Ca and Mg again

[Trithor]

What happened to the Ca/Mg question answer? How did it get back to K again, surely K is not the center of orchid culture, I understand that it is important and obviously somewhat controversial, but surely the other macro/micros are also important?
I think we need to organize a conference on K relating to paph culture, I will bring the beer and wine

 

[gonewild]

What happened to the Ca/Mg question answer?

I think it was answered early in the thread and then the answer was argued about.

I think we need to organize a conference on K relating to paph culture, I will bring the beer and wine

I agree, let's meet at my house. :clap:

 

[gonewild]

In case the original question answer was lost in the K debut.....

Can I supplement Ca and Mg only with Ca nitrate and Mg nitrate for a long time ?

Yes

Can I mix in the same solution, in the right doses of course, Ca nitrate and Mg nitrate?

Yes

Because both (Ca and Mg) are in their nitrate form perhaps I can mix them, I think.

Yes

Can add Ca nitrate and Mg nitrate in Fertilizing solution or I must keep them separate?

Can not mix with phosphate fertilizers in concentrate solutions.
Can mix together in dilute fertilizer solutions.

If I mix them with the fertilizing solution the P precipitate them resulting in P, Ca and Mg deficience?

Yes

 

[Stone]

I think we need to organize a conference on K relating to paph culture

I don't think paphs will turn out to be very different to any other orchid from nutrient-poor environments. And I assume that the nutrients available to all of them are (for our purposes) the same.

 

[Stone]

I think it was answered early in the thread and then the answer was argued about.

What was argued was Rick's claim that if K is given at higher than 10ppm, addition of Ca and Mg is a ''waste of time''. Obviously an inaccurate statement. I think this whole debate has probably been worthwhile because if nothing else it has made some of us take a much closer look at orchid nutrition. However I believe claims such as the one above should not go unchallenged. Don't you Lance?

 

[gonewild]

I don't think paphs will turn out to be very different to any other orchid from nutrient-poor environments. And I assume that the nutrients available to all of them are (for our purposes) the same.

To make that assumption is a mistake. A big part of what causes speciation is differences is adaptation to different nutrient supplies. Each species has a different nutrient requirement. We just don't know what the requirements are so we lump them all together and treat them the same. But that does not make it correct.

Are environments with low nutrient levels "poor"? Or are they perfect and rich in the exact nutrient amounts for the species that grow in them?

 

[SlipperFan]

Orchids had better adapt to our culture, or they die! (I know this all too well!)

 

[Stone]

To make that assumption is a mistake. A big part of what causes speciation is differences is adaptation to different nutrient supplies. Each species has a different nutrient requirement. We just don't know what the requirements are so we lump them all together and treat them the same. But that does not make it correct.

For our purposes.....

Are environments with low nutrient levels "poor"? Or are they perfect and rich in the exact nutrient amounts for the species that grow in them?

Well you can decide that for yourself. However when they are classified, these ecosytems are designated nutrient poor when compared to other places such as lowland equatorial Africa for example. Usually the higher up you go, the less fertile the environment.

 

[Ray]

Orchids had better adapt to our culture, or they die! (I know this all too well!)

That's my philosophy!

 

[gonewild]

What was argued was Rick's claim that if K is given at higher than 10ppm, addition of Ca and Mg is a ''waste of time''. Obviously an inaccurate statement. I think this whole debate has probably been worthwhile because if nothing else it has made some of us take a much closer look at orchid nutrition. However I believe claims such as the one above should not go unchallenged. Don't you Lance?

I don't see Ricks claim as inaccurate. Addition of extra Ca and Mg under high K levels will not give any additional benefit to the plant. So it could be considered as a waste of time, or more accurately a waste of fertilizer or a waste of effort in thinking the addition will correct some problem.....which would be a waste of time.

I think it is always good to challenge an unproven concept. But low K levels are proving to be very effective as Rick has published. So to challenge the statement you need some argument other than just sticking to outdated published knowledge. Recognize that there is a huge amount of unpublished knowledge about plant nutrition that is not available to the general public via the internet.

