Culture document

[Paul]

It's not to criticize, Xavier, as there are very interesting things that you have put together with many explanations and some receipes.

I have a few things to comment. First about the size of the plants that can be way bigger in the wild than in cultivation (for example randsii or anitum as you wrote). Well, there are surely cultural issues that can explain that, such as "why would it grow better with ferns in the medium than without it?". There something missing I guess to explain if you're right. Also, don't forget that in the wild these plants are, I would say, under 95+ shade, into deep, very humid forest. So leaves should be very big and very dark to compensate the lack of light. when grown brighter, leaves will be smaller but plants still can grow and bloom if the growing environnemnt is good (medium, water, humidity, temperatures).
Also, you're growing in Vietnam so you have to grow what you call "deep shade" but in Northern countries the light is not so strong so we better grow under "medium light", that's about 70-80% sahde in summer, and can be as low as 50% shade in winter, to me.

About the media potting, you're saying almost none of them are really suitable for growing Paphs except Orchiata and a few other hard to fin things like ferns. that may be true, except that many (most) growers are doing very well for years (or even decades!) with French pine bark or CHC for example. Maybe it depends on the preparation and the mix itself, and also their watering method.

Finally, I would say thank you for making me asking questions about culture and especially showing that sometimes, the plant is not the problem (about the hard growing plants), but it just can be how we grow it...

And please, when you have time, show us a few photos of the plants like wentworthianum or anitum or intaniae ... to show us it's possible to have them well grown.

 

[reivilos]

Indeed. I wouldn't mind seeing a few pics...

 

[Hakone]

A picture is worth a thousand words .

 

[Stone]

How long would you be scared? I'm up to 2 years of this system on some very big plants (multiple genera). No losses and they keep getting bigger.:wink:

About the low K thing.
Just a couple of points:
It would be interesting to see/hear from someone using the klite with totally inert media like clay balls or rockwool for a couple of years. If the plants are doing well, then the leaf analysis will show normal K levels which means the plant is still able to uptake enough even from the meager amount offered.
IF you have moss or chc etc in your media, its possible that increasing amounts are held (electrally) from previous feedings.(nitrate and P will be leached out)
But from all the literature I have, I still see no real reason to offer such low amounts of K. After countless experiments, optimum levels are continually found to be in the range of 0.9 to 1.5 K/N ratio. (meaning lower levels reduced growth) and up to 2.0 in very low light situations to counter leaf etiolation.
My information says ''There is NO SUCH THING as K toxicity'' and that feeding too much K will ONLY lead to Mg deficiency if not enough is applied. It doesn't even mention Ca. Apparently Ca deficieny is extreamly rare if your pH is above about 5.7. Also, Luxury accumulations of K are quickly used when the plant flowers when we should hold off on the feeding anyway as there is little activity from the rest of the plant.

 

[Rick]

About the low K thing.
Just a couple of points:
It would be interesting to see/hear from someone using the klite with totally inert media like clay balls or rockwool for a couple of years.

Like that Phrag longifolium I posted last week. Definitely not on the verge of death. Just keeps getting bigger and better.

 

[Rick]

My information says ''There is NO SUCH THING as K toxicity'' and that feeding too much K will ONLY lead to Mg deficiency

By definition antagonism is a form of toxicity.

And yes I have papers from the agricultural community for both rice and cotton that show that excess K causes antagonism of Ca and Mg.

 

[Rick]

My information says .

Your information is apparently very limited.

But I have yet to see any litterature demonstrating that orchids ever see 100ppm soluble K in the wild, and you have supplied us with with 2 sources that showed that orchids in the wild generally contain higher Ca than K in their tissues (unless they are ant fed).

Your Zotz article was very telling in that respect. The orchid species recycled (by direct reabsorption) about 45% of the K in their leaves during seinesence, while less than 1/2 that of Ca and Mg. That tells you right there, that K is at a premium to obtain while Ca and Mg are plentiful to waste.

 

[Rick]

It would be interesting to see/hear from someone using the klite with totally inert media like clay balls or rockwool for a couple of years. If the plants are doing well, then the leaf analysis will show normal K levels which means the plant is still able to uptake enough even from the meager amount offered

Ray is growing mostly SH in inert media.

So far he is pleased, although I don't think up to a full two years yet.

Maybe ST could fund the leaf tissue research?

 

[SlipperFan]

ST has money???

 

[Rick]

ST has money???

I know we periodically run fund raisers to pay for the website.

However lab work isn't free either.

 

[Stone]

By definition antagonism is a form of toxicity.

No... toxicity is damage caused by specific ions. If antagonism by K leads to deficiency in Mg and Ca, this is also not toxicity. As I said, countless trials have not found Mg or Ca deficiency from K ratios at at 1.5 to 2 times N. Most orchids have been grown well for decades with those ratios so where is all the antagonism? What are you seeing now that you didn't see before klite? or, What are you not seeing now that you saw before klite? What am I missing?

 

[Stone]

Like that Phrag longifolium I posted last week. Definitely not on the verge of death. Just keeps getting bigger and better.

This paph (many years old) is also getting bigger and better and fed with the ''normal'' K levels. So how would Klike help this plant? What would happen to it? My feeling is there would be not much difference in the short term and in the long term possibly K deficiency (but possibly not) so whats the point? I still have trouble seeing the point.

 

[Ozpaph]

wish all my paphs had roots like that!!!

 

[Rick]

No... toxicity is damage caused by specific ions.

Afraid you are talking to a professional toxicologist, and antagonism is just one of a myriad forms/causes/mechanisms of "toxicity".

 

[Rick]

Most orchids have been grown well for decades with those ratios so where is all the antagonism?
What am I missing?

