K-Lite Update?

[Rick]

Non-Slippers feedback.... After long discussions with some friends that grow Catasetinae, and reading the posts about K-lite and plant resistance, we decide to give it a try this growing season in order to check whether we could control better the eternal problem of mites when you grow Catasetinae. Two of us have single greenhouses, one has two greenhouses... So, we are using K-Liter in 3 of them since about two months (quite a long period for Catasetinae, as the new growths need to reach maximal growth within 3-5 months). We almost have no major problems with mites this year in the greenhouses where we applied K-Lite. One or two plants infected, but we can control it pretty quick and they do not spread as quick as in previous years or in the non-treated greenhouse (no difference in this one, compared to previous years)

Are you seeing any difference in leaf size or "substance"? I have one Catesetum species (plant) that is just starting to leaf out for the year. It looks pretty good so far, but still to early to compare to previous years.

In general I'm having much easier time with mealy bugs in my collection too.

 

[Ray]

The number of reported improvements are scaring me.

What are we missing and/or not yet seeing?

 

[gonewild]

The number of reported improvements are scaring me.

What are we missing and/or not yet seeing?

Possible health problems later? Like steroid use in young atheletes?

Or maybe overcrowded plant benches caused by increaded growth and no die offs? That could be a serious side effect! :drool:

 

[Stone]

We almost have no major problems with mites this year in the greenhouses where we applied K-Lite

.

I don't want to sound too skeptical but I think it might be a stretch to attribute lack of mite attack to a few weeks/months of low applied K just yet. So many variables. Pest attack can vary massively from year to year. I remember one year where we had a huge thrips invasion, the next year they were gone! Same with most other pests. Catasetum rely on their old bulbs for forward growth until well into the season, We know orchids are very efficient at scrounging for nutrients so if you repot into new bark,moss,peat,chc etc. every year or even every 2 years, they will never be very low in K. It's just a guess if you say there is less potassium in the leaves this year especially anything with bulbs.

Can you be really sure unless you do a leaf analysis 2 years before and 2 years after K-lite on a given orchid with everything else including p/mix remaining equal? (I realise we are just posting observations not absolutes)

Every grower using K-lite would no doubt be usinig different potting materials so we can't compare with each other only with our own results with again so many variables. Just paying a bit more attention to your plants can have profound effects. What about the weather this year? (more/less light, heat, humidity) Did you sprinkle a little dolomite on this year and not last?

Its an interesting experiment but I think we should be wary of jumping to conclusions at the first sign of improved growth. Remember that all orchids have a natural habit of increasing vegetative growth and flower numbers each year until they reach specimen size.

Please take these comments as observation NOT criticism. I totally agree too much K aint no good!

Mike

 

[gonewild]

.

Please take these comments as observation NOT criticism.

Mike

What fun is that?
oke:

 

[Rick]

I'm trying to get some "before and after" photos together for the article I'm writing. So try this one. My phrag wallisii (now warcsewikzianum) Last year it bloomed on a stunted growth only about 8" tall. The most mature unbloomed growth, that was just a tyke when I started my reduced K program, is now over a foot tall. Leaf length has increased by 45% compared to the previous flowered growth. I'd also loose 1-2 new growths out of 3 to erwinia, but so far erwinia has stopped.

Also getting a great come-back on a lindenii that I had almost lost to erwinia.

 

[Stone]

I'm trying to get some "before and after" photos together for the article I'm writing. So try this one. My phrag wallisii (now warcsewikzianum) Last year it bloomed on a stunted growth only about 8" tall. The most mature unbloomed growth, that was just a tyke when I started my reduced K program, is now over a foot tall. Leaf length has increased by 45% compared to the previous flowered growth. I'd also loose 1-2 new growths out of 3 to erwinia, but so far erwinia has stopped.

Also getting a great come-back on a lindenii that I had almost lost to erwinia.

