Urea fertilizer - outstanding results

[tomkalina]

We actually alternate our fertilizers using K-Lite (nitrate based) one week, MiracleGro 30-10-10 (urea based) the next week and Wuxal Calcium ( nitrate + urea based) the third week. Then a flush with plain Chicago water (Lake Michigan) for it's micros the fourth week.

While the fertilizer formula varies from week to week, the TDS of the final fertilizer irrigant never exceeds 130 ppm while the monthly Chicago water flush runs about 220 ppm TDS. Probably more complicated than it needs to be, but it seems to be working.

 

[Bob in Albany N.Y.]

Has anyone been using the miracle grow for tomatoes? I have been using a bag of that and then a bag of the regular miracle grow. That said I'm no expert it's just easy to buy this time of year and store up on it. I've been doing this for a few years now.

 

[ALToronto]

Once again, this thread shows that there is no magic fertilizer that will solve everybody's problems. It's not just the fertilizer - it's a multi-factor interaction between source(s) of N, other fert ingredients, potting medium, source and quantity of Cal and Mag, water quality. And that's with having perfect culture conditions.

Can we maybe do a chart? People who are having good results, please post what you grow and how you grow them. Type of pot, medium ingredients, humidity, temp, water, fertilizer data, Calcium and Magnesium source and quantity, anything else that you feel is relevant. I'd like to compile the results and maybe, just maybe, create some good combinations of growing conditions so that those of us who are treading water have some comprehensive guidance.

I'll try to come up with a spreadsheet tonight, and I'll put it in my public Dropbox folder. Then we can all contribute.

 

[PaphMadMan]

Thanks for the laugh. Watching orchid growers debate fertilizer use can be quite entertaining when I'm in the mood.

 

[Ozpaph]

Has anyone been using the miracle grow for tomatoes? .

yes. Not sure if the formulation is the same, though. I use it < half strength and alternate with kelp.

 

[Stone]

Why do you think dark green leaves indicate better plant growth than lighter green color?

Darker green leaves in the same growing situation means higher chlorophyll content which means more photosynthates which means more food for the plant which means more growth.

 

[NYEric]

I'm having a lot of good leaf growth in Paphs. I am also being better about watering and grooming for pests so...

 

[gonewild]

Darker green leaves in the same growing situation means higher chlorophyll content which means more photosynthates which means more food for the plant which means more growth.

Unless the darker green leaf is the result of high nitrogen levels in low light levels then the result is less growth. "Dark" green leaves are not indicators of the most productive growth conditions. They may look prettier but that does not mean the plant is growing the most or fastest or will produce the most or best blooms.

(Disclaimer.... I do possess and use UREA)

Assuming the photos are of pale green plants that had been grown with MSU at correct dose and application rates ... then something is wrong besides the fertilizer. MSU may not be perfect under all conditions but it should produce greener leaves than the bottom picture and switching to UREA may only be a mask for other problems.

Seeing new growths starting is excellent but one or two new growths is normal and not a result of the type of nitrogen. There seems to be many variables present in the photos. Some of the media looks very old and some looks very fresh, did repotting have a bigger effect on starting new growths than the UREA? Most of the pots seem to have a high CHC content and CHC has a reputation of causing abnormal nutrient supply situations. (fyi..I happen to like CHC)

Many factors may be present causing the previous poor growth besides the nitrogen type. It would be nice to know what changes in growing conditions may have also occurred to validate the effect of the UREA.
Chances are the poor growth is related to the pH rather than nitrogen type. If switching to UREA solved the pH problem then it's a perfect solution.

Take care not to use this example as a reason to switch to UREA to get darker green , prettier leaves. UREA usually darkens leaf color because it is absorbed by the leaf itself rather than the roots. The question is why were the roots not correctly using the MSU fertilizer.

For Polyantha the results are great. Perfect. But will long term use of the UREA maintain the 6 month results?

 

[Stone]

Seeing new growths starting is excellent but one or two new growths is normal and not a result of the type of nitrogen.

It could very well be just that if the new N chaged conditions in the pot or the plant utilized it more effectively for some other reason.

Chances are the poor growth is related to the pH rather than nitrogen type.

