A billion is just not enough!
True a billion is not actually much anymore....especially in the USA!
But I have no intention to say it a trillion times.
Water
- Thread starter Stone
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
E
Eric Muehlbauer
Guest
I'm not the expert on TDS, I'll leave that discussion to those more qualified. But, I do agree that the issue is more to do with dissolved O2. I think paphs can be really wet, IF they are seriously oxygenated at the roots. I wonder if a "scree" type system, like the ones used by rock gardeners, would work. Constantly wet, but constantly flowing. Sitting paphs in standing water for more than 24-36 hours will invite lots of root rot. On the other hand, I think the reason that phrags like standing water is that their roots seem to be much more tolerant of anaerobic media. I can't believe the number of neglected phrags I've repotted after many years whose mix was just stinky muck, yet the roots were still good and the plants themselves still healthy and growing.
ehanes7612
Well-Known Member
its probably both..its like a Eutrophic lake ..which has low Oxygen and high nutrient..and higher acidity ..which i hear is better for phrags (acidity)..than the more alkaline conditions needed for paphs...which as we all know affects nutrient uptake
wjs2nd
Well-Known Member
Hydroponic growers (not all of them) use a system called, "Deep water systems". A deep water system keeps your plant roots in water 24/7. The waters oxygenated by an air stone connected to an air pump. This keeps the roots oxygenated.
Rick
Well-Known Member
Yup
At what point are we talking wet potted organics versus mounted plants on a piece of bark hosed down on a daily basis?
phraggy
Well-Known Member
IMO and a very good friend of mine and I might add one of the finest growers of phrags and paphs in the UK waters his phrags and paphs 24/7 and virtually never repots. I've seen some of his plants almost in mud from the decomposition of the media. He says that the plants grow well because of the incessant clean water they get and also that the fresh water supplies all the oxygen they need. This is why I use his method and you can see the results by the many pics I have posted. The only thing we do differently is that he only foliar feeds with phostrogen.
So there's more than one way of ' skinning the cat '
Leo Schordje
wilted blossom
Yikes
I grow indoors, in my basement, under lights. If I misted and watered constantly my little 900 square foot, 100 year old, wood frame house would collapse within a summer from wood rots. I have trouble enough already. Migrating humidity is causing rot on all my window sashes from condensing moisture in winter. I also would not be able to work at all, or leave for trips or take a weekend off.
I also know my plants do grow better if I am watering twice or even 3 times a week. And I know I run into trouble if I have been watering more often for several months, and then have to let the plants dry out due to travel, or other aspects of living, I loose a lot of plants, the root damage becomes dramatic. My best long term results are to water at a fairly consistent interval, letting plants approach the same level of dryness each time (which means weather wise I might water a day or two earlier if it has been hot and dry). I loose roots and plants when things have to dry out after a long period of consistent watering. So, if I grow continuously on the dry-ish side, there is enough time between having to water, that I can squeeze in a life and not have my home crumble with wood rots from migrating humidity.
The orchids I grow well, including most Paphs, seem to have adapted to this regime. It may not be fast, I won't tell you I can bloom everything 18 months from flask, but it is a good enough compromise for me. Once a week in winter and about every 4 or 5 days in summer is a workable schedule compromise between me and my plants.
I grow indoors, in my basement, under lights. If I misted and watered constantly my little 900 square foot, 100 year old, wood frame house would collapse within a summer from wood rots. I have trouble enough already. Migrating humidity is causing rot on all my window sashes from condensing moisture in winter. I also would not be able to work at all, or leave for trips or take a weekend off.
I also know my plants do grow better if I am watering twice or even 3 times a week. And I know I run into trouble if I have been watering more often for several months, and then have to let the plants dry out due to travel, or other aspects of living, I loose a lot of plants, the root damage becomes dramatic. My best long term results are to water at a fairly consistent interval, letting plants approach the same level of dryness each time (which means weather wise I might water a day or two earlier if it has been hot and dry). I loose roots and plants when things have to dry out after a long period of consistent watering. So, if I grow continuously on the dry-ish side, there is enough time between having to water, that I can squeeze in a life and not have my home crumble with wood rots from migrating humidity.
The orchids I grow well, including most Paphs, seem to have adapted to this regime. It may not be fast, I won't tell you I can bloom everything 18 months from flask, but it is a good enough compromise for me. Once a week in winter and about every 4 or 5 days in summer is a workable schedule compromise between me and my plants.
Leo Schordje
wilted blossom
Once you set things up, a consistent regime is best. My pot sizes, potting mix, fertilizer program are all chosen to make it possible to do "good enough" on the once every 5 days to 7 days watering cycle. Change one thing and the others have to change.
I discovered that in my growing conditions it is almost imposssible to kill a Phrag because of overwatering.
But my Paphs must be grown much drier.
But my Paphs must be grown much drier.
Yes you have to adjust your watering to match what you can provide. No one wants to rot their house! But the question is under what water conditions do orchids grow best, not will they grow under the conditions you want to or are able to provide.
Start off knowing the perfect conditions and the adapt to that as close as possible.
