Culture document

[Rick]

insigne. And its been sitting in water for the past 3 months! insigne is a water plant:evil:

And the roots didn't rot!!

Another generalized myth of paph growing busted.:clap:

 

[katzenhai2]

Roots only rot if anerobic conditions are present.The roots of paphs don't need "air"... but a healthy soil condition which can only be applied when no anerobic conditions exceeding.

Rick, you are selling K-lite so I think you have a biased opinion. The main problem with discussions about paph culture are the completely different conditions they are growing in our homes. Most people want them to grow on the window sill - some people live in higher humidity conditions than others. There are thousands of substrates you can grow paphs in. When people are ready to grow them in a standarized format (and not forcing paphs to grow in their conditions) the main problem of ill and dying paphs will be resolved.

Either you are using some astounding inventions to grow them extremely well or you need a science labor with standarized conditions to make some steps forward. Telling anyone K-less fertilizer will solve peoples problems on paph culture is misleading at most.

 

[Rick]

Rick, you are selling K-lite so I think you have a biased opinion.
.

I do not sell, manufacture, distribute, or otherwise profit in any way from Klite. (Other than my plant mortality costs are reduced):wink:.
Actually I had to pay for my own that Ray got GreenCare to make.


I also don't grow orchids for sale.

I came up with the low K concept based on years of observation of the orchid growing community, my own personal growing experiences of 12 years, review of crop agriculture science, and research of the ecology of orchids.

Although K lite is a product, it is also short hand for "low K high Ca/Mg feeding", which is really what I came up with. (I also do not make revenue from the concept)

First Rays in collaboration with several members of this site formulated "K'lite".

There are presently over 90 users of K lite world wide, and uncounted numbers of individuals using low K formulations of either mine or their own design. My "bias" is based on results not profit.

 

[Rick]

or you need a science labor with standarized conditions to make some steps forward.

Low K for orchids is also a spin-off from my professional work as a toxicologist.

I've spent the last 6 years researching (hands on in laboratory trials) the toxicology of potassium to freshwater mussels, and almost 3 years looking at the toxicity of salts to wild rice.

Admittedly no direct "double blind" ultra controlled lab studies on orchids (especially species orchids) but no one else has either, which doesn't seem to stop the from expounding all kinds of advice on orchid nutrition.

As I mentioned previously, I have funneled a lot of data through an informal ANOVA (that's Analysis of Variance) that is a method of sifting through huge piles of apparently random data to look for commonalities. I didn't just make this up overnight from a dream.

 

[cnycharles]

also, the present k-lite fertilizer formulation is just a step forwards from a big pile of really previously untested fertilizing regimes.

it's true that some growers are able to grow great plants without fertilizing (not me) and others have been able to grow great plants just by throwing on whatever fertilizer happened to be around, but I know that when I remember to fertilize my plants, they have responded positively to the k-lite fertilizer

it was pointed out above that 'the problem with paph culture was all the different conditions people try to grow them in'.... though that does present a problem, the main problem is that all of the paph species are not one species of bluegrass...... they are dozens of different plants that grow in very different areas. just sticking them into one pot with one cultural practice is not going to make them all grow happily. trying to find the magic bullet is unreasonable

 

[emydura]

My advice to the skeptics, and anyone for that matter, is if you are really happy with the way you are growing your plants, then keep doing what you are doing and don't change. If it ain't broke then don't fix it. However, if you are like me and know that you were growing your plants totally crap, then you would be wise to look at the low K method.

Before implementing the low K fertiliser regime my plants grew poorly. Many had not grown at all (or even gone backwards). Plants I had had for the best part of 10 years had never advanced. Those that were going ok were never reaching their potential. I would get divisions from nurseries and my follow up growths would never get close in size to the ones I received. My plants were flowering on small growths, many prematurely. My flower counts were low on my multi's. I was having a lot of trouble getting my plants to multiply. Generally a growth would only initiate one new growth not two or more, hence a lot of my plants would not form large clumps.

Since changing my fertiliser to one with low K and high in Mg and Ca, the improvement in my plants has been amazing. Plants that had never grown in a decade suddenly took off. The leaves got bigger. Significantly they got much wider. I'm starting to get higher flower counts in my multi's. My plants are initiating a lot more new growths. My charselworthii which had never had more than one new growth at a time in 10 years, has initaited a 2nd new growth for the first time. Overall, my plants just look bigger, stronger and healthier. I have been growing Paphs for more than 10 years now, and for the very first time, I am really happy with the way they are growing.

No one will convince me in a million years that fertiliser is unimportant. More than any other variable, getting the fertiliser right has resulted in the biggest improvement in my plants. And I owe it all to Rick. If he was here in front of me, I would kiss him.

 

[katzenhai2]

I do not sell, manufacture, distribute, or otherwise profit in any way from Klite.

Ouch. You are right. Well... Ray ... Rick... :crazy:
Excuse my mistake!

It shouldn't be hard to get a bunch of paph seedlings of different species and try a product like K-lite and some usual fertilizer and see if there is a difference and how big it is. Anything else without photo proof (where anyone can see a difference quite clearly) is a belief or science mockup.

but I know that when I remember to fertilize my plants, they have responded positively to the k-lite fertilizer

How have they responded "positively"?

Since changing my fertiliser to one with low K and high in Mg and Ca, the improvement in my plants has been amazing. Plants that had never grown in a decade suddenly took off. The leaves got bigger. Significantly they got much wider. I'm starting to get higher flower counts in my multi's. My plants are initiating a lot more new growths. My charselworthii which had never had more than one new growth at a time in 10 years, has initaited a 2nd new growth for the first time. Overall, my plants just look bigger, stronger and healthier. I have been growing Paphs for more than 10 years now, and for the very first time, I am really happy with the way they are growing.

I'm really interested in your conditions to grow paphs. What fertilizer you used before? Which substrate? Do you grow on a window sill or in GH? Humidity? Temperature throughout the year?
Because if a low-K fertilizer improved your growing situation I'm all eager to understand in a practical way why when others see only minor or no benefit. Beyond scientific background what "could" be the reason here.

 

[billc]

I don't know if I'd kiss Rick, but I'd certainly give him a great big bear hug.
I don't pretend to understand half of the scientific terminology he gets into, but the result of the experiments speak for themselves. Changing to the low K formulation has been a boon to my culture. I was using MSU and my plants were surviving. Changing to the low K and reducing the TDS to 50 has made my plants actually grow.
I even started putting some plants into baskets. Now if I could only find a neighbor with a limestone driveway.

Bill

 

[emydura]

I'm really interested in your conditions to grow paphs. What fertilizer you used before? Which substrate? Do you grow on a window sill or in GH? Humidity? Temperature throughout the year?
Because if a low-K fertilizer improved your growing situation I'm all eager to understand in a practical way why when others see only minor or no benefit. Beyond scientific background what "could" be the reason here.

I used a few different ones over the years - MSU, Nitrosol, Aquasol. All high in K. I mostly use bark as my substrate. I did experiment with CHC for a period but went back to bark. I grow in a glasshouse. My humidity is generally above 50%, often above 65%. I have a fogger with a humidistat which automatically comes on when the humidity drops. The minimum temperature in my glasshouse is 16oC.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that others are seeing little or no benefit. A lot of people have only just started using it. Of those who have reported back have mostly been positive about low K. People will see different levels of improvement based on the fertilisers they used previously. If you previously used a fertiliser that was high K and had little or no Mg and Ca (which is common in a lot of fertilisers) then you will likely see a greater level of improvement.

 

[Stone]

I would get divisions from nurseries and my follow up growths would never get close in size to the ones I received.

David, Look at what you wrote here. To me that is pretty solid proof that it wasn't the low K that did the trick but some other aspect of your culture. The large plants you recieved were grown with standard high K formulations (unless by some freak chance those growers discovered the low K thing at the same time) yet they went downhill when they came into your hands UNTIL you swiched fertilizer. Why??.... They probably responded to the new formulation of N or something else (any number of things) You can't put down to the low K, plants that got back up to the original size when originally they where not fed low K. The increased (balancing) Ca/Mg. level - maybe. The higher Ammonium - maybe. Closer attention to detail -maybe, but not the lower K by itself.

 

[gonewild]

I'm really interested in your conditions to grow paphs. What fertilizer you used before? Which substrate? Do you grow on a window sill or in GH? Humidity? Temperature throughout the year?
Because if a low-K fertilizer improved your growing situation I'm all eager to understand in a practical way why when others see only minor or no benefit. Beyond scientific background what "could" be the reason here.

All of these questions are well document here in various threads. Search the forum and read about Rick's and others backgrounds and conditions.

The K-lite use is an experiment that is fairly well organized and with some controls. NO, the results won't be accepted by "science" because most of the growers doing the tests are "laypersons".
BUT the results actually have a far greater value than if done in a single scientific trial. Personally I value the opinions of ST members about how K-lite affected their collections far more than a trial done at a university by professional scientists who no nothing about growing "orchids" in a long term collection.