But yes challenge is appropriate....if you are correct....which you are not.
:wink:

 

[gonewild]

Orchids had better adapt to our culture, or they die! (I know this all too well!)

oke:
Would it not be better to adapt our culture to their needs?
(So they will live)

Orchids and plants are kept as pets and deserve at least the same respect as a dog. :sob:

 

[gonewild]

Well you can decide that for yourself. However when they are classified, these ecosytems are designated nutrient poor when compared to other places such as lowland equatorial Africa for example. Usually the higher up you go, the less fertile the environment.

The people that defined the classes got it wrong.
Poor implies something bad or undesirable.
Infertile implies that things grow poorly.

The high elevations in the Andes may have low nutrient levels but the plant growth is not poor it is rich. The environments may be poor when it comes to what it can produce for humans but when it comes to species that evolved there it is not poor at all.

This debut will just go on and on. I have decided for myself and know very well that there have been problems with orchid nutrition since the beginning. Probably the only aspect of orchid nutrition that no one ever considered previously is Ricks low K theory. It is proving to be an advancement in our understanding about orchid nutrition and how the plants diet effects plant health. And I mean plant health not plant beauty.
I'm more interested in the reports about K-lite grown plants not getting sick than about how fast they grow or how many blooms they have.

Yes you can add more Calcium and Magnesium, but do you need to?

 

[Stone]

Recognize that there is a huge amount of unpublished knowledge about plant nutrition that is not available to the general public via the internet.

But yes challenge is appropriate....if you are correct....which you are not.
:wink:

I'ts obviously pointless to continue

 

[gonewild]

I'ts obviously pointless to continue

Finally you get the point.

 

[Stone]

Finally you get the point.

We are forever greatful for having been removed from the dark potting shed and shown the lichen encrusted grail of truth.

We drink the bacterial soup from the grail and prostrate ourselves in the magnificent brightness of your supreme intuitive wisdom of the emerald forest.

Forgive us our wrongness-ness oh great mossy one! :rollhappy:

 

[gonewild]

We are forever greatful for having been removed from the dark potting shed and shown the lichen encrusted grail of truth.

We drink the bacterial soup from the grail and prostrate ourselves in the magnificent brightness of your supreme intuitive wisdom of the emerald forest.

Forgive us our wrongness-ness oh great mossy one! :rollhappy:

Hmmm, and I thought you might have a tiny speck of knowledge that would prove me wrong. But alas, no speck.

 

[Stone]

Hmmm, and I thought you might have a tiny speck of knowledge that would prove me wrong. But alas, no speck.

Well lets look at your claims then.

Your contention: Orchids get most of their N from N fixing bacteria.

*A quick google search found: Quote ''The trasnfer of nitrogen from bacteria to orchid roots has not been shown'' (Dressler and Sinclair 1990) So at the moment, pure speculation on your part.

Your contention: Potassium may be toxic to these bacteria in a greenhouse environment when given high concentrations of K

*There is absolutely no evidence of this anywhere I have looked. There is however evidence that micorrhiza inocculation is NOT affected by K. So at the moment, pure speculation on your part.

Your contention: The "fact'' that orchids obtain most of their N from N fixing endophytic bacteria shows that we should adjust K down and/or N up to bring the N/K ratio more in line with what nature is providing. Just as K-lite does.

*For the sake of argument, let us assume you are correct about the above. You have failed to provide any evidence showing that the N available to orchids at more than 10 times the K as is the ratio in K-lite.
So at the moment, pure specuulation on your part.


Yes I can't prove you are wrong but the fact that you continue make claims based on your ''gut feel'' without evidence is preposterous. Also, you say that the ''real'' knowledge of orchid nutrition cannot be found on the internet and it is up to growers to come up with the the answer, yet you continually post page after page of litterature from the web in an attempt to back up your claims however so far you have completely failed.

It's fine to speculate Lance but don't try pass speculation off as reality until you can prove it.

Some fun things for you to prove: (a recap)

*Orchids get most of their N from N fixing bacteria which is not shown in Stemflow figures.
*K in regular fertilizer concentrations is toxic to the above bacteria
*The N available to orchids in the habitat is 10 times the K.

