my plants are doing better despite my use of K-Lite? Not likely, as I find it hard to accept that there would be an improvement upon a change to something less beneficial.
• Is it possible that something else is the reason for my perceived improvement? Of course, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what that might be, as I have tried to keep the rest of my culture pretty constant.

I have a lot of respect for (most of) the participants here, but it seems to me that there is a great deal of debate-for-debate's-sake going on, rather than an exposition of fact.

 

[Rick]

An unfair comment. I like any w... Chad's post since it was a CCE and not a FCC

 

[Rick]

The fact is that VERY little is known about plant nutrition, including that related to valuable food crops, for which a great deal of study has been done.

Orchid nutrition is in its infancy, but probably a lot better in the commercial crop areana than we are aware.

http://www.clemson.edu/sera6/scsb394notoc.pdf

Here's a good size list of nutrient leaf tissue concentrations for crops (including nut trees and ornamentals), calibrated for "sufficiency ranges". And yes "excesses" beyond the sufficiency range have been called toxicity effects (see Figure 2 on document page 2).

You all will have to make your own decisions as to whether you think orchids are more like cantaloupe , poinsettia, pecan trees, blueberries, or fraiser fir (no orchids in this list). Also in other searchs I do have "excessive or toxic" leaf tissue concentrations for a handful of the species listed.

I would also not make the assumption that hybrid phals would be in the same range of effects as Paph emersonii, or Dendrobium cuthbertsonii .

Also its apparent from the agri research out there, that feeding schedules are manipulated by application of individual constituents (not by generic application of a balanced NPK comercial feed) to navigate crops through within these tissue concentration boundaries.

 

[Rick]

If you take the time and actully table the values across all the different crop species.

The bulk of Panamanian epiphytic orchids in the Zotz paper are in the K deficient range for most crops (except blueberries and christmas trees).

The Phalaenopsis tissue K (exposed to 100 - 300ppm K) in the Poole and Seeley (Cornell study) are only matched by things like cantaloupe and bellpepers. Corn would actually be pretty much stopped in its tracks at the K found in those Phalae leaves.:wink:

 

[Stone]

Everything we are discussing here is speculation, as we have not been able to do the extensive testing required to actually prove anything.

I try to do as little speculation as possible although sometimes a little imagination is required due to lack of relavent data. Most of my comments however are based on reality. ie: what I actually see with my own eyes (how my and others' orchids respond to various nutrient formulations). All the material from the other (your side) is based on speculation as everything presented so far can be explained away using the reality checks mentioned above. You don't seem to mind selling a product based on the very speculation you mention. This is absolutely fine with me but, at this time, I think it is possibly misleading to suggest to people on this and other forums that lowering K such as in k-lite will solve their growing problems.

 

[DavidCampen]

I try to do as little speculation as possible although sometimes a little imagination is required due to lack of relevant data. Most of my comments however are based on reality. ie: what I actually see with my own eyes (how my and others' orchids respond to various nutrient formulations). All the material from the other (your side) is based on speculation as everything presented so far can be explained away using the reality checks mentioned above. You don't seem to mind selling a product based on the very speculation you mention. This is absolutely fine with me but, at this time, I think it is possibly misleading to suggest to people on this and other forums that lowering K such as in k-lite will solve their growing problems.

I agree.

 

[SlipperFan]

Maybe not "solve" -- but K-lite is helping with a couple of mine. It can't be a coincidence because nothing else is changed.

 

[Ray]

I try to do as little speculation as possible although sometimes a little imagination is required due to lack of relavent data. Most of my comments however are based on reality. ie: what I actually see with my own eyes (how my and others' orchids respond to various nutrient formulations). All the material from the other (your side) is based on speculation as everything presented so far can be explained away using the reality checks mentioned above. You don't seem to mind selling a product based on the very speculation you mention. This is absolutely fine with me but, at this time, I think it is possibly misleading to suggest to people on this and other forums that lowering K such as in k-lite will solve their growing problems.

Let's not be personally insulting here. In the first place it shows a disrespect for others, which makes one question the individual making the comment, and secondly, it opens up the opportunity for others to snipe rather than making a meaningful contribution to the discussion.

My connection to this was making the investment to get a manufacturer to make it. Had I not done that, it would probably not yet be commercially available to anyone, no matter what their motivation for wanting to try it. Also remember that I am not the only seller of the stuff.

No I don't mind selling it, but I have never claimed that it will solve anyone's growing problems. In fact, I don't think any nutrient will do that, unless the individual is simply not feeding their plants at all.

Also, you will find that I am not promoting it as much as I am recounting my own observations, which you seem to discount, while feeling yours are perfectly valid.

When folks ask me "why should I use K-Lite, rather than MSU" - and it happens a great deal - I tell them that "I cannot recommend one over the other. The K-Lite formula is derived from the MSU formula, altering the chemistry based upon some nutritional antagonism theories, so may be considered by some (including me) to be experimental. However, with over two years of using it exclusively, I am happy with it."

 

[Trithor]

You lot have been busy! I can't say that much progress has been made though. Apart from a few testy remarks I think everyone has been playing very nicely. Both sides are to be admired for their ongoing commitment to the discussion (sometimes argument). I must point out though that there are positive results with both types of feed (just going through the posts and looking at the well grown plants, there are positives with both types of feed). I am not sure where flower quality comes into the discussion, as no amount of good growing will get a mediocre quality plant to garner an award of quality.
I am trying both types of feed and still am unsure of the results. What I am sure of though, is that I have seen a dramatic improvement with a reduced concentration of fertilizer applied on a more regular basis rather than with higher concentrations less regularly. I am sure that there are a host of things which I can improve in my culture, without having to look at the actual fertilizer to improve my growing. Having said that, I as with most growers, would be happy if you guys could just point me in the direction of the miracle solution when you find it. In the interim, I will battle along with my mediocre culture and read this discussion with keen interest.