 

[katzenhai2]

and reducing the TDS to 50 has made my plants actually grow

Have you used a higher TDS than 50 before? How high was it?

My humidity is generally above 50%, often above 65%.

Effective humidity (opening of stomata) for paphs starts at 65% up to 80%.

Of those who have reported back have mostly been positive about low K. [...] If you previously used a fertiliser that was high K and had little or no Mg and Ca (which is common in a lot of fertilisers) then you will likely see a greater level of improvement.

Sure it could be that the no present Mg and Ca has some meaning because it has an effect on the pH of the substrate in the long run - a benefit for paphs. The same could be done with lime powder. Also people who see no results most often don't reflect their expertience - because with no effect there is nothing to tell about.

 

[Stone]

BUT the results actually have a far greater value than if done in a single scientific trial. Personally I value the opinions of ST members about how K-lite affected their collections far more than a trial done at a university by professional scientists who no nothing about growing "orchids" in a long term collection.

With all due respect Lance how could you say thet you would take the results of such a huge range of people growing plants in a huge range of ways and a vast variety of substrates over a controlled trial where every possible variable is taken into account? Maybe we should do away with all the Labs and just take a survey when we need to determine the factsoke:

 

[emydura]

David, Look at what you wrote here. To me that is pretty solid proof that it wasn't the low K that did the trick but some other aspect of your culture. The large plants you recieved were grown with standard high K formulations (unless by some freak chance those growers discovered the low K thing at the same time) yet they went downhill when they came into your hands UNTIL you swiched fertilizer. Why??.... They probably responded to the new formulation of N or something else (any number of things) You can't put down to the low K, plants that got back up to the original size when originally they where not fed low K. The increased (balancing) Ca/Mg. level - maybe. The higher Ammonium - maybe. Closer attention to detail -maybe, but not the lower K by itself.

I haven't changed anything else in the last few years. Just the fertiliser. At the end of the day, it is all about increasing the levels of Mg and Ca. I have done that as well as greatly reduce the K at the same time. I have also changed to using a foliar fertiliser a lot and also used the Magamp hose attachment so that I fertilise and water at the same time. So I have changed a few things at once so it is difficult to exactly pinpoint the cause. In the end I think it is the plants greater ability to access Ca and Mg that has seen an improvement in my Paphs. So I disagree strongly with your repeated statement that fertiliser is unimportant. Irrespective of whether you think it is low K or not, it is fertiliser that has turned my plants around.

 

[cnycharles]

If someone wants to be a skeptic, then it's fine with me. I don't feel the need to rehash my growing and changes to growing and list what 'better' means. I've grown lots of plants in the last recent times, so there definite has been a positive change, if you would like to read up on what we have already seen and discussed you could check out the klite threads

There is no single thing that will work for any class of orchids in a sweeping way. For people having a problem with their plants and growth, it's been strongly suggested to try a fertilizer form that is what is presently called klite. This has happened because many have been searching for many years to find a fertilizer that works for a broad range of an orchid collection. Less recent tries with horticultural types of mixes work for some but fail for others. If you have a problem, then try something. If it works, let us know all of what you did. If it doesn't work, then tell us also all of what you did. People are going to be trying different things all the time, they won't stop because you are skeptical. It is far easier to jump up and down and say 'you are wrong, this doesn't work', than to try something and relate how it does or doesn't work.

One point I was going to point out in my first post, was that this klite trial is a beginning, of a work in progress. I'm sure that most here understand that it will take more time to figure out what a good intermediary, or group of intermediaries (fertilizers) that may work for different cultural situations. After some time, it will emerge that in some cases 'this' works, and in others it doesn't. And then people will talk over why there is a problem, and then work towards the next step. Which is discovery, and it's pretty cool. So far this is just the beginning....

For those who like to be skeptical, I challenge to have them report what they do with success, or what they have tried that does or doesn't work. Forums are for doing things, comparing and sharing information. Jumping on board and then saying 'you are wrong' is sure to not endear to others; first tell us what you have done and what works or doesn't for you.

have a great day/night

 

[gonewild]

With all due respect Lance how could you say thet you would take the results of such a huge range of people growing plants in a huge range of ways and a vast variety of substrates over a controlled trial where every possible variable is taken into account? Maybe we should do away with all the Labs and just take a survey when we need to determine the factsoke:

Because I have been involved with commercial horticulture production for over 40 years and in the past worked directly as a consultant for plant nutrition.

