K-lite fertilizer

[Rick]

I know that the Magamp fertiliser on its own doesn't burn the roots and I will only be applying the NTS fertiliser to the leaves, so it doesn't sound like I have anything to worry about.

I'm getting quoted in one of your last posts for something I didn't say. Weird

 

[emydura]

The basic formula to convert Hardess (as CaCO3) to Ca/Mg concentrations is

H= (2.48 X Ca mg/L) + (4.11 X Mg mg/L) If all the hardness in your water came from Ca, then you would be applying roughly 16 mg/L of Ca to your plants each time you watered. But in most cases there is always some Mg (usually about 20% of the hardness is from Mg unless you are over some strange geology like serpentine). So just guestimating you are applying maybe 12 ppm Ca and 4 ppm Mg to your plants with each watering.

In general your water is considered soft with fairly low alkalinity. You could stand to use a fertilizer that is loppsided to nitrates rather than ammonia as the nitrogen source.

Thanks Rick

I'm getting quoted in one of your last posts for something I didn't say. Weird

Sorry Rick. My fault. Incorrect cut and paste. That quote came from Stone.

 

[Stone]

would really like to see your data on the high amount of K in rain water.

Rick, I was trying to find the relevent article but trudging through the endless maze of Nature's archive is not my idea of fun. From the small exerpt that I could find the idea was basically that there exists a very thin layer on the ocean surface which contain significant levels of K and other elements as a result of micro organism activity and that this layer can be picked up by wind off the white caps and transfered to the atmosphere resuting in readings of K levels in the resulting rain as high as 10 times that found in bulk sea water. But we are really starting to drift off on a tangent once again.

The point being that whether from dust or ocean spray rain can carry and deposit nutrients. So why is this K not accumulating in the leaves of rainforest trees when we know that they will do so given the opportunity?
One explanation could be that there is a higher level of Ca. in the system but I was under the impression that plants always take up K in preference to Ca.
If you feed equal parts K and Ca, (in an inert media) a leaf analysis would show K above Ca.

If you feed Ca. at higher levels you would begin to see K deficiency.
Your levels of very low or no K would probably result in K deficiency to anyone growing paphs in S/H. Therefore we need to have some idea how much inherant K is in the growing mix.
As you have pointed out, bark, fern fiber, chc, and leaves have enough K present to not require any addition for probably 12 months. After that, levels will start drop to a time when K will need to be added. So how much do you add? Leaving Ca and Mg. aside for a moment, my data says at the VERY LEAST K/N ratio should be 50%K to N for flowering plants. Your data probably would say something more like 10%
K to N? or 100ppm N and 10ppm K. would that be about right?

I enjoy reading your postings and respect your experience and observations in growing paphs. And I'm trialing your low K regimen based on your findings.
It's all very interesting stuff but with so much conflicting information out there, I feel the need to question everything. I hope you don't mind that.
I guess that's the purpose of this forum

Mike

 

[Rick]

From the small exerpt that I could find the idea was basically that there exists a very thin layer on the ocean surface which contain significant levels of K and other elements as a result of micro organism activity and that this layer can be picked up by wind off the white caps and transfered to the atmosphere resuting in readings of K levels in the resulting rain as high as 10 times that found in bulk sea water.

The K concentration of bulk sea water (almost anywhere in the world) is close to 400 ppm K (it's not a trace element in sea water). 10 X that would be 4000 mg/L K . Also since K is not found in elemental form in nature and must be associated with an anion (in this case I assume would be chloride, the most common anion in sea water) which means that rain would have approximately7500 mg/L of KCL in it on a good day. 7.5 grams/L of KCl has a conductivity of roughly 15,000 useimens/cm. I have never seen rain water with a conductivity that high. What did you say was the EC or your rain water?

The point being that whether from dust or ocean spray rain can carry and deposit nutrients. So why is this K not accumulating in the leaves of rainforest trees when we know that they will do so given the opportunity?

