Speaking if MSU, I tried measuring the TDS of MSU. 1/8 tsp per gallon yields around 300 ppm. Im not sure if my TDS meter is not calibrated or this reading is correct, after adding 1/8 of magsulfate and 1/8 calnitrate its around 400ppm. This is on RO water.
K-Lite Update?
- Thread starter Ray
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
Rick
Well-Known Member
To an extent, yes K-lite is shorthand for reduced K and increased Ca/Mg. The K lite formula does both. The numbers we went for reflect more natural K, Ca, Mg levels in tropical forrest leaf litters.
The "locking up" issue happens in both plant tissues and organic substrates. Which is why some growers (including myself for short periods of time) can get some relief from high K by adding things like lime, bonemeal, and oyster shell to potting mixes.
However, the bromiliad literature showed that epiphytic plants (which could include cliff dwelling paphs) were extremely efficient at obtaining K from sparse environments, even when Ca/Mg were in excess. They actually expend energy to do this since K is so rare in their environments.
The effects are probably more pronounced for the people using RO or rain water. For those using tap, well, and surface waters ( that have significant Ca even in soft water) there is some mediating effects against high K.
But overall slow growing perenials just dont need the K. It's primarily for starch production and bromiliads/orchids and the like just don't make bug startchy sugary friuts.
Rick
Well-Known Member
A PM sent to me on another board:
I'm not a member of slippertalk, although I lurk there, (obvious since I knew about the K-lite)
I took some pictures yesterday of new growths on a couple of my Hoyas which are pretty astonishing.
These are well established plants, not newly repotted, growing in the same spots. I've attached links for two pics showing the difference from the average old leaves, and the average new leaves since I started using K-lite.
Hoya fungii
Hoya imperialis
I know it's Hoyas, not orchids, but it to me shows some interesting results. But Hoyas are epiphytes as well. I choose these as they show what I'm seeing the best. But I'm seeing these results pretty much across the board in my Hoyas, especially the ones that are established plants.
I'm not a member of slippertalk, although I lurk there, (obvious since I knew about the K-lite)
I took some pictures yesterday of new growths on a couple of my Hoyas which are pretty astonishing.
These are well established plants, not newly repotted, growing in the same spots. I've attached links for two pics showing the difference from the average old leaves, and the average new leaves since I started using K-lite.
Hoya fungii
Hoya imperialis
I know it's Hoyas, not orchids, but it to me shows some interesting results. But Hoyas are epiphytes as well. I choose these as they show what I'm seeing the best. But I'm seeing these results pretty much across the board in my Hoyas, especially the ones that are established plants.
Last edited:
Rick
Well-Known Member
Try now. The first time, I just copied the message in its entirety. I just edited by inserting the full image URLs.
SlipperFan
Addicted
Stone
Well-Known Member
1 to 5% is hardly significant.oke:
The fertilisers I used previously was the MSU one to begin with. I then moved to some of the liquids ones such as Nitrosol, Aquasol, Seasol, Campbells and various others. I supplemented this with Epsolm salts and a Calcium fertiliser. I normally applied this fertiliser after watering first.
And what are you using now David?
emydura
Well-Known Member
Rick
Well-Known Member
1 to 5% is hardly significant.
Actually since the nutrients in your water (15%) and fertilizer (up to5%) are tightly inter meshed, then you might consider feeding/nutrition as 20% of the equation.
From reading all the complaints over the years, the majority were coming from strict RO and rain water users (which included myself).
So now I add back well water to my RO (which adds back nutrients such as N, Ca, Mg, Na, Cl, SO4, HCO3 and traces of everything else).
Adding the fertilizer just adds all the same stuff, but in different proportions.
Stone
Well-Known Member
Ok, so assuming your plants are recieving equal quanaties of both ferts??, then your N to K ratio would be (very aprox) around 1:0.3. I think that's a pretty good ratio and in fact very nearly the same as I'm using. On the other hand The K-lite formula refered to in this thread etc. has a ratio more like 1:00.1 or less. (if my head is screwed on properly this morning). A big difference!
I think your combination of nutrients is pretty good (with perhaps too much P?) So all we are disagreeing on is the rate? But without knowing the ec of your feed solutions or your p/mix i'ts hard to comment.
