Fertilizer discussion

[abax]

Give the man time. Technical writing is hard to get just right and understandable for the lay person...also proof read and corrected...also some editing required as well. All this takes time. Sometimes up to a
year or so to go through the whole process once the paper is in draft form.

 

[Rick]

I got a notice last week that it should be in the March issue of Orchids.

But with the last year of threads and postings on this site, I don't know how much more you'll get out of the article:wink:

 

[cnycharles]

Really????

You promise????

Sometimes it's hard to imagine you do anything in a small way Ericoke:oke:

eric cooks in a small way, just look at all the orchids on the stove :rollhappy:

I still think that the klite will need a little more phosphorus, or at least with some species that grow/spike very quickly these plants (not just orchids) usually do better if they have more phosphorus. I know many have been debunking the 'phosphorus is needed for flowering' thing that was promoted for years, but of course klite has a relatively tiny amount of phosphorus compared to the balanced ferts; also there is a minimal amount that is necessary, and as was mentioned earlier in the thread, more (lots more) doesn't mean better

 

[wjs2nd]

Hmmm, to throw a wrench into everything. According to OL they just use their "Green Jungle" fertilizer mix for everything. It is 1-0-1 and was developed for RO/rain water. They use it every third watering. I believe they supplement their potting mixes, but I'm not positive, nor do I know with what.

 

[keithrs]

Hmmm, to throw a wrench into everything. According to OL they just use their "Green Jungle" fertilizer mix for everything. It is 1-0-1 and was developed for RO/rain water. They use it every third watering. I believe they supplement their potting mixes, but I'm not positive, nor do I know with what.

I talk with Jerry a while back about it... It's just MSU with a couple other things added to it.

 

[Rick]

Hmmm, to throw a wrench into everything. According to OL they just use their "Green Jungle" fertilizer mix for everything. It is 1-0-1 and was developed for RO/rain water. They use it every third watering. I believe they supplement their potting mixes, but I'm not positive, nor do I know with what.

Not neccessarily.

0 does not neccesarily mean 0 but less than 1.0. So could be a small amount of P.

It also falls right in line with just about everything we've been talking about for K lite. That it really takes VERY little fert to get great results.

I don't know what the dose rate is (Xamt per gal) or target Nppm is, but if the material is only 1% N then you are mostly buying water, and to get the comparable amount of N to MSU you would have to dose 12-13 times higher. But if you dosed at the same 1/2 to1tsp/gal dose we use for K lite, then you would be applying very little fert. Especially if you only did it once every 3 weeks, and flushed with non fert water several times in between.

There's no doubt that things grow/bloom well at OL, so maybe just more proof it doesn't take a lot of NPK.

The NPK values for Green Jungle are comparable to many other "organic" ferts on the market including kelp extracts, bat guanno.....

 

[wjs2nd]

Hmmm, MSU with other things. Did Jerry say what else?
The 0-1-0 was what I could find online. Not a lot of info about Green Jungle.

Rick: That is why I brought this up. Green Jungle, no matter what it is, is low in P and OL has great results.

 

[keithrs]

Hmmm, MSU with other things. Did Jerry say what else?
The 0-1-0 was what I could find online. Not a lot of info about Green Jungle.

Rick: That is why I brought this up. Green Jungle, no matter what it is, is low in P and OL has great results.

He did but I don't exactly remember.... One thing was a wetting agent.

 

[SlipperFan]

I got a notice last week that it should be in the March issue of Orchids.

But with the last year of threads and postings on this site, I don't know how much more you'll get out of the article:wink:

It will be great to read a summary of all the discussion here. Plus sharing it with others outside this forum. In advance, Thanks, Rick!

 

[keithrs]

Not neccessarily.

0 does not neccesarily mean 0 but less than 1.0. So could be a small amount of P.

It also falls right in line with just about everything we've been talking about for K lite. That it really takes VERY little fert to get great results.

I don't know what the dose rate is (Xamt per gal) or target Nppm is, but if the material is only 1% N then you are mostly buying water, and to get the comparable amount of N to MSU you would have to dose 12-13 times higher. But if you dosed at the same 1/2 to1tsp/gal dose we use for K lite, then you would be applying very little fert. Especially if you only did it once every 3 weeks, and flushed with non fert water several times in between.

There's no doubt that things grow/bloom well at OL, so maybe just more proof it doesn't take a lot of NPK.

The NPK values for Green Jungle are comparable to many other "organic" ferts on the market including kelp extracts, bat guanno.....

Dose rate is 2 tbs/gal.

