K-Lite has been around a few years now... updates?

[Bjorn]

What a thread!:rollhappy:Full of inspiring viewpoints (is that a word?) And people defending their ideas fiercly!:fight:
Joke aside, lots of ideas that migth amalgamate into something that brings us forward. This is what I love ST for!
Personally I do it my way, make my changes, take a chance and maintain my strategy for sufficiently long time to be able to judge if its a good idea or not. Right now, I am on the lean track (60ppmTDS, 10ppmN). Am a bit worried about those low amounts of fertiliser, after all the plants are in small pots (Naoki I am using normal pots mostly-partly due to space, its pretty packed here in the greenhouse) With restricted root mass. That is why I feel that lots of fertilised water is necessary. New supply continously - just like in nature. And high humidity. I have expressed a concern about my mottled leaved paphs "climbing" in another thread some time ago, idealy the roots appearing above ground should not dry out but get into the soil below.That means airial roots of perhaps 2-3cm (1inch) quite an achievement for a paph-root! Its difficult to keep conditions like that, but daily spraying(soaking) and dense populations seems to help. No, this is a side-track
So far my lean diet seems to work fine, but I believe I see new leaves getting smaller than their predecessors and this worries me......And then it turns out that they are bigger. Have to keep calm and observe. I'll let you know if the 10ppm N approach does not work.

 

[gonewild]

Man! The the OLD figures are JUST for the stem flow!

Then present figures expressed in something that relates to the numbers. Explain how much nutrients are in the stem flow based on the numbers you gave as kg/ha. How much N is flowing down a single tree?

The new figures are TOTAL deposition. (trees only take up a fraction of a hectare)

Is stem flow limited to trees? (NO). Actually the stem flow represents the total canopy surface which in most tropical forests is complete coverage of the hectare.

Again those figures DO NOT ''feed'' the forest. Trees get thir nutrients from the soil, bring up to their leaves and what leaches out is the main source of nutrients for the above ground biomass)

Where does the soil get the nutrients to grow a forest and maintain it?
Most tropical forest soils do not have a nutrient balance that will support a forest. I'll be happy to share a recent soil analysis I just had done of the soil that underlies one of the most bio diverse forests on the planet. If anyone wants to see it

(added to the other sources of course - rain, ocean aersols blah blah)

Rain and ocean aersols do not carry enough nutrients to grow a lush tropical forest even when combined with what the decay can recycle. However you nailed it with the "blah blah" because blah and blah are the living organisms that I have been talking about.

I really cannot for the life of me undersand why you can't see that all above ground nutrients caome from the well known sources mentioned a million times.

Because they don't. If you really can't understand why someone like me would question the finality of knowledge then you must believe the Earth is flat and Ceasar is great.

Apart from some N, There cannot possibly be any other source!

Not possible? :rollhappy:

Maybe epiphytes ''suck'' nutrients from the tree's sap? That would make them parasites

Maybe epiphytes absorb nutrients from all available sources including living organisms. That would make them epiphytes.

 

[gonewild]

But such a fertilizer could never be available commercially.

Why not?

 

[gonewild]

This is absolutely incorrect, as atmospheric CO2 dissolves into rainwater instantaneously and makes rainwater slightly acidic.

It's raining really hard this morning, probably about 4" per hour. I got a bright idea to go measure the pH of the rain here not in the forest. My bucket filled in a few seconds from water off our roof. I got wet, now I'm cold, but here is my proof oke:

 

[TyroneGenade]

Well, Lance, it is hard to argue with the numbers. Can you, for reference sake, take the pH of milk (6.4--6.8) or coffee (black, pH 5). Pure water with CO2 should be acidic, as low as 4 under some circumstances. If the pH of your milk and coffee correspond with the ideal values then you have a stronger case.

In any case, I'm going to start inoculating my S/H pots with moss.

 

[Happypaphy7]

I think the device might be off.
As mentioned earlier by other member, rainwater cannot be just pure water as carbon dioxide in the air gets mixed with rainwater and this is a known fact. Rainwater is slightly acidic (5.6) in the "pure" form.

 

[gonewild]

Well, Lance, it is hard to argue with the numbers. Can you, for reference sake, take the pH of milk (6.4--6.8) or coffee (black, pH 5). Pure water with CO2 should be acidic, as low as 4 under some circumstances. If the pH of your milk and coffee correspond with the ideal values then you have a stronger case.

In any case, I'm going to start inoculating my S/H pots with moss.

We dont have milk. Our coffees here have wide pH range, we played testeing them a few years ago. I tested a soil sample a couple weeks ago and the pH was really low at 4.4 to 4.7. Then I used a little drop test and the pH read 6.5 and that i did not believe to be correct. So I sent a sample to the lab for analysis and the pH cam back 4.9. So my meter is fairly close I expect.

