Since a couple of years MSU fertilysers are the "best seller'' for feeding orchids in general. The composition of this fertilyser has been optimized for Phalaenopsis culture. Is this fertilyser the best for Paphiopedilum and Phragmipedium? I ask this question because we know that slipper orchids are sensitive to fungal and bacterial diseases and that phosphorus and more specifically potassium increase the cells resistance to these two type of attacks. A fertilyser having more phosphorus and more potassium (in comparison with nitrogen) would not be more appropriate? I think a fertiliser like this 10-11-18 of course with calcium and magnesium added.
About fertilysers for Slipper orchids.
- Thread starter Brabantia
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
The original "MSU" fertilizer (Sold under the Greencare brand name) was designed to be used for a mixed collection of orchids, and was not optimized for any one genus.
I didn't know that paphs were particularly susceptible to bacterial and fungal diseases. In fact, mine seem to be generally less effected than other genera in my collection. (They are doing well with the MSU stuff, by the way.)
Increasing the content of phosphorus does nothing beneficial, as most of it remains unused by the plants.
I didn't know that paphs were particularly susceptible to bacterial and fungal diseases. In fact, mine seem to be generally less effected than other genera in my collection. (They are doing well with the MSU stuff, by the way.)
Increasing the content of phosphorus does nothing beneficial, as most of it remains unused by the plants.
E
Ernie
Guest
I agree with Ray. Our slippers have fewer issues than Phals, oncids, catts, zygopetalinae, etc. We use MSU and DynaGro formulas with ProteKt and Peters and a couple different things we got at the pot store and overall our plants seem well nourished. MSU and the similar formulae are our go to feeds. I doubt a tweak in nutrition from our mixed diet would have any noticeable result in a mixed collection, but it all depends on the dynamic of your growing area with your water, mix, etc. As good as the MSU stuff is, I will (probably) never recommend a hobbyist rely on any single fertilizer formula. The unknowns are just too great and time too precious for hobbyists and small commercial growers to properly randomize a study which would take acres and years and a substantial dollar investment to complete properly. Shoot, even within the Paphs, there could be a difference in how species in the different sections utilize nutrients, and a broad scale study like this might logically include something fast-growing like maudiae hybrids.
So, my quick answer is: if it concerns you, or if you notice signs of deficiencies, rotate your fertilizer formulas and feed weakly weekly with a plain water flush once in a while (monthly at least).
So, my quick answer is: if it concerns you, or if you notice signs of deficiencies, rotate your fertilizer formulas and feed weakly weekly with a plain water flush once in a while (monthly at least).
NYEric
Well-Known Member
Pot store!? 
G
goldenrose
Guest
The subject of fertilizers comes up on a regular basis, we seem to rehash previous info. If whatever you're doing & it's working for you, why change it? Hadley Cash was in last month for IOS, he recommended nothing special, whatever is easy to get your hands on. Use a high nitrogen formula during the growing season, switch to a blossom booster in fall and it doesn't hurt to go without a couple of months in the winter.
....K.I.S.S.
....K.I.S.S.
E
Eric Muehlbauer
Guest
Eric....Pot Store is what we call the hydroponics store on Horace Harding in Flushing. Somehow I don't think that orchid growers are the primary customers at a hydroponics store....
E
Ernie
Guest
Yeah, it's a general term for a hydroponics store. Locally, it's Urban Sunshine on University down the street from UCF. Amazing how every college neighborhood has a hydroponics store and a homebrew store! The employees there are most knowledgable about lights, ferilizer, etc.
chrismende
Well-Known Member
I get totally boggled when I look at all the fertilizer choices at my favorite local pot store: PlantItEarth. And they tell me that the DynaGrow and Protekt are the ones orchid growers use most of their selections. They seem to have potions for so many uses. I've been using a Dutch "magic formula" for root growth promotion that may not even list the real ingredients on it's label for the US. MaxSea 13-13-13, Protekt, and the "Roots Excelurator" stuff has been my trio for each fertilizing lately. No controls, though. On my next flask of something not too expensive, I'll do at least a small control group of halves.