 

[terryros]

The exact formula for Green Jungle is 1.28 N, 0.48 P, and 1.48 K. Jerry based this formula on studies that he had made in various natural habitats around the world. Obviously, other trace elements are there as well. They usually feed at about 100 ppm N. I used Green Jungle for several years with success at 50 ppm but I decided the rationale for K-Lite made too much sense not to give it a try. I still use 50 ppm N with the K-Lite. I think we know that the benefits of low K is more of a longer term benefit but I can say that all of my plants are growing and blooming just fine right now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[wjs2nd]

Thanks Terry!

 

[Brabantia]

The exact formula for Green Jungle is 1.28 N, 0.48 P, and 1.48 K. Jerry based this formula on studies that he had made in various natural habitats around the world. Obviously, other trace elements are there as well. They usually feed at about 100 ppm N. I used Green Jungle for several years with success at 50 ppm but I decided the rationale for K-Lite made too much sense not to give it a try. I still use 50 ppm N with the K-Lite. I think we know that the benefits of low K is more of a longer term benefit but I can say that all of my plants are growing and blooming just fine right now

.

And before with the Green Jungle are there blooming? Have you now more or less flowers?

 

[terryros]

I am afraid that I did not change just one variable. Over this last two years I have converted to LED lighting, sphagnum moss as a growing medium, and am also using Kelpmax intermittently. So, when I say that everything is growing and blooming better now than several years ago, I can't give K-Lite all the credit, but it is certainly not showing any of the deficiencies that we might have worried about at the beginning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Ray]

The exact formula for Green Jungle is 1.28 N, 0.48 P, and 1.48 K. Jerry based this formula on studies that he had made in various natural habitats around the world. Obviously, other trace elements are there as well. They usually feed at about 100 ppm N. I used Green Jungle for several years with success at 50 ppm but I decided the rationale for K-Lite made too much sense not to give it a try. I still use 50 ppm N with the K-Lite. I think we know that the benefits of low K is more of a longer term benefit but I can say that all of my plants are growing and blooming just fine right now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

If you multiply that Green Jungle formula x 10, you basically have the MSU RO formula with some added phosphorus (13-5-15 versus 13-3-15).

My understanding of the testing of "tank water" captured by bromeliads, and "trunk flow" from trees bearing epiphytes indicates the P & K are much lower than Jerry has surmised. AND, the overall concentration of nutrients tends to be well below that provided by 100 ppm N solutions - of course it is a pretty much constant supply in those environments, compared to the periodic applications we provide.

I think at the K-Lite concept is solid, and I am becoming less wary of deficiencies by the day (almost), but I am also of the opinion that nutrition is WAY down the plant "Maslow's hierarchy" of needs, and that an individual's success in orchid growing has far less to do with nutrition than many other factors. I am reasonably sure most folks here grasp that - and many do well enough that the "tweaking" of nutrients and additives is a reasonable experiment - but I'm afraid others may view this as a solution to their cultural issues, which it certainly is not.

 

[Rick]

My understanding of the testing of "tank water" captured by bromeliads, and "trunk flow" from trees bearing epiphytes indicates the P & K are much lower than Jerry has surmised. AND, the overall concentration of nutrients tends to be well below that provided by 100 ppm N solutions
.

That's why it appears that our past feeding regimes are really toxicity trials rather than feeding trials.

I've been conducting roughly 1000 toxicity tests a year (since 1995) with a wide range of aquatic organisms (including algae), and have observed that virtually every natural substance is both a nutrient and a toxicant at some level. That level is also based on the relative amount of that substance in the environment. I guess the majority of tests have a humped shaped response curve. A little helps, but a lot hurts.

But in the last several years I've been tracking the interactions of various substances that organisms use, and its like a spiderweb of interactions. You pull or push on one spot,and it forces a change to some other part of the web.

When we feed fertilizers at levels much higher than in nature, I believe these "deficiencies" are these interconnected pushes and pulls on that web.

 

[Ray]

I'm right there with you, Rick.

I recall hearing of a trial at a large seed producer that showed symptoms of an immense iron deficiency in corn, when in reality, it was an overdose of phosphorus!

 

[Rick]

I'm right there with you, Rick.

I recall hearing of a trial at a large seed producer that showed symptoms of an immense iron deficiency in corn, when in reality, it was an overdose of phosphorus!

Ya and corn is a completely domesticated human developed species made to handle the high nutrient environment that we trail around us.

 

[gonewild]

Wonder why recommendations have been to use excessive amounts of nutrients?

The best way to sell fertilizer is to recommend a application rate double what is needed in reality. the difference between one tsp per gallon and one half tsp per gallon does not seem like much, but to the chemical company it is double sales volume. Most fertility trials have been done or funded by chemical companies so what can we expect? Results are interpreted and skewed towards more profits.

More is better? :rollhappy:

 

[Ray]

I think that we should also consider that the vast majority of fertilizers are produced with terrestrial plants in mind, that they often do use nutrients at a greater rate due to the faster growth rate, and that soils, having a much greater CEC, can trap the nutrients applied.