K-Lite Testers: What do you grow, and have you made any observations?

[Rick]

Not sure what you mean by antagonistic deficiencies!?!

When you have too much of one chemical it blocks the plants ability to uptake or metabolically utilize another one.

In this case excess K causes what appears to be deficiencies of N, P, Ca, Mg.

I will post the lnk again to the ANTEC site with the table of deficiency/antagonism symptoms.

 

[Rick]

Trees and shrubs are far different than orchids.... They have relations with fungi, nematode and other things that break down the leaf litter to use as food and massive reserves. Take away those relation and see how long they live for. Orchids(slippers) have adapted to using broken down leaf litter for feed but there most be a constant supply for the plant to have any chance at surviving.

Many of these same relationships can and do develop in pots. Also epyphitic and cliff dwelling species live with very limited access to reserves of leaf litter.

I found a study that concluded that less than 1% of rainforrest leaf fall is actually retained in the trees.

This is totally different for the ant obligate species, but they do not comprise the majority of orchid species.

 

[Rick]

http://www.ladyslipper.com/minnut.htm

Scroll down to just about the bottom of the page to the table on deficiencies and excess.

Even though this is written with respect to orchids, I've seen similar tables in general agri litterature for food crops.

 

[Linus_Cello]

I'm wondering how many of us are using kelp? I'm wondering if the person in FL is using it also? Being that it supplies some where in the realm of 70 vitamins and nutrients. Could be masking deficiencies in the k-lite program?

I asked this question to Ray on another thread:
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27783&page=2

My impression from his answer is there is no conflict as kelp has auxins, not nutrients.

 

[Rick]

I asked this question to Ray on another thread:
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27783&page=2

My impression from his answer is there is no conflict as kelp has auxins, not nutrients.

Kelp has a ton of other organic materials that are great at chelating metals (including Ca, Mg, Na, K, besides the trace metals). Chelation helps metals stay soluble and move them into biological systems. It also includes many of the same trace metals as in the MSU and K lite product.

So its not a simple answer to Keither's question based on knowledge of what the known ingredients are. The only good way to answer this is testing with and without kelp extract.

I know several folk using a reduced K / boosted Ca-Mg system that are not using kelp and not experiencing trouble.

 

[keithrs]

The kelp product I use has an NPK of .1-1-1.2. No other elements are list on the label.

 

[Rick]

Not sure what you mean by antagonistic deficiencies!?!

See if you can access this article.

http://jcsp.org.pk/index.php/jcsp/article/view/1047/667

 

[Stone]

EC of 0? Distilled or RO right out of the tap? Can you get a hardness value from your provider?

Mains right out of the tap. Well it doesn't register on my little meter and I just calibrated it. Melbourne water is supposed to be some of the best in the world. I will look up the hardness on the web but I think they just give an average for the south east.

 

[Stone]

I have a compot of callosum seedlings that are in a leaf litter mix. They are growing great for about a year now, and I haven't fertilized them at all (just straight low EC water). I also potted up a blooming size Liparis in the same leaf litter media, and its putting up all kinds of new growth over the last year. Also no fert at all.

No fert is ok for a whlie but if you feed up a plant with N and stimulate growth it will also need everything else to go along with the N including K. the more cells manufactured the more K required. There always must be the right balance of all the elements. I just wonder if K lite will provide enough K for plants which don't have access to held cations like your plants on cork. But if you say they're doing well I guess it may be...

 

[Stone]

Perenial plants growing in the wild do just fine at nutrient levels a fraction of what we pour on our plants. I never fertilize the plants/trees/ shrubs on my property nor the woods across the street (which I don't water either). And they seem to do just fine without truckloads of fertilizer being dumped on them.

Yes but there's a difference. Plants in the ground have unlimited scope to run their roots looking for what they need and also as nutrients become depleted from colloids (humus AND clay) they attract more from thier neighbours, water etc so the level of nurtients in a natural system should remain consant.
Its only when tops are continually removed as in a vegie garden that they run down and must be replaced. Sooner or later in a container we must replace nutrients as the plant removes them or they get leached out...Or repot into fresh media.

 

[Ray]

Yes but there's a difference. Plants in the ground have unlimited scope to run their roots looking for what they need and also as nutrients become depleted from colloids (humus AND clay) they attract more from thier neighbours, water etc so the level of nurtients in a natural system should remain consant.

Correctamundo!

It's the clays and humus that give soils their cation exchange capacity, which is orders-of-magnitude greater than that in any orchid potting medium.

As those cations are taken into solution and absorbed by the plants, the CEC sites replenish themselves from the soil minerology. Even if orchid media HAD a lot of potential exchange sites, the only "minerology" available is what we add, and it's a lot more finite of a supply.

 

[Rick]

Correctamundo!

It's the clays and humus that give soils their cation exchange capacity, which is orders-of-magnitude greater than that in any orchid potting medium.

As those cations are taken into solution and absorbed by the plants, the CEC sites replenish themselves from the soil minerology. Even if orchid media HAD a lot of potential exchange sites, the only "minerology" available is what we add, and it's a lot more finite of a supply.

However, when you look at the amount (per unit area) of leaf litter and soil nutrients they still don't compare to the amount of nutrients we pour onto our plants during routine "feeding"......except in a cornfield.