As I have pointed out from literature yes it does accumulate, but it takes energy out of the plant to do so (kind of like reverse osmosis requires energy to increase pressure against the semi permeable membrane to force ions backwards against the osmotic gradient). RO requires energy and there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

The environmental K is much lower than what the plants want in their tissues. But what limits the K from building up indefinitely is the point of diminishing returns of the cost of uptaking K from a very small resource pool (other than sea water you have yet to show me data that high concentrations (>50 mg/L or Kg solid) of K are found in rainforest root zones. There is no blockage by Ca.

One explanation could be that there is a higher level of Ca. in the system but I was under the impression that plants always take up K in preference to Ca. If you feed equal parts K and Ca, (in an inert media) a leaf analysis would show K above Ca.

There are multiple pathways for uptake of K and Ca, but you did just state exactly what we see in leaf tissue analysis when K is not limited in the greenhouse or garden environment. K higher than Ca

If you feed Ca. at higher levels you would begin to see K deficiency. Your levels of very low or no K would probably result in K deficiency to anyone growing paphs in S/H. Therefore we need to have some idea how much inherant K is in the growing mix.

That only assumes that the uptake of K and Ca is totally passive and based on standard osmotic theory of fertilizer uptake. Literature demonstrates that this in not true as is personal and other growers experience of calcium, magnesium and phosphorus deficiencies when Ca, Mg, and P were fully available to the plants. K had locked down the plants ability to uptake Ca/Mg/P even when it was saturated at the root zone. (Agri research on rice plants if you want a research paper from real horticultural researchers).

As you have pointed out, bark, fern fiber, chc, and leaves have enough K present to not require any addition for probably 12 months. After that, levels will start drop to a time when K will need to be added. So how much do you add? Leaving Ca and Mg. aside for a moment, my data says at the VERY LEAST K/N ratio should be 50%K to N for flowering plants. Your data probably would say something more like 10%
K to N? or 100ppm N and 10ppm K. would that be about right?

I think 10:1 N:K would work just fine for hydroponics But still need 10:5 N:Ca and 10:1 N:Mg especially if you are using a bark, CHC, or sphagnum moss based mix.

Over time the mix will also load up on K and then your root zone K will be a lot higher than the 1 or so ppm you are feeding in on fertilizer day.

 

[Stone]

The K concentration of bulk sea water (almost anywhere in the world) is close to 400 ppm K (it's not a trace element in sea water). 10 X that would be 4000 mg/L K . Also since K is not found in elemental form in nature and must be associated with an anion (in this case I assume would be chloride, the most common anion in sea water) which means that rain would have approximately7500 mg/L of KCL in it on a good day. 7.5 grams/L of KCl has a conductivity of roughly 15,000 useimens/cm. I have never seen rain water with a conductivity that high. What did you say was the EC or your rain water?

As I have pointed out from literature yes it does accumulate, but it takes energy out of the plant to do so (kind of like reverse osmosis requires energy to increase pressure against the semi permeable membrane to force ions backwards against the osmotic gradient). RO requires energy and there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

The environmental K is much lower than what the plants want in their tissues. But what limits the K from building up indefinitely is the point of diminishing returns of the cost of uptaking K from a very small resource pool (other than sea water you have yet to show me data that high concentrations (>50 mg/L or Kg solid) of K are found in rainforest root zones. There is no blockage by Ca.


There are multiple pathways for uptake of K and Ca, but you did just state exactly what we see in leaf tissue analysis when K is not limited in the greenhouse or garden environment. K higher than Ca

That only assumes that the uptake of K and Ca is totally passive and based on standard osmotic theory of fertilizer uptake. Literature demonstrates that this in not true as is personal and other growers experience of calcium, magnesium and phosphorus deficiencies when Ca, Mg, and P were fully available to the plants. K had locked down the plants ability to uptake Ca/Mg/P even when it was saturated at the root zone. (Agri research on rice plants if you want a research paper from real horticultural researchers).




I think 10:1 N:K would work just fine for hydroponics But still need 10:5 N:Ca and 10:1 N:Mg especially if you are using a bark, CHC, or sphagnum moss based mix.

Over time the mix will also load up on K and then your root zone K will be a lot higher than the 1 or so ppm you are feeding in on fertilizer day.

All points taken.

If I took a leaf from one of my tillandsias (no substrate) or a bulb from one of my orchids on cork that have been sitting in the rain and watered with pure rainwater with absolutly no feeding whatsoever for at least 2 years, and sent it off for analysis, what would you expect the levels of K and Ca. to be?

 

[Stone]

Rick, Just read a study from Africa showing similar results as your Sumatran paper . Leaf litter nutrients where in order: N-Ca-Mg-Na-P-K. reason for low K was given as high level of leaching durinig rainy season. Higher K was recorded during the dry. Another study showed high K during the wet.
Confusing!
I've had it up to here with K!!!!!!

Cheers
Mike

 

[keithrs]

Take it for what it is..... More signs that Ca is about equal to N and K is low.

 

[Stone]

Take it for what it is..... More signs that Ca is about equal to N and K is low.

In the end that dosen't say much when your talking about levels in paph leaves

 

[Stone]

This is starting to get tedious
This is what my reference says

APROXIMATE CONSENTRATIONS RANGES OF NUTRIENT ELEMENTS TYPICALLY
FOUND IN PLANT LEAVES (DRY) ----------

Percentage

N 2-5
P 0.4-0.5
K 1.5-6
Ca 0.4-1.5
Mg 0.4-1
S 0.3-0.8

PPM

Fe 70-200
Zn 50-100

 

[Bjorn]

Low K nutrition

This is a stuff that I have used as additive to some of my paph mixes. No harm seen so far, perhaps I should use it more? Its low in K so perhaps interesting to others. Its based on physiolith, calcified seaweed, and kelp and should supposedly stimulate root-growth etc. While I am a bit sceptical to is use in farming, I do think that it may have a nice in orchid nutrition. What do you think?
Kalciumcarbonate..................75 %
Magnesiumcarbonate.............. 7 %
Si......................................4,5 %
N....................................0,6 %
Na..................................1,7 %
Fe.................................1,3 %
Potassium Phosphate........................0,9 %
S........................0,5 %
Cl........................................0,2 %
K....................................0,1 %
I..........................................0,1 %
Organic matter ...............2,5 %
Aminopurines........................1,9 %
Aminoacids...............................1 %
K........... 502 ppm
Mn......... 396 ppm
B................ 396 ppm
In............ 173 ppm
F.................45 ppm
Pb....................49 ppm
Cu................15 ppm
Br................40 ppm
Zn.................. 15 ppm
Ti................35 ppm
Mo...........3 ppm
Co............... 3 ppm
Se...................1 ppm
Ag...................1 ppm
Cr..................5 ppm
Ni.................8 ppm
pH: 8.8

 

[Ray]

I think 10:1 N:K would work just fine for hydroponics But still need 10:5 N:Ca and 10:1 N:Mg especially if you are using a bark, CHC, or sphagnum moss based mix.

If anyone would like to experiment, I can get this made up by Greencare (the original MSU formula folks) for a 1-bag minimum order. Based upon what you'all are stating, it sounds like something around 10-2-3-5Ca-2Mg (P as P2O5, K as K2O), with the trace elements along the levels of the MSU RO formula would be appropriate.

If we can come up with a formula, I'll ask Bill Argo to work up a cost, and we can share that.

Over time the mix will also load up on K and then your root zone K will be a lot higher than the 1 or so ppm you are feeding in on fertilizer day.

Are we messing with this because of mineral buildup, or is there a solid nutritional basis for the reduced K? If it's just the former, it seems like a lot of hassle to avoid repotting.

 

[keithrs]

In the end that dosen't say much when your talking about levels in paph leaves

Personally, I think it saids alot about there environment. At least in this snapshot.... What makes a Paph any different from the surrounding plants?

Looks to me like this tree is very efficient at pulling K out of the top soil/leaf litter.... So Would K levels be high in paph leaves too,even though K is low in the media there in?


Wait you confuse me..... Are we talking about Paph or Vandas?....LOLoke:

 

[Rick]

If anyone would like to experiment, I can get this made up by Greencare (the original MSU formula folks) for a 1-bag minimum order. Based upon what you'all are stating, it sounds like something around 10-2-3-5Ca-2Mg (P as P2O5, K as K2O), with the trace elements along the levels of the MSU RO formula would be appropriate.

If we can come up with a formula, I'll ask Bill Argo to work up a cost, and we can share that.

Are we messing with this because of mineral buildup, or is there a solid nutritional basis for the reduced K? If it's just the former, it seems like a lot of hassle to avoid repotting.

Sorry Ray, but I'm going to say both.

I like those numbers from a nutrition standpoint for hydroponics. But I think there is more slop in the system from a pure nutrition standpoint.

However, I think that the "mineral buildup" which I would prefer to look at as an ion exchange issue is a compounding factor for growers in bark/CHC/sphag. I would probably like to see a bit more Ca/Mg in a potting mix version, but its easy to offset a potting mix with lime addatives and using at least partial mains water rather than straight RO.

However it wouldn't hurt my feelings to go to a 3-5 year repotting schedule instead of religous every year.

Given the improvements I'm seeing in my mounted plants taking the direction I'm going presently indicates this is much more nutrition than "salting" issues.

 

[gonewild]

If anyone would like to experiment, I can get this made up by Greencare (the original MSU formula folks) for a 1-bag minimum order. Based upon what you'all are stating, it sounds like something around 10-2-3-5Ca-2Mg (P as P2O5, K as K2O), with the trace elements along the levels of the MSU RO formula would be appropriate.

If we can come up with a formula, I'll ask Bill Argo to work up a cost, and we can share that.

Why not make the formula lower in P and K?
10-1-1-5Ca-2Mg
Keep the suspect elements low to test the theory. and if they are low we can always add a little more to increase the P or K. It's easier to add rather than try to reduce the ratio. And P and K are easy to add as a top dressing seasonally.

 

[Rick]

Why not make the formula lower in P and K?
10-1-1-5Ca-2Mg
Keep the suspect elements low to test the theory. and if they are low we can always add a little more to increase the P or K. It's easier to add rather than try to reduce the ratio. And P and K are easy to add as a top dressing seasonally.

I'd go for this more, and then as Lance suggests, gives me some room to add a dash of Proteckt in the spring.

Gets the silicates up too.

 

[Rick]

If anyone would like to experiment, I can get this made up by Greencare (the original MSU formula folks) for a 1-bag minimum order.

Can we get it labeled as the "Slipertalk Elite Formula"oke:oke:

Maybe we can have a naming contest!

Could I have my picture on the label (like Paul Newman's salad dressings)?

I could probably throw a dozen each of lowii and calosum seedlings into a trial.

 

[cnycharles]

I was going to say (before my computer locked up, twice), that if the test bag of fertilizer got too low with p and k, we might just as well have a bag of calcium nitrate, with some micro nutrients added, and later on add some epsom salts for magnesium... just a thought

 

[Rick]

I was going to say (before my computer locked up, twice), that if the test bag of fertilizer got too low with p and k, we might just as well have a bag of calcium nitrate, with some micro nutrients added, and later on add some epsom salts for magnesium... just a thought

Yes, but then I couldn't put my picture (wearing cool sunglasses) on the label.

 

[jtrmd]

If anyone would like to experiment

maybe?

 

[Stone]

Has anyone had the enthusianum to try feeding at very very very low rates at every watering as they would recieve in the habitat? say 1/10 strength?