Using Leo's situation as example he waters as much as possible without destroying his house. Once every 5 days and his plants grow "good enough". That is great but someone wondering how often to water their plants should not assume that orchids should only be watered once a week because that is what Leo does and his plants grow "good enough". If a person can water more often they need to know it is OK, and perhaps even better.
Start off knowing the perfect conditions and the adapt to that as close as possible.
Using Leo's situation as example he waters as much as possible without destroying his house. Once every 5 days and his plants grow "good enough". That is great but someone wondering how often to water their plants should not assume that orchids should only be watered once a week because that is what Leo does and his plants grow "good enough". If a person can water more often they need to know it is OK, and perhaps even better.
Rick
Well-Known Member
I have access to a DO (dissolved oxygen) meter, but what is the oxygen condition of concern to test for?
No DO? Low DO? Saturated DO?....
Is Redox (oxidation reduction potential) more important? I've looked at wild rice data and saw that the ORP levels of the generally anaerobic/anoxic (no oxygen) sediments they grow out of make a big difference in performance. The importance of ORP also effects the microbial flora and their actions.
Are you looking for conditions that support the growth of sulfur reducing or methylating bacteria as the primary indicator?
Are we making up science or Scifi on the importance of DO? Or can we even use DO as a cheap surrogate for understanding the stagnant water pot dynamic?
My experience in waste water technologies would say probably not.
No DO? Low DO? Saturated DO?....
Is Redox (oxidation reduction potential) more important? I've looked at wild rice data and saw that the ORP levels of the generally anaerobic/anoxic (no oxygen) sediments they grow out of make a big difference in performance. The importance of ORP also effects the microbial flora and their actions.
Are you looking for conditions that support the growth of sulfur reducing or methylating bacteria as the primary indicator?
Are we making up science or Scifi on the importance of DO? Or can we even use DO as a cheap surrogate for understanding the stagnant water pot dynamic?
My experience in waste water technologies would say probably not.
Rick
Well-Known Member
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27348
Don't forget this thread started by ChrisFL on perspectives of watering.
Don't forget this thread started by ChrisFL on perspectives of watering.
Stone
Well-Known Member
Thats not the way to look at it. 3000 divided by 356 = 8.2mm of water each day. Now lets assume they get most of the rain for half the year = 16.4mm of water for each pot to get your 3mt of water per year. You dont have to supply all the empty spaces in your greenhouse to achieve 3mt of water per plant per year.
When I water I usually dip the pots (small pots) in a bucket of water maybe twice maybe three times. Take an average small pot say 70mm deep, every dunk gives it 70mm of water. Thats way more than they get in the habitat.
Its much the same when I use the hose, they get at least the pot volume of water. For a 6'' pot that could be 7 or 8 inches of water every day or two. Tons more water than the plants get (in rainfall) If I gave my plants 16.4mm of water they would not do well. Natural plants don't grow in pots--or you could say their ''pot'' is the entire moutainside-- so with their free root run, they have a continuous supply of water and everything else.
Stone
Well-Known Member
Just a thought about water oxygen content: the solubility of O2 in water only varies by about 10% over the temperature range we're likely to grow our plants, and will likely saturate quickly in any setup.
K
keithrs
Guest
It has been said by hydro guys that 68 deg f is optimal for o2 saturation and plant growth... You can take a guess at the plants grown.
K
keithrs
Guest
What is 3000 equal too?
for the example above where you've dunked your plant and say that it's received 70mm of water; it doesn't really compare to the statistics in the wild. in a pot, roots aren't growing in the maximal concentration area for receiving water, and in the wild they are. a tiny bit of water (in the wild) will have more contact as a plant will be growing right where the right water is, and for epiphytic ones the roots are in constant contact with the substrate and where the water will be. also runoff condensation is not accounted for in the rainfall records for an area.
the wild areas would also never receive 70mm of rainfall in an instant (though i'm sure some places get a whole lot in a very short period of time, it's just an example that apples need to be compared to apples, not pears)
the wild areas would also never receive 70mm of rainfall in an instant
(though i'm sure some places get a whole lot in a very short period of time, it's just an example that apples need to be compared to apples, not pears)
Last edited:
Rick
Well-Known Member
Yes the saturation of water is temp dependent, but holding temp constant, the amount of water can vary dramitacally based on the chemical or biological oxygen demand.
You can purge O2 out of water with nitrogen, CO, sulfur containing gases.
Add some bisulfite (a common dechlorinating agent) and watch the DO crash in seconds.
Its amazing how little bacteria it takes to cause anoxic conditions with relatively low amounts of nutrients.
Under real stream conditions we can tell how polluted (i.e. "nutrient enriched") a stream is by measuring the diurnal/nocturnal oxygen swings with the battle of photosynthese versus respiration going on. I've seen some badly algae'd up streams go from 2 mg/L DO just prior to sunup (well below saturation, and then clear 14 mg/L DO (supersaturated) just shortly after noon.
Rick
Well-Known Member
I don't understand your question
I kind of look at this as a continuum of methods rather that distinct methods.
The most extreme ends of the continuum is mounting (on organic media) at one end with SH using inert materials at the other end.
Baskets, pots of various configuration, potting in various mixes/ratios of inert and organic media just slide up and down that range of extremes, with watering strategies sliding up and down with it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