That is very possible. The nitrate/hydroponic type fertilizers should be adjusted to pH 5.5-6. but you can achieve the same with acidifying fertilizers.

If switching to UREA solved the pH problem then it's a perfect solution.

Its A solution but not the only one.

Take care not to use this example as a reason to switch to UREA to get darker green , prettier leaves.

Why not if the change leads to success? I don't have too many problems with leaf colour any more and I use 70% nitrate 30% ammonium sometimes with some Urea as well. (very roughly) but I have been lowering the solution pH down with an acid. But this positive example of heavy Urea use is interesting and important.

For Polyantha the results are great. Perfect. But will long term use of the UREA maintain the 6 month results?

As long as the pH does not fall too low and is maintained I see no reason why not. If the plant is using the N to form amino acids effectively then the plant is using the N to form amino acids effectively
The only thing I would say that you would probably want to drastically reduce or eliminate the N during the cold dark days of winter.

 

[paphioboy]

Interesting.. No wonder they green up when I pee on my slippers :evil:

The question of why dark green is better than light green is interesting. From my viewpoint, I like plants under my culture to look like wild plants (I think the foliage colour of wild plants are good indicators for optimum conditions). For most of the multiflora species that I am familiar with and of which I have seen photos of freshly-collected plants, the leaves are much darker than those in culture. I think this is likely a result of nutrition rather than just light.

If you look up one of the articles Xavier has written, he details the growing environment of one of the best paph growers in Malaysia (in Cameron Highlands) to be very shady (3 layers of shade netting), planted in fern root, only plain water, no fertiliser. Leaves are glossy black-green even for multiflorals and obviously such plants perform very well (said grower often takes home prizes for almost the whole paph category during competitions).

Page 13 of this document:

http://eurobodalla.org.au/fileadmin...012/Paphiopedilum_culture_and_propagation.pdf

 

[NYEric]

Interesting.. No wonder they green up when I pee on my slippers :evil:

Good. I'm not the only one that thought that!

 

[eggshells]

To be fair, K-lite users coin the same phrase that their plant has more "green or dark green" growths when they compare it to their previous fertilizer regime. Not that I disagree with that as most of the paphs in the wild that I have seen (not other genres) showcase dark green in colouration as paphioboy said.

My point is why can't others who uses a different fertilizer use the same comparison (in this case green/darkgreen growths whatever) and now being questioned why they think the colouration of their plant showcase "healthy" while K-lite users uses the same phrase and for them it is an improvement? I see double standards there.

I'm not dismissing the benefits of k-lite as it seems like some if not most people are doing great with it but you can't dismiss others who uses other types of fertilizer and still works for them. I see lots of growers here in this forum and other that doesn't use k-lite and still showcase beautiful plants.

FWIW Me and my friend had been using fertilizer with urea for years with no problems. See Paphman910's stonei thread. I'm pretty sure others here as well.

P.S. Both nicely grown plants (Both Polyantha and Ray's)

(not my photo)

 

[gonewild]

To be fair, K-lite users coin the same phrase that their plant has more "green or dark green" growths when they compare it to their previous fertilizer regime. Not that I disagree with that as most of the paphs in the wild that I have seen (not other genres) showcase dark green in colouration as paphioboy said.

My point is why can't others who uses a different fertilizer use the same comparison (in this case green/darkgreen growths whatever) and now being questioned why they think the colouration of their plant showcase "healthy" while K-lite users uses the same phrase and for them it is an improvement? I see double standards there.

Fair? Double standards?

I never mentioned k-lite or any other fertilizer in connection to my question about dark green color.

I talked about UREA and dark green color and gave a few reasons why some people should use UREA with caution.

I asked a question about why dark green is being used as a standard of perfection. Most if not all professional growers consider dark green as not growing at optimal rates. No argument that dark green leaves are beautiful. But the dark green shown in the first photo set is too dark, perhaps it is the camera settings but it is represented as accurate. However the closeup pics of new growth all have medium green color... not dark.

No double standards, use any term you like, be happy with your plants but this thread may mislead someone into making a mistake by switching to UREA which can be problematic for plant health. As well it sets an idea that dark green is a sign of perfect growth. Is it?