I'm not trying to prove rainwater is always neutral, just sharing some results I observe here. Rainwater that comes out of our tanks has a lower pH than falling rain. The point I'm trying to make is that reality is not ever consistent and just because books teach one thing does not always make it factual everywhere always. I've also measured fresh rainwater here that was acidic, it depends on the atmosphere at the time. I don't think it really matters as far as plants are concerned because it does become acidic quickly. But what it does show is that pH probably in not always stable in the plants environment and especially for epiphytes where one moment they are steeping in moss soup and the next moment they are drenched with fresh water.
The soil out in out garden has a very big low pH problem...yesterday... this morning it has rained probably 5 inches and I bet the soil pH is not very acidic today.... tomorrow it will be acidic again. That flux probably has little effect on a tomato plant with it's roots growing in clay. But the orchid with exposed roots surrounded by moss and lichen will have a big pH swing naturally. That's a much different environment than we provide with our calculated artificial environments. Who knows... maybe orchids only take in nutrients when the rain water changes the pH level up or down? If we don't look at different possibilities we will never know.

 

[gonewild]

I think the device might be off.
As mentioned earlier by other member, rainwater cannot be just pure water as carbon dioxide in the air gets mixed with rainwater and this is a known fact. Rainwater is slightly acidic (5.6) in the "pure" form.

OK

 

[TyroneGenade]

Lance, what detergents (floor cleaners, soaps, shampoo etc...) do you have? All of these have defined pH values. Also, if you have vinegar you can measure that. It should be 2.4. If you have bicarbonate of soda, make a saturated solution and measure that. It should be about 8.3. Ph meters need regular calibration as they drift terribly. Wine and beer should be at pH 4.

Generally, running pure water has a pH close to 7. Only when it is left to stand does enough CO2 dissolve into it to lower the pH a lot. CO2 isn't very soluble in water and is easily driven off by agitation. The reading close to 7 is expected for unpolluted rain water.

 

[gonewild]

The reading close to 7 is expected for unpolluted rain water.

My reading is close to 7! I'm not saying all rain water is exactly 7.
I simply said I measured rainwater hitting wild orchid plants in the cloud forest here where the air is absolutely as clean as can be and it measured 7.

The fact that my meter reading came close to the pH the lab sent back is close enough for me.
No offense to you but I'm getting tired of being told I can't prove the things I say, so I think I'll stop sharing now.

 

[abax]

Lance, I take the ph of our rainwater regularly and it's
almost always 7. It's 7 in my rain barrel and 7 if I take
a reading with fresh caught rain. I don't use a meter. I
take it to a water tester with a computer thingy to measure the Ph. I also use a color test kit at home from
time to time. The color test kit isn't as accurate as the
analysis via computer, but it close enough to make very
little difference.

BTW, most of the time I don't understand a damn thing
any of you chemists are saying. It might be very nice
if the technical talk is a bit toned down for us non-chemists.

 

[gonewild]

Lance, I take the ph of our rainwater regularly and it's
almost always 7. It's 7 in my rain barrel and 7 if I take
a reading with fresh caught rain. I don't use a meter. I
take it to a water tester with a computer thingy to measure the Ph. I also use a color test kit at home from
time to time. The color test kit isn't as accurate as the
analysis via computer, but it close enough to make very
little difference.

BTW, most of the time I don't understand a damn thing
any of you chemists are saying. It might be very nice
if the technical talk is a bit toned down for us non-chemists.

Thanks! That is good to know. I think you make a good point when you say it's close enough to make very little difference.

I'm not a chemist. I just know about plant nutrition. If I write something you don't understand please ask me to explain it in simpler words, I'll be happy to. Most of what I write I have to pump it up so the scientists can understand.... but they still don't

 

[Happypaphy7]

Ok, I'm sure that last comment is meant to be a joke, but still I find it rather ridiculous because it comes off as highly arrogant and self-righteous.

First off, even scientists can have different opinions on the same subject.
Two, your overgeneralization, assumptions based on nothing or poor or wrong info have no place in science, and on public forum like this, it only clutter up valuable space and may mislead or waste time of others who may not know better.

I'm out.

Have fun talking!

 

[gonewild]

Ok, I'm sure that last comment is meant to be a joke, but still I find it rather ridiculous because it comes off as highly arrogant and self-righteous.

First off, even scientists can have different opinions on the same subject.
Two, your overgeneralization, assumptions based on nothing or poor or wrong info have no place in science, and on public forum like this, it only clutter up valuable space and may mislead or waste time of others who may not know better.

I'm out.

Have fun talking!

I don't know what to say.
But your direct public personal attack on my character is more than a little rude.

 

[TyroneGenade]

No offense to you but I'm getting tired of being told I can't prove the things I say, so I think I'll stop sharing now.

Oh, no, I believe you! But we scientists have high standards of proof---or at least we used to.