I would like to share this with anyone interested:
The other night we had a society meeting and someone brought in a breathtaking plant of paph insigne. (I will post a pic as soon as I get one) This thing was about 3 feet across, had 36 flowers open (all staked) and a huge mass of perfect leaves. So when I saw it you can imagine I had a few questions. He (actually a cymbidium grower
He's had the plant for fourty (40) years. He has not repotted it in 30 years, only potted on when it was bursting out of its pot. Keeps it sitting under 50% shade all year except flowering season when he brings it under cover. He sits it in a tray of water all summer. 2 years ago he potted into a larger container and sat the root ball on a bed of chc.
As far as feeding, He has been using (a few) pellets of ''Strike Back'' 2 or 3 times per year. ( for U.S. people, strike back is a pelleted chicken manure based fertilizer: NPK-7.7 / 3.63 / 9.87 Ca 2.91 Mg 0.52 plus all the trace elements added as sulphates. The N as ammonium and the K as sulphate. ) N to K ratio is around 1:1.2
He also sprinkles dolomite once per year.
Yes this plant is an easy and vigorous grower but surely subjected to the same general factors in the habitat as all other paph spp.
This plant had no signs of pests, disease, or burning out.
All this tells me: 1, don't feed too much., 2, don't worry too much about too much K., 3, Get the environment right before worrying about feeding.
Mike
Stone
Well-Known Member
Ok I would go along with all that. Orchids only get rain water in the wild so then obviously the feed we add to the rain water we use may not have all the elements and in the right combination if we need to add tap water back in.
So...why doesn't some one go to the jungle and collect the water dripping off some orchid roots and analyse that and base a fertilizer on that. It might include all kinds of compounds that we never considered? And we can't forget the various micro flora which work in association with the orchid.....Then again we seem to be doing ok as is.
I have done that in Peru. Water seeping from the slopes covered with orchids and other plants tests nearly 0 ppm with a meter. Sometimes as high as 20 ppm. Clearly the nutrients that the plants use are not flowing in the water. The nutrients are stuck to the "media" by ionic bond. So if you use this as a guide to decide what liquid fertilizer rate to use you would be way off base.
There is a huge difference between our media we have to use in pots and what wild plants grow in. In Nature the media is "alive" in every sense. In a plant collection the media is "dead" as far as simulating natural orchid root media.
Forget trying to replicate Nature, she is far beyond our capabilities! The best we can do is to define a combination of environmental factors that produce a plant that pleases our human perception. The idea of perfection for most orchid growers is not what you find in Nature for the most part. No one wants a plant with chewed up leaves and that is what you usually find with wild plants. If the K-Lite formula actually produces a plant that resists insect attack then the K-Lite formula probably does not mimic Nature. I suggest this because why would Nature want to have plants in the environment that are non nutritious for insects? Insects need to feed on plants or they would not prosper and mealybugs are just as important in nature as is an orchid plant. Maybe not just as important to humans but then who says humans get to decide that answer?
So K-Lite should not be looked at as a replication of the nutrients that wild orchids have but rather a formula to shift from Nature's standard quality plant to one that is more attractive to to the human perception of beauty.
OK, I just thought that so I wrote it. :crazy:
Rick
Well-Known Member
Well I dug up several papers on nutrient flux in rain forests when I first brought this up a year ago. No they are not specific to the drippings off of epiphytic orchid roots, but were more comprehensive. Since orchids are part of these ecosystems I thought it was reasonable to think that these numbers were pertinent.
These were the papers referring to leaf litter, leaf tissue, runoff constituents analysis of major ions/nutrients in rainforests and a big part of the basis of why we came up with K lite.
The other study we referred to a lot was the the bromiliad physiology paper which also pointed to low K.
There doesn't seem to be much point in chasing after exotic micro nutrients and phytochemicals until the fundamentals are corrected.
Stone
Well-Known Member
.
Exactly, Hence my example of the insigne above.
Totally agree. No way it could be. But again refering to the insigne, it shows that plants are quite adaptable and judging from its quality, I would argue that ''the formula'' has already been found. No way that plant could be improved upon.