As well I have worked with and know a lot of scientific researchers. I know their limitations and more often than not they are biased in attempts to prove what they think or have given as opinions in the past.

How could a single controlled trial possibly give results that would be applicable to "growing plants in a huge range of ways and a vast variety of substrates". Such a trial would have to be limited to a few species and would be starting with fresh plants that will likely grow well under any nutrition program for a few years.

Just because a person or group writes and publishes a paper does not mean that the conditions were accurately controlled so I just don't by into the ideology that "science" has the final answer.

Many years before MSU published their formula we were using almost the exact ratios here in California with good results. Personally I have thought the MSU formula was as near perfect as we could get. But over the years we consistently saw "crashes" in plant health, such as outbreaks of bacterial rot. Always assumed in was environmental and not related to nutrition since we observed good growth on the plants. But when Rick suggested that the infections may be a result of excess K, that it made perfect sense.

More and more comments are coming in from independent growers that are using K-lite stating that they don't have as many rotting plants since they started K-lite. Those reports and comments are invaluable and can't and won't ever be duplicated by a controlled trial.

That is part of why I can say what I said.

 

[katzenhai2]

Irrespective of whether you think it is low K or not, it is fertiliser that has turned my plants around.

I'm sure I will once try to use K-lite with some controlled condition, some usual fertilizer and Ca/Mg supplementation to see if there is a difference.

 

[Ozpaph]

I haven't changed anything else in the last few years. Just the fertiliser. At the end of the day, it is all about increasing the levels of Mg and Ca. I have done that as well as greatly reduce the K at the same time. I have also changed to using a foliar fertiliser a lot and also used the Magamp hose attachment so that I fertilise and water at the same time. So I have changed a few things at once so it is difficult to exactly pinpoint the cause. In the end I think it is the plants greater ability to access Ca and Mg that has seen an improvement in my Paphs. So I disagree strongly with your repeated statement that fertiliser is unimportant. Irrespective of whether you think it is low K or not, it is fertiliser that has turned my plants around.

David, what water do you use? Do you flush a lot?

 

[Rick]

Have you used a higher TDS than 50 before? How high was it?


Effective humidity (opening of stomata) for paphs starts at 65% up to 80%.

When I first started the low K prelims on my own plants (2 years ago) I was applying at the rate of 80-100ppm N . I think it was back in 2003-2004 (3-4 years into my orchid hobby) when I had my humidity "epiphany". I started forcing everything to minimum target of 70%. My GH has gone through iterations of misters to foggers, to wetpads, and now a combination of wetbad for base humidity and (summer cooling) with a fogger to take up the slack, but when I discovered "humidity" I thought I had it all figured out since it really seemed like I had thrown a switch in my collection. So I started to work with harder (and more expensive!) species and started doing my own breeding and raising seedlings. I quickly found out that high humidity wasn't all there was to growing orchids. Yes I fiddled with placement for lighting, looking for micro temperature climates in the GH, bark vs chc, lime, oyster shell, dolomite, bonemeal, sphagnum, sand, mycorhrizae/beneficial supplements, you name the new fad of the week and I tried it. More food, less food (all MSU). I was using RO water virtually from the start (since I work in a tox lab and have unlimited access to RO water).

Some stuff did great (at least for 5-6 years), some stuff has gone up and down but I still have it after 12 years. In general my mounted stuff has always done better than anything in a pot. I've been on this chat site since it was founded, and listening to peoples success and failures. Keeping track of what was working at the time or not.

But it was when I started that project on wild rice I accessed a scientific journal article on K antagonism (blocking Ca/Mg) in domestic rice. I then used my research access (at work) to a whole host of journal articles both from the agri science area and eco/habitat arena that all pointed in the same direction concerning K. There is still a bunch of stuff that is generally accessible on the web.

I cannot generalize about many of the growing conditions in my GH except light temp humidity. I have mounted plants, plants in baskets, plants in pots...... But all universally doing better since dumping the K and ensuring Ca/Mg are higher than K.

Gotta run my grandkids want me to get off the computer!

 

[katzenhai2]

But all universally doing better since dumping the K and ensuring Ca/Mg are higher than K.

I've read somewhere that high K with low Ca/Mg levels can be dangerous. On the other side it seems the fertilizer should be adapted to the temperature. Plants in low temps need lesser K than in higher temps. That sounds really basic and I don't have that science background...

So people who have success with less-K fertilizers... what are their growing conditions? Aren't these also important to understand who will benefit from such a fertilizer?