Most is probably the key word here. Even Xaviar would agree that MOST of the billions of orchids either brought into culture or seedlings started from flask are in that great compost bin in the sky. Not monster specimen plants like in your GH.

The point of his article and many others brought up in the last few days are about how to grow something that has historically had very poor success rates.

We all have our handful of individual successes, but collectively they represent a tiny fraction of all the attempts that are either dead or look like crap.

Did you miss Xavier's comments about how much bigger and better wild plants look than cultivated plants? Did you miss all his other posts about how many millions of collected plants and captive propagated plants crap out before reaching blooming size (let alone the stray specimen)?

Did you miss the "tombstones" thread that showed everyone's handfuls of old plant tags from lost specimens. Or have you missed the random comments like "your a newbie until you've killed your ____ (fill in age, weight, ...huge number) of orchids.

I'm proposing that a good place to see "all that antagonism" is the 99% of orchids that never made it to specimen status.

Too me that's what Most would include as success.

 

[Rick]

About the low K thing.

After countless experiments, optimum levels are continually found to be in the range of 0.9 to 1.5 K/N ratio.

Where are all these countless experiments (with orchids)? I found a few short term trials with hybrid phales. And rarely if did they account for Ca and Mg.

Nature is the best long term trial and I only found a small minority of cases where wild orchids had access to K higher than Ca, and actually accumulated more K than Ca.

 

[Cheyenne]

For years I used reg fert with reg K levels(and I am back to it now) and when I would supplement with calcium and magnesium I could tell a real difference in the plants and the growths. When I wouldn't use them for a while I would notice. So at regular K levels it does not seem that calcium and magnesium were blocked by K.
I think with K-lite plants might do good because of the increased calcium and magnesium, but I don't see why they can't get that with normal K levels. At a certain point the potting mix can get saturated with K, other salts and minerals. But if you balance fertilizer rates, watering/flushing and repotting like has been recommended by a lot of good growers you should not have a problem. I have seen some amazing plants brought in to our meetings year after year that keep getting bigger and bigger. Some in coconut husk, some bark, some moss but most of them feed with a balanced fertilizer. Alot of the people in my orchid society use RO water and swear by a 20-20-20 or a bloom booster. I don't think that is the best way to go or agree with it but there is no doubt that their plants are great year after year.

 

[Rick]

This paph (many years old) is also getting bigger and better and fed with the ''normal'' K levels. So how would Klike help this plant? What would happen to it? My feeling is there would be not much difference in the short term and in the long term possibly K deficiency (but possibly not) so whats the point? I still have trouble seeing the point.

You never know, I have long term plants that I thought couldn't get any better too. But I was wrong. They actually got bigger and better. And with less input all the way around.

Xavier is still using a relatively high amount of K (and N for that matter). It doesn't sound like he's cranking out anything better than anyone else, still having trouble with the same old "tough" species, and is pouring pesticides, fungicides, and other 'cides' all over the place to do the same thing I'm doing with one simple deficient fertilizer program with no prophylactic chemical treatments.

The point is less is more.

 

[Rick]

I have seen some amazing plants brought in to our meetings year after year that keep getting bigger and bigger.

How many members bring their dead, dying, and sick plants in for show and tell?

When was the last time you asked how many plants they pitched over the last ten years. How many have actually tried to raise orchids from flask, and have the bulk of the flask make it to bloom?

We selectively grow stuff that accepts what we throw at it. If it does great we show it off. If it dies we come up with a handful of excuses like hot/cold/dry/wet/CHC/bark/SH/didn't repot/potted to much/disease/... and then we move on to the next victim. Many of us have at least as many failures as we have success. Some of us may have gone through 10 or more dead plants to get that one nice specimen. Many of us give up and just do something that's easy and works.

Low K is what shook out of a huge informal ANOVA of the above culture complaints, excuses, and field data.

Large amounts of K is the single most obvious nutrition discrepancy between what we consistently inflict on our chids that their wild counterparts don't have to deal with.

 

[Rick]

For years I used reg fert with reg K levels(and I am back to it now) and when I would supplement with calcium and magnesium I could tell a real difference in the plants and the growths. When I wouldn't use them for a while I would notice. So at regular K levels it does not seem that calcium and magnesium were blocked by K.
I think with K-lite plants might do good because of the increased calcium and magnesium, but I don't see why they can't get that with normal K levels. At a certain point the potting mix can get saturated with K, other salts and minerals. But if you balance fertilizer rates, watering/flushing and repotting like has been recommended by a lot of good growers you should not have a problem. I have seen some amazing plants brought in to our meetings year after year that keep getting bigger and bigger. Some in coconut husk, some bark, some moss but most of them feed with a balanced fertilizer. Alot of the people in my orchid society use RO water and swear by a 20-20-20 or a bloom booster. I don't think that is the best way to go or agree with it but there is no doubt that their plants are great year after year.

Now both of us are relative newbies compared to one old lady in our society. She's been growing orchids since the late 50's not only is that before RO, but she has NEVER applied fertilizer to her plants. She even ran a cut flower corsage business in the 60's with 7 operating GH's. She never fertilized, and waters with well water from her place on Horse mountain TN (near Shelbyville) this is the same stuff she drinks, so it can't have "normal" amounts of NPK in it. She has plants that have busted out of their pots and grown into the benches (so they can't be repotted). She often has to get a couple of guys to help her get stuff out of the GH to bring to shows they are so big. She doesn't spray insectides/fungicides.

So what is the advantage of feeding a ton of fertilizer, and then having to change the potting mix every year, and add chemicals for disease and pest control?