What evidence? My seem to be growing better than ever
.
I love this forum and value the input and experiences of all those who post here and I have learned a lot from them. However, I continue to be amazed at the mass conviction, regarding the superior performance of of very low potassium fertilizers. This whole thoery was based on K being in short supply to orchids in the habitat which is just plain incorrect. Everything is in short supply. N and K about the same (more or less) Even if it WAS correct, it makes no difference!
If you have not already done so, I strongly believe that you will (in time) come to realize that there is no scientific or even visual evidence that a 0.008 K/N ratio works any better than a ''normal'' ratio of say 0.8. I just don't get the head in the sand thing.
I recently heard of a Phrag (don't know the variety) with a flower spike which came up to your shoulders (from the ground) It was fed very heavily and constantly with regular fertilizer. Obviously it did not mind potassium! Evidence!
I can also claim that my Phal species ( schilleriana, speciosa, lindenii, philippinensis, amabilis, have never done better. Why? because I feed them at every watering with various fert mixes but always with a 1 to 0.8 N toK ratio and always at an EC of 0.8 d/Sm! Evidence!
When I visit other growers, I always gravitate to their best plants (especially Paphs) and ask what they feed with. I'm sure I don't have to mention their answer. Looking at their plants (usually much better than mine), I fail to see how they can be improved on for vigor, size or colour. Evidence!
The same goes with all of the worlds best orchids. The theory that these magnificent specimen plants will suddenly expire ( Rick's boom and bust) after they have reached their peak is absolute bunkem with no evidence of that whatsoever. No one I know reports it or even mentions it. I certainly have not experienced it. If it was a K related issue then sooner or later all would expire. Evidence!
Another grower had a an old multi growth P armeniacum in a bowl in her shade house. It flowers every year. I counted 5 old flower spikes and 7 growths. She feeds with a standard 10 5 10 type. Evidence!
And yet with all this proof, you (klite users) are led to believe that "No that's all wrong'' Klite is the way. It's a real head scratcher!
What more proof or evidence do you need to finally understand that K is almost never a problem?
If you have observed better growth using klite, I am very pleased but it must be due to some other reason. Something you were doing or not doing previously. Whether its more N or closer observation or better Ca nutrition I don't know, but I can only repeat again and again and again...... it has nothing to do with the low K........because....(stay with me here)......YOU CAN GROW PLANTS OF EQUAL OR BETTER QUALITY WITH MUCH HIGHER K. Just go and look they are everywhere! Tell me that is not true. If you can't, then you will throw away the klite because you are barking up the wrong tree.
Of course you could say that if they are doing better with kilte then you just don't care what is causing the improvement. Absolutely fine. But that is a self limiting point of view. There is plenty of ''evidence'' that it is not the low k that grows good plants.
If you want to grow the best orchids possible why limit yourself to klite? Many users of klite might take this as a personal attack. I hope not because it isn't. I'm simply trying to point out reality which some people refuse to acknowledge.
Down with religion!