The pictures you showed of wild paphs are beautiful. Do you remember where you got them? They look somewhat like some pictures from an area of artificial replanted plants in a natural area. I'm not saying they are but would be nice to validate that they are naturally growing.

UREA gave positive results to Polyantha, my question is why? And why were MSU results so poor? I think these are interesting questions and pertinent to this thread

There is plenty of published info about UREA toxicity which is the same as ammonia toxicity and it can damage plant tissue under certain conditions especially when non soil media is used.

Here is another question....
Can using UREA fertilizer at standard doses damage plant tissue?

 

[gonewild]

Maybe I don't know what is considered as dark green foliage.
Here are two wild Paph pictures from orchidspecies.com

Are these leaves dark green?

 

[gonewild]

Here is an easy to understand video about Ammonium (UREA) toxicity.

http://www.greenhousegrower.com/video/plant-culture/v-avoiding-ammonium-toxicity/
..

 

[SlipperFan]

I'd call those a medium green. Of course, medium has a range of values. I've always heard that dark is like forest green, and indicates too little light. There is no absolute, except maybe whatever works!

 

[Stone]

Maybe I don't know what is considered as dark green foliage.
Here are two wild Paph pictures from orchidspecies.com

Are these leaves dark green?

Obviously if a plant such as the roth there is growing in full sunlight, its leaves can never be dark green no matter how much N it is getting. I have seen other pics of roth growing in shaded spots which were much darker.
However, the plant will grow wherever the seed lands. If in full sun, it will be destined to be yellow and more stunted than its counterparts. So there is an optimum position for all plants.
For the urbanianums?? above I would say that they are in the optimum situation. No doubt there are others nearby in a much sunnier place which don't look as good or as lush. BUT! have a look at how much light they are recieving! Still very bright. Easily as bright as my G/house yet they are what I would call the ''perfect'' colour for this type of Paph. Obviously exremely healthy and prolific. So you CAN have dark green leaves in very good (relatively) bright light and this points more to the nutrition they are getting.

 

[Stone]

yes. Not sure if the formulation is the same, though. I use it < half strength and alternate with kelp.

I have used it but stopped because ther were too many preciptates forming. They should never put Cal nitrate together with the sulphates and Phosphates!!! (which they do!)
Always mix your Cal nitrate seperately then add it to the FINAL solution when completely diluted.

One of these days I'm going to manufacture and market a fertilizer which I actually like. :evil: But its gotta be a 2 part no question!

 

[Bjorn]

I cannot resist:evil:
A couple of years back http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22386 I wrote about my experiences spraying a PEOY With urea. Of course it greened up more or less instantaneously. and I found out that urea easily enters the plant tissue through the epidermis and can therefore by-pass the roots. That is why most foliar feeds are based on urea i recon.
Later, I used K-lite for a year or so, until I realised that the plants were getting sickly yellowish, even though the N-Level was arond 50ppm. Last year I started to mix K-lite with an urea based foliar feed (50:50) the pH was adjusted with citric acid, and things started slowly to green up. Finally, this year (February 2014), I changed to the urea based foliar feed with citric acid and with Ca-nitrate additions. Simultaneously I lowered the fertiliser level to <10ppm of N.
During this time, my plants did not become dark green which I attributed to my light levels.
The change came however once I started to spray my plants with mancozeb and copper in order to get rid of some notorious fungal problems. More or less immediately some plants responded with strong growth and darker foliage. Particularly a compot of randsii; these plants more or less doubled in size (within two months) and the plants turned from yellowish green to dark green. Not all species have responded like that but I have not seen negative effects either.
These observations have made me quite convinced that the micronutrient make up of common fertilisers are inadequate, both proportions (Fe:Zn:Mn:Cu) and quantity. And of course, ammonium-ions are positively chaged and will therefore not become leached easily, as does the negatively charged nitrate ion.

 

[Paul]

Hello Bjorn,

Mancozeb provides high Zn, Mn and also Nitrogen. So very good for greening up plants that suffers deficiency. You will have the same (or probably better) result with kelp extract that is very high in all micronutrients
Paphs (especially multifloral) are known to need high Zn, Mn and Cu (search for Xavier works in the forum)