Anyone using Kelpak or some other foliar feed?
Oh Tyrone... Now you've done it, and opened another can of worms.
(Hee Hee) I'll start:
In my opinion, foliar feeding of orchids is - relatively speaking - a waste of time.
As they have evolved with a "water retention" strategy:
1) Orchids don't have a lot of leaf stomata compared to terrestrial plants.
2) Most of the stomata tend to be concentrated on the under-sides of the leaves.
3) Many orchids have a "waxy" layer on the leaves to further limit transpiration.
4) CAM plants even close their stomata in the daytime (when we would most likely feed).
I suspect that while there may be some - very limited - benefit to foliar feeding, what we are truly experiencing is fertilizer dripping off of the leaves onto the root system. One plant biologist even told me that plants with "fan structures" are designed to channel liquids down to their centers, where the droplets will coalesce and drip to the roots.
Back to the original fertilizer question - I rank feeding as "non critical" in orchid culture (air- and water management are). Orchids, in general, have more dilute "sap", suggesting a lower demand for the solute ions. Paphs, as I have learned here, are on even the low end of the orchid spectrum when it comes to nutrient demand. While "tweaking" a nutrition program to the species level might result in optimizing everything, it seems to me that if you provide "enough" of everything (macro, minor, and micro), and not "too much" of anything, your plants will do fine.
(Hee Hee) I'll start:
In my opinion, foliar feeding of orchids is - relatively speaking - a waste of time.
As they have evolved with a "water retention" strategy:
1) Orchids don't have a lot of leaf stomata compared to terrestrial plants.
2) Most of the stomata tend to be concentrated on the under-sides of the leaves.
3) Many orchids have a "waxy" layer on the leaves to further limit transpiration.
4) CAM plants even close their stomata in the daytime (when we would most likely feed).
I suspect that while there may be some - very limited - benefit to foliar feeding, what we are truly experiencing is fertilizer dripping off of the leaves onto the root system. One plant biologist even told me that plants with "fan structures" are designed to channel liquids down to their centers, where the droplets will coalesce and drip to the roots.
Back to the original fertilizer question - I rank feeding as "non critical" in orchid culture (air- and water management are). Orchids, in general, have more dilute "sap", suggesting a lower demand for the solute ions. Paphs, as I have learned here, are on even the low end of the orchid spectrum when it comes to nutrient demand. While "tweaking" a nutrition program to the species level might result in optimizing everything, it seems to me that if you provide "enough" of everything (macro, minor, and micro), and not "too much" of anything, your plants will do fine.
NYEric
Well-Known Member
Oh. i was wondering if sloth [weed induced] became legal while I was sleeping that night!
Carper
Well-Known Member
Assuming Ray, that foliar feeding is not much good, you need then to promote root growth. What would be your approach with this and what products do you use?
Gary
UK
Gary
UK
E
Eric Muehlbauer
Guest
I've only heard of foliar feeding with paphs. I had read that the stomata are always open in paphs...which would make foliar feeding seem sensible. That said, I have never done it. Sounds messy to me, since I grow in my home. Maybe it would be more practical in a greenhouse.
I was told the same by Mike Byren, the orchid guru in the local club. He even suggested that the ferts just trickle down eventually to the roots and that is what foliar feeding "looks like" it works.
Never the less, a friend is reporting miraculous results with his Neos using Kelpak and I am eager to see if its true. I will experiment on my Paphs as well while I'm on it... Nothing ventured nothing gained. (And being a bad waterer I will flush the pots clean of ferts on a too regular basis!)
Rick
Well-Known Member
I have a lot of mounted orchids that just get sprayed. Some have lots of exposed roots and some have more leaves than roots, but everything is fair game when watering. These would probably not be practical in your house.
I spend very little time trying to avoid the upper foliage when watering my plants, and I don't always try to soak the pots. But when I first started playing with epsom salts, I was amazed as to how fast the leaves greened up with nothing more than some fast foliage sprays. The amount of material the plants need must be next to nothing to get the effects I've seen with just a small percent getting onto roots and moving up into plants in such short notice if foliar feeding did nothing.
Rick
Well-Known Member
As long as the lights are on the stomata are open on all orchids.
Eric, even with available stomata, I'd still bet that the percentage of uptake via the roots is far greater than that through leaves (hence my statement "relatively speaking..."), and I agree with you that I'd rather not deal with the mineral buildup on the leaves.
Gary:
Promoting root growth? Again, I'll go back to my feeling that a healthy plant is going to be at its "best", and to do that, keep the medium airy and moist, feed adequately, and make the plant comfortable.
I am not a big believer in "booster" products. Yes, the application of rooting hormones can be a benefit, especially if your culture is otherwise lacking, but without a doubt, the biggest boon to root growth I have seen is very old technology transferred to orchid growing: seedllng heat mats.
They were suggested to me as a way to get plants to "convert" more quickly from traditional culture to semi-hydroponics, and in that application (not specifically with paphs), I see plenty of new root growth within 2-3 weeks, as opposed to 6 or 8 without it. Since seeing that, I have expanded it to all repotting. I originally began with a 17W mat that fits nicely in a standard nursery tray, but ended up outfitting a bench in the greenhouse for transplants. They only boost the root zone temperature by 10°-15°F over ambient, but it seems to really add a lot.
Tyrone - Kelpak is a product made from the chemicals extracted from a cold-water kelp, and some of them have long been known to have root growth-stimulating properties, so why not? That doesn't mean that it has to be applied foliarly, does it?
Gary:
Promoting root growth? Again, I'll go back to my feeling that a healthy plant is going to be at its "best", and to do that, keep the medium airy and moist, feed adequately, and make the plant comfortable.
I am not a big believer in "booster" products. Yes, the application of rooting hormones can be a benefit, especially if your culture is otherwise lacking, but without a doubt, the biggest boon to root growth I have seen is very old technology transferred to orchid growing: seedllng heat mats.
They were suggested to me as a way to get plants to "convert" more quickly from traditional culture to semi-hydroponics, and in that application (not specifically with paphs), I see plenty of new root growth within 2-3 weeks, as opposed to 6 or 8 without it. Since seeing that, I have expanded it to all repotting. I originally began with a 17W mat that fits nicely in a standard nursery tray, but ended up outfitting a bench in the greenhouse for transplants. They only boost the root zone temperature by 10°-15°F over ambient, but it seems to really add a lot.
Tyrone - Kelpak is a product made from the chemicals extracted from a cold-water kelp, and some of them have long been known to have root growth-stimulating properties, so why not? That doesn't mean that it has to be applied foliarly, does it?
E
Ernie
Guest
Devil's advocate: if one has a plant with no root system or a compromised one, how would one use kelp extract to stimulate roots other than foliar? :evil:
I'm not saying foliar feeding works or doesn't- i honestly have no idea. I've seen magazine articles (not primary, peer reviewed literature) which say orchid stomata are always open, always closed during the day, they open and close as needed, etc... Alan Koch of Gold Country Orchids insists in his talks that foliar feeding is crucial in his success with catts- he emphasizes that foliar feeds to the leaf undersides is the only way to go. He also says chelated elements (ie those with EDTA, iron is commonly chelated) are too big to make it into stomata.
Truth is, I don't think anyone knows for sure (do they??? please cite primary literature references), so the utility of foliar feeding is speculative. Shoot, orchids are so diverse one genus may do one thing and the next something different. We do know roots take up nutrients. Anyway, when we water, we usually water/fertilize the leaves as well as the pot. Just seems like an okay thing to do.