The size of growths are governed (assuming adequate supply of all other nutrients) by N. (and the genetics of the plant and environment) So your plant may have just been responding to improved physical conditions in the basket. Once roots have proliferated you generally get an explosion in the next growth. I've seen this many times in my g/house after repoting into fresh mix, letting a plant with rotted roots to dry out which is then followed by vigorous growth, feeding something that had missed out for some reason. etc. All this with plants which have languished and been miserable year after year. Once their roots got going, subsequent growth was remarkable.
Something with your plant allowed it to consume more N. Usually this is more roots. Its possible reducing the K allowed for better root growth by improved calcium intake? But I've seen similr resposes without the K reduction.
So.....stuffed if I know?

Mike

 

[Rick]

All this with plants which have languished and been miserable year after year. Once their roots got going, subsequent growth was remarkable.
Something with your plant allowed it to consume more N. Usually this is more roots. Its possible reducing the K allowed for better root growth by improved calcium intake? But I've seen similr resposes without the K reduction.
So.....stuffed if I know?

Mike

All possibly true. So why was this plant going down the tubes for the 3 years prior under the old high K regime with standard annual repotting? Granted this is just one anecdotal result out of the dozens of positive effects I'm seeing in my collection since the change. To me what makes the above result even more remarkable are the significant losses I've suffered with long petaled phrag species over the last 10 years (some of which were also in baskets, but all high K). Between these wallisii, lindenii, and exstamiodium turn-around cases, I can write off about 10 other cases where high K ultimately resulted in dead caudatum type phrags, regardless of potting mix or pot type.

I'm pretty happy so far.

 

[abax]

Even though I'm not a scientific grower, but a very observant grower, I see a good bit of improvement in all
the plants in my gh in a fairly short time with K-Lite. I was using Jack's Pro with Ca/Mag and high potassium and the lower potassium is improving root growth and top growth simultaneously. The weather here has been unusually cool, damp and overcast and I still see improvement. I've followed the same routine I've used for over 15 years, so attention isn't any different.

 

[chrismende]

So, are any of you doing some comparison tracking of same plants in different fertilizing regimes?

 

[Rick]

So, are any of you doing some comparison tracking of same plants in different fertilizing regimes?

I have 2 groups of 5 (or 6) lowii seedlings just taken out of the same compot in December or January of this year. They are all potted identically (a CHC based mix in 2 inch black plastic pots) and sit right next to each other. They are all growing, and the high K may actually be slightly ahead based on leaves, but although I can't see the roots, when I pull on the low K plants they are more firmly seated in the pots, while the high K are comparatively shallow and loose in the pots.

At 5 or 6 months they are all about what I would get in the past with high K. If they hold true to past results I expect the high K will stop growing after about a year and start declining.

I pulled a few of the bigger ones out of this same compot about a year ago. 2 in baskets and 1 in a similar plastic pot and all low K. These are already many times bigger than the above test plants. Almost 6 inches tall.

For what its worth, this is the second batch of seedlings I produced from a selfing of a now deceased lowii I owned from about 2002 to 2009. The first batch I received (Nov, 2005) are all dead, and never grew more than a few inches. This second batch has been out of flask for about 1.5 years now (received Nov, 2010), with almost no losses and the largest are beating the heck out of what I experienced with the first batch. Same parent, same flasking service, most of the conditions/handling the same except for feeding regime.

 

[Rick]

For what its worth, this is the second batch of seedlings I produced from a selfing of a now deceased lowii I owned from about 2002 to 2009. The first batch I received (Nov, 2005) are all dead, and never grew more than a few inches. This second batch has been out of flask for about 1.5 years now (received Nov, 2010), with almost no losses and the largest are beating the heck out of what I experienced with the first batch. Same parent, same flasking service, most of the conditions/handling the same except for feeding regime.

Obviously the above is not a demonstration of a true side by side trial since I can't account for all the variables in my culture program from 6 years ago.

Interestingly I was contacted in 2007 or 2008 by someone else ( I think Olympic orchids) who had also received some flasks from that same 2005 group who said they were doing great for them. So whatever I was doing from 2005 to 2008 wasn't good for that batch of lowii seedlings.

 

[Kavanaru]

.
Please take these comments as observation NOT criticism. I totally agree too much K aint no good!

Mike

Mike, don't worry... I have been quite skeptical myself with all this... As Ithink many of he seen improvements are a bit to over stimated. Yes, I agree that K-Lite seems to be a good approach, but comments like: "I use k-lite since two month and now my Cattleya produced 4 flowers" or "I see roots growing" are more related to Cattleya being mature now and not a first bloomer, or new roots related more to beginning of growing season.... Just to mention some examples...

I was just quiet waiting for long term results, before deciding to try it... Catasetinae indeed rely on old PBs. not to develop the whole new growth, but to start it! Once the new growth has a strong root system (and tis happens very
quick), it will start using external supplies(if available) to grow. Therefore, it is important to provide a lot water and fertilizer to the new growth, otherwise you end up with PBs smaller than the previous year and a weaker plant that may not bloom for two seasons. With Catasetinae and mites, we ave had this problem every year, withou being able to really eradicate it. Yes, we keep it under control but it still there.... So, based in the fact that many people had reported improvements in "plant resistance to infection", and because the growing cycle of Catasetinae is so quick and short, we decided to give it a try.... Some plans are growing larger, but mostly we o not see big differences to previous years.. However, it is noticeable what I mentioned with the mites... The non-treated greehousehas the mtes problem exactly as every year. The other don't. Yes, we do have mites, but as mentioned, they do not spread to neighbor plants as quick and in previous years (or as in be non treated greenhouse). In particular, in my collection I decided to be a bit radical in my test, and am not using miticides, but treating each infection locally rubbing the affected plant with alcohol... So far with success...

Of course, this is a punctual observation, and my not be really a result of k-lite, but as most othe punctual observation listed here in ST on this topic, worth to be mentioned!

The true effect of k-lite, IMO, will be seen only after long term used....

 

[Stone]

All possibly true. So why was this plant going down the tubes for the 3 years prior under the old high K regime with standard annual repotting? Granted this is just one anecdotal result out of the dozens of positive effects I'm seeing in my collection since the change. To me what makes the above result even more remarkable are the significant losses I've suffered with long petaled phrag species over the last 10 years (some of which were also in baskets, but all high K). Between these wallisii, lindenii, and exstamiodium turn-around cases, I can write off about 10 other cases where high K ultimately resulted in dead caudatum type phrags, regardless of potting mix or pot type.

I'm pretty happy so far.

I can't explain why the turn around but can we ignore the fact that most of these were probably grown with standard fertilizing practice?http://www.google.com.au/search?q=p...AXI0oj3Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CGYQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=525 (How's the plant at the bottom of page3!)
And you could say the same with everything else. I'm still convinced that its evironment (light, heat, humidity,air) 80%
water 15%
fertilizer 5% if that. probably more like 1
Standard N to K ratio in the nursery industry here is about 1:0.8 ( for ALL containerized stock-woody and non woody ) I'm sure its the same there as well. Some have found that during cold dark days of a southern winter, ratios had to increase to 1:2 to and in extreme cases to 1:3! to counter young plants stretching due to lack of light. But the most important thing was to reduce N in these conditions.
I have found my stuff is doing well with N to K ratio of about 1:0.4 with 0.5%Mg and some form of Ca. added. (my water is fairly soft) and I try to make allowences for native K in bark t/fern and chc especially.

 

[Ray]

I totally agree that long-term assessment is necessary, so am skeptical of even my interpretation of my own observations at this point.

 

[Rick]

I totally agree that long-term assessment is necessary, so am skeptical of even my interpretation of my own observations at this point.

HA Ha... You started this thread Rayoke:


However, seems like we have debunked the notion that all our plants would starve and go down in flames.

And one of my more important issues I'm hoping to see alleviated is the boom and bust syndrome of orchid growth (which really would take about 3-5 years to realize a difference).

 

[emydura]

My experience is that pests and rot seem to attack weak plants. Strong healthy plants rarely seem to suffer these issues. I was having a terrible problem with scale late last year but that now seems to be behind me.

I disagree with you Mike that fertiliser is insignificant. All those factors you mention are important but so is the orchids food. Maybe in terms of the plants survival it is not crtical, but if you want to grow your plants optimally then you need to get it right. I have been growing Paphs for over 10 years now and until recently I was a terrible grower. I would get divisions from John Robertson and P&R Orchids and watch as my follow-up growths were runts compared to what I received. I tried all different things, changing potting mixes etc and nothing worked until I got the food right.

Below is another example of the significant improvement in one of my plants (insigne x superbiens) that I posted the other day. The top leaf was grown after the fertiliser change. This growth probably has another years growth in it as well. The bottom parallel leaf is from the flowering growth and was mature before the fertiliser change. Maybe you are right Mick and that leaves should get bigger as the plant matures. But I have never seen this sort of improvement before.

 

[emydura]

So Rick, we keep talking about low K. But from memory I think you said that the problem is that plants cannot access Ca and Mg because of the high K levels in the mix? So the direct problem is a lack of Ca and Mg due to the indirect high levels of K?

That is the big change I have made in my fertiliser regime. Certainly I have decreased my K, but I have greatly increased my Mg and Ca at the same time. The fact that I apply it largely as a foliar fertiliser may mean the issue of K locking up Ca and Mg may be less of a problem for me?

 

[Stone]

My experience is that pests and rot seem to attack weak plants. Strong healthy plants rarely seem to suffer these issues. I was having a terrible problem with scale late last year but that now seems to be behind me.

Not always. In fact I have huge and very healthy Laelia anceps in the glasshouse at the moment in full flower which I noticed last week was being attacked by brown scale all over the spikes (bad housekeeping?) and other perfectly healthy orchids as well with new leaves or spikes also being attacked by white scale. Some scale even on the flowers so they can establish themselves in a matter of days!
There has been an increase in ant activity lately and these farmers are the ones choosing the victims. I've never seen scale on any paphs here but I agree that fungus/bacteria seem to favour the week plants

I disagree with you Mike that fertiliser is insignificant

.

No definately not insignificant but many writers agree with me when they say feed always comes last on the list. Take away water, heat, light, air and the plant will not grow well regardless of feed. Take away feed and you would struggle to see a difference for months. You can try this yourself by selecting a coulple of plants and giving only water for 6 months. I think you may be surprised how well they do. Of course optimum growth comes with good feeding but orchids seem kind of special when it come to finding enough food. As an example, in my shade house there is an old cattleya hybrid hanging up where absolutely and honestly has not recieved any fertilizer since I moved down here (5 years) I just don't care about it. It has completly smothered its pot several times over and cotinues to make new growths the same size as previous years and flowers every year. So Where's the food coming from? Tanaka whom I greatly respect for his brachy growing says feed from 4 to 10 times regular dilution! In my experience the time when feeding does the most good is when the plants are about 1/3 to 1/2 into their new growth. The rest of the time it dosn't seem to matter that much, at least with epiphytes. I'm still trying to figure out the paphs!

Below is another example of the significant improvement in one of my plants (insigne x superbiens) that I posted the other day. The top leaf was grown after the fertiliser change. This growth probably has another years growth in it as well. The bottom parallel leaf is from the flowering growth and was mature before the fertiliser change. Maybe you are right Mick and that leaves should get bigger as the plant matures. But I have never seen this sort of improvement before.

So how and what were you feeding before the change?

 

[emydura]

No definately not insignificant

So how and what were you feeding before the change?

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.