Is there a magic distance from the bottom of the pot to locate the side drain holes
Simi hydro pot drainage holes
- Thread starter gonewild
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
- Messages
- 1,322
- Reaction score
- 1,042
Since water seeks the lowest point, by gravity, they should be near the bottom.
If you are growing with a constant presence of standing water, then I have no idea.
And what is semi-hydro? Either you are growing hydroponically or you are not.
If you are growing with a constant presence of standing water, then I have no idea.
And what is semi-hydro? Either you are growing hydroponically or you are not.
eds
Well-Known Member
https://firstrays.com/semi-hydroponic-culture/general-semi-hydroponics-information/
My holes are around 3/4" on the smallest pots getting a little higher up for bigger ones. Don't know if that is right for everyone but it seems to work ok for me.
My holes are around 3/4" on the smallest pots getting a little higher up for bigger ones. Don't know if that is right for everyone but it seems to work ok for me.
Wherever you want the reservoir to be. I use the horizontal mold line. 3 holes.
Isn't true hydroponic using water dripping through the pot constantly?
It's the term coined by Ray (firstrays.com- somebody else already linked a page on his site). Basically not true hydroponics because there is not a continual feed of water, but it's based on having a reservoir in the bottom of the pot that is kept fresh by flushing the pot regularly. Usually this tactic goes with having inorganic media like leca, rockwool, rocks, or a mixture. The idea is that once plants are established, you can leave the water loving ones a bit longer between waterings (I think).
I put my holes probably between a 3rd and 4th of the way up the pot for the phrag I have in it, and I used a deeper pot than typical. I would double check the First Rays website to be sure as he has pretty clear instructions.
“Semi-hydroponics” is simply a name I made up for what maybe properly called “passive” hydroponics, as there is no active mechanism to rewet the medium or roots, as that is done manually.
It certainly is truly hydroponics, as the plant must get everything it needs from the solution, as the medium is inert and provides nothing but mechanical stability.
I suppose one might consider all orchid-growing as being hydroponic in nature, as the vast majority of orchid media (sans osmunda) are present for mechanical stability and temporary water-and nutrient storage and do not appreciably provide nutrition themselves. In order for an organic medium to release nutrients, it must decompose, but we try to avoid that, as that can quickly lead to dead roots.
Back to the original question, the depth of the reservoir may be adjusted as neeeded. In a standard 4.5” pot (a quart deli container) I shoot for 1”-1.5” in the 6” or so tall pot. I have gone as much as 6” deep in a converted florist’s cooler bucket that was 18” in diameter and 24” tall.
The depth may be varied to help account for your growing conditions’ effect on evaporation and time between waterings, but one should really think more about the reservoir-to-top distance of the media column, as well.
It certainly is truly hydroponics, as the plant must get everything it needs from the solution, as the medium is inert and provides nothing but mechanical stability.
I suppose one might consider all orchid-growing as being hydroponic in nature, as the vast majority of orchid media (sans osmunda) are present for mechanical stability and temporary water-and nutrient storage and do not appreciably provide nutrition themselves. In order for an organic medium to release nutrients, it must decompose, but we try to avoid that, as that can quickly lead to dead roots.
Back to the original question, the depth of the reservoir may be adjusted as neeeded. In a standard 4.5” pot (a quart deli container) I shoot for 1”-1.5” in the 6” or so tall pot. I have gone as much as 6” deep in a converted florist’s cooler bucket that was 18” in diameter and 24” tall.
The depth may be varied to help account for your growing conditions’ effect on evaporation and time between waterings, but one should really think more about the reservoir-to-top distance of the media column, as well.
Does the presence of the above water side holes affect the moisture wicking upward through the leca?
Although I'm not depending on wicking to provide water to the roots I'm curious if the side holes do more than just provide a water reservoir. Focusing on water movement and not the added benefit of airflow through the substrate.
Although I'm not depending on wicking to provide water to the roots I'm curious if the side holes do more than just provide a water reservoir. Focusing on water movement and not the added benefit of airflow through the substrate.
In such a setup, there are two, competing processes, wicking and evaporation. If wicking rate is greater than evaporation, the "rocks" stay moist all the way to the top, which is the ideal situation. As evaporation occurs primarily from the top, as its rate increases, the top "layers" lose all their surface water and appear dry. The greater the evaporation rate compared to the wicking rate, the deeper the apparent "dry line" is within the pot.
More holes = more evaporation down inside the pot, which is to be avoided. The holes simply define the depth of the reservoir. One would be adequate, but I like two holes, side-by-side, as close together as possible without intersecting as an "insurance policy": A LECA pellet can block a hole and prevent drainage, but as it does so, it prevents another pellet from blocking the other one.
Similar threads