I'll take my usual stance that... done in moderation with weak solutions it won't hurt. In this case, it may help some. As long as there's not mineral buildup on the leaves, I'd expect no harm. Would I rely on foliar feeding as the sole source for nutrient/supplement delivery? No.
I think the adaptation of leaf structure to funnel water and nutrients to the center of the plant into a favorable drip zone is a super nifty thought. Makes sense functionally, but would be hard to test phylogenetically. Some orchids do "trash basket" their roots by sending them upwards (many Catasetums do this) to catch falling leaves etc which decompose to provide nutrients, no reason the leaves wouldn't serve a similar function... Shoot, plants in the yard seem to catch falling leaves and smaller acorns from the live oaks in the crown. Dang, we need another grad student to look at this...
For the sake of learning....
In my opinion foliar feeding of most plants is beneficial when plants are in artificial growing conditions.
So if they have less ability to absorb nutrients then nutrients should be available more frequently.
And this effects foliar nutrient benefit how? If I foliar feed the undersides of leaves get wet.
Do we know that this waxy coating prevents nutrient absorption?
May a "bio" reverse osmosis membrane?
But nutrients remain on the leaf surface after the water evaporates off so they would be available at night.
I suspect that while there may be some - very limited - benefit to foliar feeding, what we are truly experiencing is fertilizer dripping off of the leaves onto the root system. One plant biologist even told me that plants with "fan structures" are designed to channel liquids down to their centers, where the droplets will coalesce and drip to the roots.
Many (most, all?) orchids with fans have leaves that hang down and actually divert water from the roots. Also most orchids that I have see growing naturally on tree trunks tend to have more of the root system growing UPWARDS and away from the plant base.
I bet growers like Matsui that produce plants by the millions in very short time would disagree with this concept!
Feeding may be something that is secondary if your main goal is to just keep a plant healthy, alive and growing along at a retirement pace. But if you want the the plant to grow at the fastest possible rate and be it the best of physical condition then you must provide all the nutrients it needs to put on bulk.
Or does this suggest a higher demand for a more constant supply?
Low demand compared to what, faster growing species? Because the appear to grow slow does not mean they require less nutrient availability.
Or does it?
Doesn't this paragraph define the MSU fertilizer formula?
For the record I don't "foliar feed". But in reality I always foliar feed because when I do water with or without fertilizer I always wet the leaves.
In my opinion foliar feeding of most plants is beneficial when plants are in artificial growing conditions.
So if they have less ability to absorb nutrients then nutrients should be available more frequently.
And this effects foliar nutrient benefit how? If I foliar feed the undersides of leaves get wet.
Do we know that this waxy coating prevents nutrient absorption?
May a "bio" reverse osmosis membrane?
But nutrients remain on the leaf surface after the water evaporates off so they would be available at night.
I suspect that while there may be some - very limited - benefit to foliar feeding, what we are truly experiencing is fertilizer dripping off of the leaves onto the root system. One plant biologist even told me that plants with "fan structures" are designed to channel liquids down to their centers, where the droplets will coalesce and drip to the roots.
Many (most, all?) orchids with fans have leaves that hang down and actually divert water from the roots. Also most orchids that I have see growing naturally on tree trunks tend to have more of the root system growing UPWARDS and away from the plant base.
I bet growers like Matsui that produce plants by the millions in very short time would disagree with this concept!
Feeding may be something that is secondary if your main goal is to just keep a plant healthy, alive and growing along at a retirement pace. But if you want the the plant to grow at the fastest possible rate and be it the best of physical condition then you must provide all the nutrients it needs to put on bulk.
Or does this suggest a higher demand for a more constant supply?
Low demand compared to what, faster growing species? Because the appear to grow slow does not mean they require less nutrient availability.
Or does it?
Doesn't this paragraph define the MSU fertilizer formula?
For the record I don't "foliar feed". But in reality I always foliar feed because when I do water with or without fertilizer I always wet the leaves.