 

[SlipperFan]

oke:
Would it not be better to adapt our culture to their needs?
(So they will live)

Orchids and plants are kept as pets and deserve at least the same respect as a dog. :sob:

Seriously, though, I cannot provide a cliff with constantly running water for my Phrags, or always the optimum natural temperatures for all my Paphs. I do the best I can, and hope they can adapt to what I can provide them. All this discussion/argument about nutrients doesn't give all the different orchids I have any more hope of survival than what is the best I can do.

But have at it!

 

[gonewild]

Well lets look at your claims then.

Your contention: Orchids get most of their N from N fixing bacteria.

Is that what I said?

*A quick google search found: Quote ''The trasnfer of nitrogen from bacteria to orchid roots has not been shown'' (Dressler and Sinclair 1990) So at the moment, pure speculation on your part.

Nor has it been dis-proven to be true so this does not prove my statements are not correct. Yes speculation on my part based on unpublished research.

Your contention: Potassium may be toxic to these bacteria in a greenhouse environment when given high concentrations of K

*There is absolutely no evidence of this anywhere I have looked. There is however evidence that micorrhiza inocculation is NOT affected by K. So at the moment, pure speculation on your part.

Show me something that proves me wrong, look further. Since you reference "evidence" please provide a link or source of the evidence.

Your contention: The "fact'' that orchids obtain most of their N from N fixing endophytic bacteria shows that we should adjust K down and/or N up to bring the N/K ratio more in line with what nature is providing. Just as K-lite does.

I have never mentioned endohytic bacteria.

*For the sake of argument, let us assume you are correct about the above. You have failed to provide any evidence showing that the N available to orchids at more than 10 times the K as is the ratio in K-lite.

I failed to show what?

So at the moment, pure specuulation on your part.

Yes pure speculation on my part. That is what I have been doing with orchids of the last 50 years...speculating on how they grow.

I believe what I have said is that when K levels are "high" in growing media the micro organisms may be reduced and thus nutrient levels are reduced. That reduction forces the application of even greater amounts of nutrients in fertilizer to compensate. The use of greater amounts of nutrients encourages more rapid growth and uptake of excessive amounts of nutrients. Excessive nutrient uptake becomes unhealthy for the plants metabolism and although it appears the plant is growing well in fact it is feeding itself towards a short lifespan.

Yes I can't prove you are wrong but the fact that you continue make claims based on your ''gut feel'' without evidence is preposterous.

What do you base your evaluation of my "gut feel" onto say it is preposterous? Do you have any knowledge of what I know or what research I have conducted in my 50 years growing orchids?
What are you basing your position on? As I recall when you joined the forum you said you had very little experience growing Paphs and now you are giving advice on how to fertilize them, I find that preposterous! My position is that my "gut" feeling is very good when it comes to growing orchids and not preposterous.

Also, you say that the ''real'' knowledge of orchid nutrition cannot be found on the internet and it is up to growers to come up with the the answer, yet you continually post page after page of litterature from the web in an attempt to back up your claims however so far you have completely failed.

You are wrong on this point. I have not posted page after page of literature attempting to back up my point. There is no literature about my point. What links I have provided are for you to use to prove me wrong however so far you have completely failed.

The fact is that K-lite fertilizer is having positive results for growers who use it correctly. Low K levels are proving to be more beneficial than high K levels. My gut feeling is that there is a reason for the improved growth with reduced K levels even though that idea is contrary to published research.

Back to Ca and Mg.... I know from experience that adding Ca and Mg when NPK levels are low has a much greater effect than when NPK levels are high. I never could find a reason why until now, it is not the NPK levels but rather likely only the K level. So when Rick advises the OP that adding Ca and Mg is a waste of time if K levels are high he is correct. If you can't prove low K is wrong then don't launch a challenge when someone else recommends it.

At this point there is evidence that low K benefits plant health and zero evidence that low K hurts plant health.

I won't argue about this anymore.

