Rick
Well-Known Member
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:
insigne. And its been sitting in water for the past 3 months! insigne is a water plant:evil:
Rick, you are selling K-lite so I think you have a biased opinion.
.
or you need a science labor with standarized conditions to make some steps forward.
Ouch. You are right. Well... Ray ... Rick... :crazy:Rick said:I do not sell, manufacture, distribute, or otherwise profit in any way from Klite.
How have they responded "positively"?cnycharles said:but I know that when I remember to fertilize my plants, they have responded positively to the k-lite fertilizer
emydura said: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.
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.
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.
Have you used a higher TDS than 50 before? How high was it?billc said:and reducing the TDS to 50 has made my plants actually grow
Effective humidity (opening of stomata) for paphs starts at 65% up to 80%.emydura said:My humidity is generally above 50%, often above 65%.
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.emydura said: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.
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: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.
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.
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.
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.emydura said:Irrespective of whether you think it is low K or not, it is fertiliser that has turned my plants around.
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?
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%.
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...Rick said:But all universally doing better since dumping the K and ensuring Ca/Mg are higher than K.
Enter your email address to join: