Silicon the forgotten macronutrient?

[gonewild]

What ever happen to folks using pro-tek?

Obviously it does not have much verified effect! oke:
At least not enough to brag about.

 

[gonewild]

You equate sulfur to titanium with respect to plant nutritional requirements? That is an ignorant statement.

No, I did not equate Titanium to Sulfur. But why do you disregard it's importance? Because it is a low % of total leaf mass?
Perhaps it is "ignorant" (recycle your word) to assume that just because one element is present in high percentages it is more important than one that is present in low amounts.

Ignorant studies:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S017616178880138X
http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/50934.pdf
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/10/4/821.full.pdf

 

[DavidCampen]

No, I did not equate Titanium to Sulfur. But why do you disregard it's importance? Because it is a low % of total leaf mass?
Perhaps it is "ignorant" (recycle your word) to assume that just because one element is present in high percentages it is more important than one that is present in low amounts.

Ignorant studies:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S017616178880138X
http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/50934.pdf
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/10/4/821.full.pdf

Yes, I certainly did err. I had no idea that anyone had ever made claims that titanium had a beneficial effect on plant nutrition. So you are quite correct; I was the one who was demonstrating significant ignorance.

Still, I have to say that I find the indications that titanium is beneficial, based on the references that you gave (though it is true that I could only access the summary for the 1st paper) to be a bit tenuous and at best only indicate that titanium may be beneficial not that it is essential. Sodium is sometimes considered beneficial though not essential. Sulfur, OTOH, is known to be essential.

 

[DavidCampen]

Odd and heretical. Go ahead and read the references in the paper.

Just based on the Orchids article I find a number of points to critique. I was thinking of going to the botanical library at the local arboretum to see which of those references I could find there and I am friendly with one of the botanists there so perhaps he could get me access to some of the other references. But then, if I did all that I would probably have a number of points that I would want to challenge you on but that would most likely result in my being warned by the moderators that I should be nice or be banned. I am already on thin ice over at OrchidBoard because I was so rude as to criticize some erroneous statements that people had made.

 

[gonewild]

J but that would most likely result in my being warned by the moderators that I should be nice or be banned. I am already on thin ice over at OrchidBoard because I was so rude as to criticize some erroneous statements that people had made.

No, You won't get banned from this forum for arguing your opinions.
Yes, you will get ignored if you are rude and attack persons rather than ideas.

 

[gonewild]

Yes, I certainly did err. I had no idea that anyone had ever made claims that titanium had a beneficial effect on plant nutrition. So you are quite correct; I was the one who was demonstrating significant ignorance.

Still, I have to say that I find the indications that titanium is beneficial, based on the references that you gave (though it is true that I could only access the summary for the 1st paper) to be a bit tenuous and at best only indicate that titanium may be beneficial not that it is essential. Sodium is sometimes considered beneficial though not essential. Sulfur, OTOH, is known to be essential.

There are many studies done on Titanium as plant nutrient. I don't think any of them prove anything about it's true value. One trial absolutely proved it could 100% replace iron in the formation of chlorophyll. Then some time later another trial proved that it could not replace iron.

That is my point about scientific trials not being proof that certain nutrients are absolute at a certain ppm in leaf tissue. To accept a scientific paper just because it was written by a scholar and published does not really make it true. It only makes it accepted fact until someone else has a different idea and publishes "new" findings. In reality all trials are biased because the people running them have a tendency to see things that prove their point so data is going to be skewed.

Sulfur...yes plant tissue has a high percentage of sulfur. But does that mean that plants need to uptake a certain amount constantly? Not necessarily.
Maybe they do benefit from higher applications but experience over years have not shown the need to go beyond what is in MSU. The same holds true for Silica, just no real indication that it is needed on a daily basis.

Do plants need Silica from soluble compounds? Maybe. Can plant roots extract Silica from solid sand? Why not? Who knows what a root can actually get done?

Why attack K-lite as not having enough Sulfur? K-lite was a set of ratios that were chosen based on Ricks experiments and research supplemented with input from ST growers. Then that set of desired ratios was tweaked so the company could actually blend a fertilizer that could be packaged for use. So far the chosen ratio is proving to be very good. Would it benefit from the addition of more sulfur or silica? Maybe it would but I really doubt the improvement could be measured.
Maybe plant tissue analysis would show higher levels of sulfur and silica...but that does not mean the plants grew any better or flowered any better, it only means the plant absorbed more.
Just because it reports high in tissue analysis does not mean it contributes to good plant health.

 

[Secundino]

To accept a scientific paper just because it was written by a scholar and published does not really make it true. It only makes it accepted fact until someone else has a different idea and publishes "new" findings.

Thats not right. You make an experiment and reach conclusions. As long as other scientist can repeat the same experiment with same results, they will necessarily accept the conclusions and so verify the first result.
Sulfur is a constitutive element of proteins. So a plant that is growing MUST of course uptake sulphur in some form as long as it grows and builts up biomass. How else would the cells be able to make proteins? I don't care if it is on a daily basis or just mondays and fridays.

K-lite is a very interesting point of view (but was not really the issue of this topic). Now, after reading the papers, I still think its interesting, but, as already has been pointed out by Stone, up to now we can just say that after two years K-lite does no harm.
But as far as I understand it, not only the feeding has been changed, also the container (pot vs. basket) and the media (more moss, less bark).

If I had made any photograph then I could show you the big improvement in health and growing of my orchids when I finally installed a fan 24/7! No rot so far, the last two years! Stiff leaves... and so on.
All parameters act simultaneously, some add, some interfere, some are synergistic. We must take them in account altogether at the end, but until then, it is necessary to know how the Si (and other essential elements) comes into a plant! Active transport? Passive transport? Through micorrhiza? And which of all them are limiting elements?

I still learned that K hardens the plants tissues when fully grown preventing posible infections. So in the meanwhile I'll be closely watching my plants before introducing drastic changes.

 

[Rick]

Just based on the Orchids article I find a number of points to critique. I was thinking of going to the botanical library at the local arboretum to see which of those references I could find there and I am friendly with one of the botanists there so perhaps he could get me access to some of the other references. But then, if I did all that I would probably have a number of points that I would want to challenge you on but that would most likely result in my being warned by the moderators that I should be nice or be banned. I am already on thin ice over at OrchidBoard because I was so rude as to criticize some erroneous statements that people had made.

All of those references were pulled off the internet (though some articles I had to pay for). More than half of them have been linked to this site in various threads. Sometimes several times over the last 2 years, and by multiple contributors on ST.

You can challenge all you want. That's what they are there for. I find it more rude/inappropriate to challenge the material in the paper without knowing/understanding the material that went into it in the first place.

However the results stand for themselves beyond the learning and understanding that went into the process in the first place. So if you want to challenge, then you need to come up with an explanation for the positive results that growers are getting with this system.

 

[Rick]

I still learned that K hardens the plants tissues when fully grown preventing posible infections. So in the meanwhile I'll be closely watching my plants before introducing drastic changes.

You need to come up with the paper on that one. I have more than 1 that says that cell wall integrity is based on either Ca and or Si, and the more K you plow into a plant the less Ca and Mg the plant retains.

I have seen some documentation that potash solutions (silicates of potassium) will do as you prescribe above, but the effect is due to silicon not K.

 

[Rick]

If I had made any photograph then I could show you the big improvement in health and growing of my orchids when I finally installed a fan 24/7!

Already did this starting 2003, and went through iterations of mister/fogger/wetpad to enforce optimal humidity years ago (years before low K). And it did make a difference for me 10 years ago.

The baskets which a lot of you are focusing on as alternative variables are definitely not universal in my collection or for others. Many of the improved plants in my collection are mounted, or in bark, CHC, or Semi hydro conditions.

So how do you explain all those improvements if they were never repotted or remounted?

 

[Rick]

Obviously it does not have much verified effect! oke:
At least not enough to brag about.

Count me in on that too. I jumped on the Protekt bandwagon several years ago, and it was a bust for me.

I still have 1/2 a quart if someone wants to buy it.

 

[Rick]

So why do you not care about Si fertilizing what if silicon deficiency makes the plants prone to infections?

Do you have a good number for silicon requirements of orchids? I know its high in grass, and horsetail, but is it really needed in large quantities for orchids?

Then if you are worried about supplying it to the super limited market of growers who grow only in pure water with no organic medium, what would you use as a dry readily soluble source?

Also 300 or so ppm of material is very small. A 1/4 tsp/gal is over 250ppm How is that going to break your bank?

One of the papers referenced in the low K article says that it is the presence of Ca that combats disease in plants by improving cell wall structure (not Si).

 

[Rick]

So what you seem to be saying is that any proportions of any nutrient will be optimal (except, or course, for potassium which has to be strictly controlled).
I find your position to be quite odd.

Actually not odd at all for toxicologists, but odd for chemists and engineers.

 

[cnycharles]

Its the Potassium that regulates the stretching not the Poke:

all things considered, if you put too much phosphorus on crops, they will stretch. growing a few hundred thousand plants has revealed that quite handily

 

[Stone]

Basically plants are able to forage what they need from what is available and both silica and sulfur seem to be available from many different places for the plants in most growing conditions.

As I mentioned earlier, with modern and largely inert modern potting media like bark, stones, baked clay, charcoal, perlite, sand, marble, polystyrene etc etc etc, well we are basically growing hydroponically so its vital to get your nutrients correct. The plants can forage all they like but they won't find much with the above media and RO or rain water. Even my tap water is so pure that I MUST supply Sulphur along with everything else. We can argue about the proportions and ratios but until we have definate information to the contrary, I'll continue to give what convention says I should. ( and remember we are talking about many decades of horticultural experience including countless trials with countless species )That convention says: K/N ratio of 0.5 to 1 or as high as 2 in cold dark weather.
P/N ratio of 0.06 to 0.15, ( maybe even lower would be good for some plants )S/N ratio of 0.12 and Ca at least double Mg.
Thats why I also metioned earlier that with a very the high cation exchange of ''old fashioned'' media you hardly have to worry about all this juggling of nutrients and pH fluctuations. But with inert media, the balance is critical and so easy to mess up. What we need is a high CEC/buffer capacity media that won't rot!

 

[gonewild]

To accept a scientific paper just because it was written by a scholar and published does not really make it true. It only makes it accepted fact until someone else has a different idea and publishes "new" findings.

Thats not right. You make an experiment and reach conclusions. As long as other scientist can repeat the same experiment with same results, they will necessarily accept the conclusions and so verify the first result.

That does not mean the results are the true reality. It only means that the methods they used yielded those results. It is very go information but i don't feel it is always the final answer....so we disagree.

Sulfur is a constitutive element of proteins. So a plant that is growing MUST of course uptake sulphur in some form as long as it grows and builts up biomass. How else would the cells be able to make proteins? I don't care if it is on a daily basis or just mondays and fridays.

Sure but the percentage of sulfur in plant tissue does not indicate the volume or frequency it needs to be available. (It works best on Wednesdays)

K-lite is a very interesting point of view (but was not really the issue of this topic). Now, after reading the papers, I still think its interesting, but, as already has been pointed out by Stone, up to now we can just say that after two years K-lite does no harm.

You sure do read the K-lite reports differently than I do. I only remember one negative report and that was false info. All the rest people report positive.

But as far as I understand it, not only the feeding has been changed, also the container (pot vs. basket) and the media (more moss, less bark).