@ Happypaphy7: Yes, different scientists can have varying opinions on the same subject. This is because we all have our own biases (what we now called a "world view") by which we interpret data. This is issue of bias is very important to keep in mind. It would save a lot of "scientists" from rising to notoriety on RetractionWatch.com. The BIGGER issue however is that we are all experts in our own little fields and when we meander out into other domains of knowledge we make fools of ourselves.

I think Lance has substantiated is point about the pH of rain water. And from the parallel thread daring low ppm doses to present their plants we can see that Rick the Environmental Toxicologist's point about pollution killing off moss etc... is valid. Rick H's green house is a veritable jungle. I think Lance's point about encouraging symbiosis by moderate environmentally-friendly feeding to get great plants or using high feeding to get great plants but then battle with repotting, root rot etc... is valid and needs closer experimental scrutiny. Something is happening when an orchid grows on a tree or among moss. The Oncidium I hung in a tree in bark died, but the one I fixed to bark of the same tree is growing well back at my parent's place in South Africa.

My own experience with K-lite (which is now about 18 months) is that my plants are growing well (except for one spicerianum) and it works. But, this means little in the great scheme of things as my cultural conditions are so much different. There is little control for cultural conditions in this thread. If we insist on comparing apples and oranges then we are just going to end-up having silly arguments.

If you want to prove K-lite is worthless, well then setup a green house and feed one side "regular fertilizer" and the other K-lite at the recommended dose and tell us what happens. From the run-off data, it seems Nature's laboratory seems to favor a K-light approach.

 

[Stone]

From the run-off data, it seems Nature's laboratory seems to favor a K-light approach.

And so what on earth does that mean?

 

[rcb]

I gave up on K-lite, switched back to MSU. When I went back to MSU, the issues I was seeing went away. The issues where yellowing and leaf drop, mainly on my Cattleyas.

I have a mixed collection, including a few Paphs and Phrags.
I grow the vast majority of the potted plants in inorganic media. Not S/H. Some do have sheet moss lining the top of the potting media.
My plants are fully exposed to the weather.
I do not fungicide or pesticide, with the exception of spot spraying spikes for thrips when necessary. When I went this route, I did have to periodically spot spray for fungus, eventually the plants became robust enough I no longer had to.
My water is either rain water, with a TDS of 6-8, or RO water with a TDS of 60-70 ( yes I know but that's the best I can get), or a blend.
I fertilizer now with MSU at just under a 1/2 tsp per gallon. How often depends on my work schedule and how rainy we are.
This seems to work the best for me in my conditions.

The issues I saw under K lite where the leaf yellowing, and it appeared reduced cold tolerance. Also I Grow Hoyas, and saw the same things.

I will say that when I first started using K lite, it did appear to have much better blooming. But after some time, that was offset by the plants not growing as well.

 

[naoki]

But naoki, Why do hydroponic tomato setups out-perform grown grown?
Nutrients are determined on the optimal formulas.
I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that there must exist an optimum fertilizer formula for any plant. That does not mean we know what it is.

Sorry for a late reply. That's an interesting point. I don't know much about hydroponics, but there could be an additional advantage that plants are not limited by water and they can open the stomata freely? As you do, I would like to believe that "optimum" nutrients could be possible (for a given condition). Plants have evolved to deal with the sessile life, and I wouldn't underestimate the phenotypic plasticity (i.e. they can change, adjust their morphology/physiology to get best out of the given environment).

How about heterotrophic orchids (not photosynthetic)? Do we think that if we can provide the optimum fertilizer, can we grow them? It is partly true because some heterotrophic orchids can be grown in aseptic condition. But once you get them out from the flask, it becomes more complex.

In the case of hydroponics, you can control the rhizosphere well. But with orchids, we need to deal with the ever-changing rhizosphere: root:media ratio changes with the growth, organic media could decay, even in organic media, roots excretes can change the pH (in addition to changes in microbe fauna). So even if we get the optimum fertilization scheme for a particular species, it may not remain optimum for over long time (or it may not be optimum for different types of media). But in reality, plants probably have a wide range of optima (due to the plasticity).

Actually, I forgot the original content (I think that it was something to do with fertilizer formula is not the only factor for plant nutrition), and I'm not sure what I'm trying to say...

I have had many bush collected plants which looked like they have been really struggling to survive (short weak growths hardly capable of producing a flower) but have later exploded into vigorous growth in cultivation.

Some wild plants grown under cultivation can show dramatically different morphology, too. They are released from the biological competition. Some plants can increase the size 10x under the cultivation. But in nature, making such big leaves can be suicidal. So I agree that imitating the nature is a good start, but it may not be best for the cultivation.

 

[naoki]

When people say that plants became yellow with K-Lite (e.g. rcb), did you note which parts became yellow (e.g. entire plants, younger newly growing leaves, or older leaves)?

 

[consettbay2003]

older leaves became severely chlorotic.