 

[gonewild]

Seriously, though, I cannot provide a cliff with constantly running water for my Phrags, or always the optimum natural temperatures for all my Paphs. I do the best I can, and hope they can adapt to what I can provide them. All this discussion/argument about nutrients doesn't give all the different orchids I have any more hope of survival than what is the best I can do.

But have at it!

:sob:
You hit the nail on the head. Because an orchid collection has so many different species and each has it's own unique needs there is no way to satisfy all.
Since you can't provide a cliff with running water you need to find the best substitute. Finding the best average nutrient level that should satisfy the majority of the species should be easy. But it requires trial and error.

All current orchid fertilizers are based on old basic knowledge about plant nutrition. Nothing has really changed in 40 years except the labels and addition of "new" formulas that promise faster, bigger, better growth. Almost all are only based on companies marketing targets and not based on what grows better plants. The K-lite low K fertilizer is the only drastic new formula and it is not based on market need or just something to fill a new package shape. No one involved with the creation of it is going to make a profit from it. It is not based on research done by a fertilizer company but rather an avid orchid hobbyist that happens to be a knowledgeable biologist (or some kind of "ist")(sorry Rick). So we get to erase the suspicion about the new fertilizer only being a market ploy.

I bet the folks at Peters don't even know what a Phrag is much less how to provide the nutrients it needs when there is no cliff with running water! Now growers have taken some control over their own nutrients for their collections based on what works best not what sells the best.

I had a plan to make nutrient tests on wild orchids here in Peru to try to find proof one way or the other about the low K theory. But standing looking at a million orchid plants covering the trees and hill sides and then turning around and seeing more growing on rock faces and even on the old concrete bridge rail I realized it was impossible.
There is no way that all of those plants growing in all those different conditions could possible all be getting the same ratios of nutrients.

I sat down and tried to figure out how to test the variable and realized it is not possible to have a complete answer. perhaps that is why there are no published papers on the subject. but if there is someday something published I have doubt about how accurate it will be.

And then thrown in all the rest of the planets orchids that we keep all mixed together and you have an even bigger impossibility. Rick based his low K idea on his environmental work down with potassium and not published papers about orchid nutrition. He looked for published work to support the idea but found very little and certainly none that prove the theory. But it gave a justified starting point for a new improved fertilizer formula. Growers are trying it and it is working.

It seems that having a low K nutrient level may help make up for the lack of a wet cliff or optimal temperature. That is based on grower tests and not science but it seems to be working anyway.

Speaking about optimum temperature oke: ( I think you mentioned it).
During the last few years before we left California I tried to figure out if I could grow Phrags and Paphs on our outside deck during the winter. Temperature never quite gets to freezing but often down to the high 30's. For several years all paphs died quickly and the only phrag to survive almost all winter was a besseae. I was careful not to let them be too wet and fertilized with MSU as always.The last winter we were there I put out more of the same paph hybrids and three P.kovachii. This time I fertilized with the new K-lite and this time I watered them way too much, let them be wet at night and mistreated them badly. Surprisingly they actually continued to grow and not rot or collapse from the cold as the previous years. They did not grow fast or much but I could tell they were active growing. They did not suffer until the temp dropped low enough to form frost crystals on the leaves. I just poured on K-lite water to warm them up.... they did not die from the cold or wet. By the end of winter all plants were still alive. Most of the paph roots had died but the plant growth were still alive. The kovachii came through in better shape. But they survived the winter outside. That proved to me that the low K theory is valid. The use of K-lite increased the plants stamina and gave them better health that enabled them to withstand the cold temperatures that previously killed plants grown on a diet of MSU.

No I did not do a formal trial with controls but I did repeat the process until I found something that caused a difference. I attribute the plants survival of less than optimum temperatures to the low potassium of K-lite. So based on this experience alone I feel it is justifiable to recommend the use of K-lite if plant stamina and long term health is a desired result. If you want to grow bigger plants faster then force them with MSU at 200ppm but be prepared for health issues latter in life and be prepared for some species types to get sick and die and early death.

Maybe, just maybe K-lite is a wet cliff in shinning armor?

All any orchid will ever ask of you is that you do the best you can do! :noangel:

I'm done.