No a lot of people simply switched fertilizers. Recently one posted positive results and I questioned him whether he had repotted and he did only on some plants. But his observation was positive for all plants.

If I had made any photograph then I could show you the big improvement in health and growing of my orchids when I finally installed a fan 24/7! No rot so far, the last two years! Stiff leaves... and so on.

Every time you make an improvement in culture you will see positive results.
Can you prove the stiff leaves and no rot is a result of the fans being on 24/7? Or is that simply your observation? By your previous comments I should not believe your reslts and ask you for a research trial to prove the 27/7 fan helped your plants.

All parameters act simultaneously, some add, some interfere, some are synergistic. We must take them in account altogether at the end, but until then, it is necessary to know how the Si (and other essential elements) comes into a plant! Active transport? Passive transport? Through micorrhiza? And which of all them are limiting elements?

Yes and all these things are unknown. The casual addition of silica in fertilizer solutions has not shown any real noticeable results in orchids. Not enough to consider it as a daily supplement requirement.

I still learned that K hardens the plants tissues when fully grown preventing posible infections. So in the meanwhile I'll be closely watching my plants before introducing drastic changes.

Is this something you learned yourself or are you following scientific publications?

 

[Stone]

You need to come up with the paper on that one.

Here's one on K and abiotic stresses
http://www.ipipotash.org/udocs/The ...tal effects of abiotic stresses in plants.pdf

 

[gonewild]

As I mentioned earlier, with modern and largely inert modern potting media like bark, stones, baked clay, charcoal, perlite, sand, marble, polystyrene etc etc etc, well we are basically growing hydroponically so its vital to get your nutrients correct. The plants can forage all they like but they won't find much with the above media and RO or rain water. Even my tap water is so pure that I MUST supply Sulphur along with everything else.

No argument about this. But how do you explain plants growing in inert baked clay media, watered with RO water, only given MSU fertilizer and growing indoors under lights and the plants grow from flask to flower. Where did all the silica come from?

We can argue about the proportions and ratios but until we have definate information to the contrary, I'll continue to give what convention says I should. ( and remember we are talking about many decades of horticultural experience including countless trials with countless species )That convention says: K/N ratio of 0.5 to 1 or as high as 2 in cold dark weather.
P/N ratio of 0.06 to 0.15, ( maybe even lower would be good for some plants )S/N ratio of 0.12 and Ca at least double Mg.

I remember the decades pretty well, I have now gone through 5 of them growing orchids. I also remember listening to a professor saying there was some evidence that regular applications of liquid fertilizer MAY increase greenhouse production so I went home to my greenhouse and started my own trials. I knew a lot of the people that wrote the "conventions" (most are dead now). I heard their stories about how stupid and wrong their competitors were, how they botched up the trials and faked the results just to get published. Every commercial grower starts out following the "conventions" but quickly learn to alter the "conventions". Since they are commercial and not scientific they never publish or share what they actually know about plant nutrition. So there are "conventions" and then there is the real world of plant growing.

Thats why I also metioned earlier that with a very the high cation exchange of ''old fashioned'' media you hardly have to worry about all this juggling of nutrients and pH fluctuations. But with inert media, the balance is critical and so easy to mess up. What we need is a high CEC/buffer capacity media that won't rot!

That sounds logical but in my opinion we don't want a high CEC media for potted plant culture. When your media hangs on to nutrients you can never be sure what you actually are allowing the plants to have access to. Better to have inert media and supply what is needed, assuming what is needed is known..

 

[Stone]

No argument about this. But how do you explain plants growing in inert baked clay media, watered with RO water, only given MSU fertilizer and growing indoors under lights and the plants grow from flask to flower. Where did all the silica come from?
Easy! plants don't NEED silica But some do better with it. Mind you we don't even know yet if paphs are better with silica but probably safe to assume???

 

[gonewild]

Mind you we don't even know yet if paphs are better with silica but probably safe to assume???

Why is it safe to assume that?