When you look at soil conductivity in the forrest versus in a pot you can often get much high levels of TDS (from fertilizer) buildup in pots. Yes you have a more finite supply of exchangable sites in a pot, but we seem to be able to overload them much easier in pots than in the forest.

The forest plants don't use nutrients any faster than a potted orchid, so if we can accumulate salts in a pot (as evidence by conductivity measurement) then by reason forest systems just cycle on much less nutrient/unit space then in our artificial space.

 

[Rick]

It's the clays and humus that give soils their cation exchange capacity, which is orders-of-magnitude greater than that in any orchid potting medium.

As those cations are taken into solution and absorbed by the plants, the CEC sites replenish themselves from the soil minerology. Even if orchid media HAD a lot of potential exchange sites, the only "minerology" available is what we add, and it's a lot more finite of a supply.[/QUOTE]

However, when you look at the amount (per unit area) of leaf litter and soil nutrients they still don't compare to the amount of nutrients we pour onto our plants during routine "feeding"......except in a cornfield.

When you look at soil conductivity in the forrest versus in a pot you can often get much high levels of TDS (from fertilizer) buildup in pots. Yes you have a more finite supply of exchangable sites in a pot, but we seem to be able to overload them much easier in pots than in the forest.

The forest plants don't use nutrients any faster than a potted orchid, so if we can accumulate salts in a pot (as evidence by conductivity measurement) then by reason forest systems just cycle on much less nutrient/unit space then in our artificial space.

 

[gonewild]

However, when you look at the amount (per unit area) of leaf litter and soil nutrients they still don't compare to the amount of nutrients we pour onto our plants during routine "feeding"......except in a cornfield.

Consider that there may be more "clay" in (not under) the leaf litter than the reports show. Also clay particles collect in the root area of epiphytes.
Fine dust particles settle on the canopy foliage and wash down through epiphytic plants and on to the litter. When it does not rain in the rainforest leaves are covered in dust.This is probably not really considered by the investigators because it is almost invisible, but is is there. These minute clay particles may contribute a lot to ionic exchange of orchid roots. Or maybe not, but it should be considered.

 

[Rick]

These minute clay particles may contribute a lot to ionic exchange of orchid roots. Or maybe not, but it should be considered.

Because the amount is minute they are not holding vast amounts of nutrients.

A sponge that takes up a liter of space does not hold more than a liter of water. So for easy math if you had a few few miligrams of clay dust on plant roots it would contain even less of stored/bound nutrients.

The determination of metals (K for instance) in solid materials is based on digestion in nitric acid. So the numbers that you see in the papers coming out of soils/leaves/ect do acount for what may be trapped in solids and exchangable materials.

 

[Rick]

OK

I went and got some forest soil from the 'reforested' area in my front yard.

About 15 years ago it was lawn (sort of) under mature scarlet and white oak. We covered it up with big sheets of cardboard and buried the cardboard in about 4 inches of hardwood mulch. Since then we've never removed the annual leaf drop, and never watered (except when adding a new tree or plant). The cardboard and remnants of the original mulch are long gone, and the leaves self compost each year, so presently there was only a 3" layer of this years leaves with soil underneath.

I added just enough RO water to get the air out, and been soaking for 3 hours now. Conductivity has not got above 150uS/cm.

In comparison I had pre flush moss baskets set up less than 2 years that had climbed to 600 uS/cm. That pot of hydroton balls (clay balls) with my Phrag. caricinum got up to 600+, and since I've been flushing the crap out of it for the last few months, it still leaches out water that clears 200 uS/cm.

 

[cnycharles]

so, quality in the forest is more important than quantity (for those here who may not be scientifically inclined but are curious), in a broad sense.

 

[keithrs]

OK

I went and got some forest soil from the 'reforested' area in my front yard.

About 15 years ago it was lawn (sort of) under mature scarlet and white oak. We covered it up with big sheets of cardboard and buried the cardboard in about 4 inches of hardwood mulch. Since then we've never removed the annual leaf drop, and never watered (except when adding a new tree or plant). The cardboard and remnants of the original mulch are long gone, and the leaves self compost each year, so presently there was only a 3" layer of this years leaves with soil underneath.

I added just enough RO water to get the air out, and been soaking for 3 hours now. Conductivity has not got above 150uS/cm.

In comparison I had pre flush moss baskets set up less than 2 years that had climbed to 600 uS/cm. That pot of hydroton balls (clay balls) with my Phrag. caricinum got up to 600+, and since I've been flushing the crap out of it for the last few months, it still leaches out water that clears 200 uS/cm.

Why test EC? Thought EC test saltinty?

 

[Ray]

EC tests electrical conductivity, which results from the presence of ANY ionic species in the solution.

The conductivity level is related to three things: the charge(s) on those ions, the concentration of them, and their mobility. A little bit of a classic inorganic salt like NaCl will result in the same conductivity level as a relatively larger amount of something like limestone, but they both contribute to the conductivity of the solution.

 

[keithrs]

The reason I ask(as explained to Rick) having zero scientific backround is that I was once told by a rep. for Earth Juice is that you can not test organic compounds/fertilizers with EC.