Rick
Well-Known Member
Well I don't think that plants with spines, toxins, foul taste, bark,..... are in agreement with Nature with their role to supply nutrition for every bug out there. It's pretty obvious that a lot of what plants produce chemically, or manifest externally is to reduce/prevent/or escape predation (usually by insects). The flip side is the fragrances and sugars put into flowers, fruits, and seeds to promote reproduction by (usually insect) helpers. I get out in the woods myself and don't see the amount of infestation that happens in the GH, or in my outdoor garden for that matter. Yes there's a million and 1 reasons why garden monoculture crops are more susceptible to pests and diseases and need chemical intervention to control pests besides excess fertilizer. But I see no reason why we can't learn from nature to get some cues on taking care of plant/animal organisms that aren't that far removed from their wild counterparts.
You actually brought up to issues. 1) the total amount of nutrients in flux in tropical rainforests is a fraction of what we pour onto are plants each year.
2) Orchids don't produce high sugar/starch seeds and fruits. And the majority don't even produce significant quantities of nectar. This is where the bulk of K goes in plants, which is why corn, tomatoes, and sweet potatoes, bannanas... actually need some supplemental K. When you load an orchid up on K, it produces more than normal amounts of intracellular sugars and starches (gets fat) which makes it tastier for sucking bugs like mealies and scale.
Orchids are adapted to highly competitive impoverished environments. They are low energy and low resource competitors. So questions could be asked. Why did orchids develop the relationship with mychorizal fungus to develop to feed their embryos instead of making big starch/sugar filled seeds that feed themselves? Why did orchids come up with all kinds of deceptive pollination gimmicks rather than just compete with the newer model of cranking out a ton of sugar/nectar to entice the bees to come and move your pollen around?
I would guess if you don't have the resources to make sugar you come up with something else.
Rick
Well-Known Member
Apparently not. You post as many complaints and questions about perceived shortcomings in your plants as the rest of us. Apparently NOT ok.
What defines "OK"? 90% loss of seedlings? Plants that "bloom themselves to death" after 3 years? Plants that take 10 years to get to blooming size? Plants that loose their roots if you don't repot twice a year? Plants that need constant doses of pesticides to keep pest under control? Plants that can't get watered on them after 10AM so they don't get rot? The laundry list of "OK" that folks (certainly including myself) complain about or more realistically have adapted too is pretty astounding.
It seems like the adaptation is coming from both directions. The plants adapt (or die) with the conditions we offer, but what we offer is not much more than an adaption of the resources (time/effort/knowledge/money/fertilizer availability) that we bring to the table to get the plants to accept (at least at a bare minimum).
Mike. You keep bringing up that you have to get the basics (light temp humidity) down first. I agree, but that is also us growers adapting to the plants needs as much as the plants adapting to the growers offered parameters.
However, those three items are a pretty small repertoire of variables to worry about. So what do you do after exhausting the "Intermediate temps, Medium Light, High humidity" bag of tricks on the 6th compot of a Paph species that you've just wasted?
Rick
Well-Known Member
Sure they are, they just favor certain bugs.
We accept that as the obvious reason plants have certain defenses but is the design and purpose of the defenses to protect the plant from all insects for the sake of plant survival alone or also to protect a food source for select insect species?
I agree with you completely on all points of the K-Lite effect. I always say look closely at the natural conditions plants grow in to learn what they need. But don't try to simply mimic Nature and accept that as the best growing technique. Since we don't and can't replicate nature perfectly in all the other environmental elements we need to alter the nutrient supply from what Nature provides. That is exactly what you have done with K-Lite and the result is an improvement on Nature's plant "quality", At least as far as what we like to look at.
Exactly. But Tropical rainforests have a billion other factors that enable plants to grow without high mineral content in the water. We can not replicate most of those other factors so we compensate by supplying more than the daily requirement. It works to produce plants that grow well. Fine tune it and they grow better.
Very well stated.
Because there are some small creatures out there that need to feed on the tiny low sugar/starch seeds???
:rollhappy: Because orchids are superficial vain beauty queens that care more about what they look like than how they taste?
Or maybe you have the resources but are just to lazy to use them? Or Mother Nature gave that job to some other species? Just because the plants don't use the resource does not mean it is not available.
Your K-Lite formula works but I don't think the good effect you are seeing will be restricted to plants that naturally come from a low K environment. I think you are correct and you are showing that K can become "toxic" in plants, probably most plants.
But isolated examples like the insigne should not be interpreted to show that little or no fertilizer is what grows the best plants. What it shows is that on occasion environments within the root zone become perfect and plants grow fantastic. But this is a rare occurrence. Is every plant the insigne owner has is so prolific?
Last edited:
