Yet another example of "Less is More" with Feeding

[garysan]

There ya go, missing the point again, Mike. (And apparently you're not alone!)

I absolutely agree that this is not the ideal situation. It came about from neglect, not by plan. My point is not that this is "good", but it is an example of how relatively successful these plants can be, even with such poor resources, lending support to the concept that "less is more". "Nothing" is certainly not "more".

My normal pattern is 25-35 ppm N at every watering - and they are probably better referred-to as "floodings" - which can be 3 times a week, supplemented monthly with KelpMax and Inocucor Garden Solution.

Pretty weak solution then. Their recommendation is a level tiny teaspoon (the blue one they supply) for every 2l water which I was doing but plants seem happier since I stopped. Decided to have a couple of weeks pure rainwater irrigation to flush the pots before going back to 1/2 strength RainMix or changing back to OrchidFocus which TBH, my phrags/paphs seemed happier with.

I'm learning about the correlation between fertiliser levels given and amount of light provided though

 

[Stone]

There ya go, missing the point again, Mike. (And apparently you're not alone!)

What do you mean ''again''? What else did I miss?

I absolutely agree that this is not the ideal situation. It came about from neglect, not by plan. My point is not that this is "good", but it is an example of how relatively successful these plants can be, even with such poor resources, lending support to the concept that "less is more". "Nothing" is certainly not "more".

Your heading was.......''Yet another example of less is more'' If this orchid received nothing for an extended period, it is an example of an orchid which is surviving yet could do with a feed. Not ''less is more''
There is no ''more'' here only less. It does not prove that less than the average commercial fertilizer rates concentrations to suit a particular genus are better.

The simple fact is that the optimum concentration of fertilizer given to a plant (any plant) is the amount beyond which growth begins to be reduced due to tissue damage or chemical interference of some kind. Assuming all other growth factors are also optimum of course.

 

[Stone]

THIS IS A CONVERSATION, NOT ARGUING.....REALLY

Mike you are correct you miss the point.

Well I did not accuse myself of missing the point there Lance!

********************************************

1. I am not suggesting that orchids need to be fed low rates of nutrients.

Yep I realise that.

***********************************************

(Actually quite the opposite.)

You nowhere suggested that. But if you are now, I agree with you.

*****************************************************

2. Orchids do not grow and bloom with zero nutrients. Yet that is what Rays example tends to imply.

Well either they do or they don't. (and of course they don't) But they are very efficient and can ''eat'' themselves if they need to.

*********************************************************

3. What I said is that when the natural living organisms are present in the growing media there is a supply of nutrients produced by those organisms and that replicates Nature.

Well if this replicates nature, (and I don't think it does), it's not optimal

***************************************************

4. I think it is a mistake to use field data that measures stemflow and nutrient levels based on dissolved salts to determine that orchids don't need high levels of nutrients.

I agree (''need'' as in capable of improved growth with higher than measured nutrient levels)

**********************************************************

5. In Nature my theory is that living organisms supply high levels of nutrients in chemical forms that science has yet to recognize as the nutrient source for epiphytes.

Mainly N

*******************************************************

6. The use dissolved salts is a substitute nutrient supply that orchids can access as a backup when the preferred complex compounds are not available.

Preferred complex compounds? N P and K is what makes them grow. Whether it comes from bacteria or mycorrhizae or a packet.

*******************************************************

7.The environment has to be near perfect for the nutrient producing living organisms to exist and produce the nutrients.

I have no idea about that but N fixing bacteria and mycorrhiza can exist in greenhouses.

*********************************************************

8. High levels of salt fertilizer applications suppress and prevent the living organisms to populate the orchids environment and thus the need to supply high levels of dissolved salt nutrients frequently.

Maybe some kinds.

******************************************************

9.Not all environments that don't get fertilizer manage to support the nutrient producing living organisms so in those environments orchids that don't get fertilizer do grow well.

Maybe. But remember that a hell of a lot of orchids do far better in cultivation than in the habitat.

************************************************************

10. In some environments the living organisms populate and thrive and in this place orchids can grow and bloom very well without ever being fertilized by fertilizer applications.

Obviously

**************************************

Obviously in your environment you need to apply fertilizer for the plants to grow. In other growers environments that have thriving organism populations they don't need to apply much ferilizer (Ricks baskets) because their living environment is producing the nutrients the orchids need.

Nah. Rick uses sphag which can get by on 1/10 of the N that bark needs.
Nothing to do with organisms.

**********************************************

Here in Rays thread "Less is more" his plant grew and flowered without being fertilized with fertilizer.... That is because he populated the closed environment with micro organisms that produce nutrients

The only ''nutrients'' organisms can ''produce'' is nitrogen fixed from air. All other nutrients MUST come dissolved the water.

**************************************************

and then he never applied salt based fertilizer that would have killed the nutrient producing micro organisms.

No. And by the way most organisms (bacteria) love nutrient salts. Perhaps N fixing microbes ARE damaged or reduced by excess N. But either way, The plant needs feeding.

*************************************

And as has been said Rays plant looks hungry, just like a wild Phrag growing in Nature.

Well no more need be said!

**************************************

So "less is more" is not about starving plants. It means applying less salt nutrients can enable more natural complex nutrients to be produced.

And not work very well

***********************************************

fyi... I grow using high levels of salt based fertilizer. :wink:

Good!

 

[Ray]

WTF is wrong with several of you?

Can't you look at the plant and circumstances, and just think or say "Wow! It's amazing that the plant can do that well with no fertilization.", rather than criticizing what is said, or how it was titled (which was based upon another thread, by the way).

 

[gonewild]

The only ''nutrients'' organisms can ''produce'' is nitrogen fixed from air. All other nutrients MUST come dissolved the water.

**************************************************

Mike this is just not correct. Research has been published documenting that Lichens and/or the organisms associated with them produce, from atomspheric gases, complex chemical compounds which plants can access and use as nutrients. One paper even measured Calcium and noted that it came from the atmosphere. So just keep an open mind in that all things are not yet known to science.

 

[Stone]

Mike this is just not correct. Research has been published documenting that Lichens and/or the organisms associated with them produce, from atomspheric gases, complex chemical compounds which plants can access and use as nutrients. One paper even measured Calcium and noted that it came from the atmosphere. So just keep an open mind in that all things are not yet known to science.

Ok, so calcium could only come as a mineral solid not a gas. probably dust in the atmosphere. The other gases, I don't know anything about. I would like to see that.
I'm well aware that science has no clue about many natural systems and I do have an open mind. In the end though it is all just speculation about a subject which has nothing to do with orchid cultivation.

 

[Stone]

WTF is wrong with several of you?

I don't know about the others by ate too much cheese before bed.

Can't you look at the plant and circumstances, and just think or say "Wow! It's amazing that the plant can do that well with no fertilization.", rather than criticizing what is said, or how it was titled (which was based upon another thread, by the way).

Ray I have plants that have not been fed for over a year too. Some not for 7 years! They survive on whatever is in rain or tap water. When I pass them, I think _ ''Wow'' how slack am I?'' Another plant tied to a tree has not been fed for 2 years but is doing quite well because of the stem flow from the huge tree it's on. I'm sorry but there's nothing new to me here so I thought I would instead (once again) make the point that orchids need to be fed and fed well.

 

[gego]

Hahaha, I saw two roth that just got AM awards today in Sacramento Orchid Show. I didnt have a camera, hoping Troy will post. One got 89 points. Five huge very dark flowers, first bloom. The leaves were a meter in span, humungous plant. I checl with Dave the owner of Paph Paradise, he said the plants were heavily fed. I can see really thick residue of salt on the leaves, looks urea to me. Very thick amd wide leaves, the stem is huge. If its not for the pinch, it would have gotten FCC

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[Bjorn]

I see I have been mentioned, so here is my experience; Nice phrag btw Ray

I used to feed at 3-400ppm TDS at every watering in 2013. But stopped because many of my plants succumbed to rot and I lost some very valuable plants I had had for a long time. But except for the rot, the plants grew very well.

After that I have gradually reduced feeding until I have now reached a level of approximately 100ppm TDS (including whats in the water) 15-20ppm N.
This has not reduced the growth rate, but has reduced the rot. Now the plants have become more healthy as far as I can judge without showing signs of starvation.

Amongst other things to prove that is my kolopakingii that flowered earlier this year, and which has grown an almost mature new shoot in 6months time, is on the low fertiliser diet.
I do also see other effects like increased rate of multiple blooms, but that could be due to use of kelp and the composition of the fertiliser.

On the contrary......During the winter months I stopped fertilisation entirely. That was noticeable. So at such low fertiliser additions, better feed - always.

The reason for using low fertiliser levels is not the growth, it's the plant health.

I do also see other things like an increased rate of multiple buds, that could be due to other things, but low fertiliser levels have not prevented it.

 

[troy]

I often wandered if the uptake of too much good stuff could cause a problem....?

 

[Bjorn]

Wasn't there a docu called 'supersize me'?

 

[gego]

Bjorn, do you compensate for the almost non-existent trace elements in such a low ppm assuming you are using any commercial formula?

BTW, kelp maybe a source of hormones to some but it is still an organic fert with lots of potassium and amino acids.

Thanks

 

[gonewild]

Ok, so calcium could only come as a mineral solid not a gas. probably dust in the atmosphere. The other gases, I don't know anything about. I would like to see that.

No not from dust. It was from atmospheric gas. But it also was not that Ca was produced as a single element. The Ca was within a chemical compound excreted from the Lichen. The research did not go as far as knowing positive if plants could access the Ca from the compound but it was suggested as a point of further research.
If you search google enough and read the lichen research you see these little new possibilities. If I remember right the research was done in Australia. Maybe you should ask your neighbor. oke:

 

[gonewild]

I often wandered if the uptake of too much good stuff could cause a problem....?

Yes it does. Potassium is one of them. That is why Bjorn sees less rot after he reduced his nutrient levels. but the excess nutrients is not just "how much the fertilizer contains" it is a combination of the environmental conditions surrounding the plant.

Go ahead and yell at me!

 

[Stone]

Yes it does. Potassium is one of them. That is why Bjorn sees less rot after he reduced his nutrient levels. but the excess nutrients is not just "how much the fertilizer contains" it is a combination of the environmental conditions surrounding the plant.

Go ahead and yell at me!

Yes K is one of them and so is N and P and Ca and Mg and Fe and B and.......

If we give an amount of fertilizer to a plant which in optimum growing conditions would give maximum growth, all is well and as long as that fertilizer formulation and concentration is optimum for that plant.
The problem is that that same fertilizer may indeed cause problems if the growing conditions are not also optimal.

For example, the air movement in a green house is pitiful compared to the outside. Most disease problems are caused by that, not too much fertilizer. The temperature may be too low or too high or not vary enough. The light levels may be too low or too high. The hours of light or even the spectrum may not be right. The water may contain contaminants. The media may give adverse reactions etc etc. It's is almost impossible to supply optimum growing conditions. However when we can we can also give optimum fertilizer and see the results.

The reason Bjorn is seeing fewer disease problems is not only because of the lighter fertilizer applications but also because his growing conditions are not perfect. Less N makes plants ''harder'' and less susceptible.

So I guess we agree Lance...go figure!

 

[gonewild]

So I guess we agree Lance...go figure!

Well let's work on that problem. :wink:

 

[Bjorn]

Bjorn, do you compensate for the almost non-existent trace elements in such a low ppm assuming you are using any commercial formula?

BTW, kelp maybe a source of hormones to some but it is still an organic fert with lots of potassium and amino acids.

Thanks

I make my own fertiliser with higher (and different proportions) levels of micros. Agree that with commercial fertilisers you might end up with micros-deficiency symptoms.
Kelp is a wonderful fertiliser containing most that the plants need. However I am uncertain about the effect of overdoing kelp additions, crippled flowers have been suggested as one result. Someone that wants to test?:evil:

 

[Bjorn]

The reason Bjorn is seeing fewer disease problems is not only because of the lighter fertilizer applications but also because his growing conditions are not perfect. Less N makes plants ''harder'' and less susceptible.

Mike, I am not following you here, are you indicating that some of us have perfect conditions?

Just to put it straight; In my perception, fertiliser and most of those other remedies people use like physan, fungicide etc. etc. interfere with the microbial life in the pots and the environment of the growth area. Loss of these micro-organisms is one important vector for decease.

That is why I have reduced fertiliser level, spraying of fungicides is kept at a minimum and I have never, ever, used stuff like Physan. As a consequence the interior of the house is overgrown by algae and lichen together with moss and ferns. There is even a small population of toads there as well as the odd visit by snakes (I am not kidding) But if you are after tidyness, it looks like ****. Frankly.
But the plants like it and I am convinced that if it is possible to keep a good Balance in the population of the micro-organisms, much can be gained.

 

[gego]

I make my own fertiliser with higher (and different proportions) levels of micros. Agree that with commercial fertilisers you might end up with micros-deficiency symptoms.
Kelp is a wonderful fertiliser containing most that the plants need. However I am uncertain about the effect of overdoing kelp additions, crippled flowers have been suggested as one result. Someone that wants to test?:evil:

That's what I thought.

I use kelp too, the cheap version. Actually I like the results of my organic fert tests. It smells bad but I use it pretty weak. With urea to feed the critters, this aproach works for me and less salt to worry about.

I'm afraid that some may try the low ppm strategy with commercial RO/fert and may end up unsuccesful. Just a heads up.

 

[Helene]

I think he has a point. Less is sometimes more.
For an advanced grower with experience it might not be that interesting, the point often being the search for the optimal nutrition and light levels- to make the plant shine the best it can.

But its an important thing for beginners to see. You dont need much to get a plant to stay alive and be somewhat happy.
I read threads all over the place with people starting with plants, and needing advice for all sorts of stuff to give it. And if there is issues with other things in the environment it can easily start a circle of issues. Plant doesnt look happy- I need more chemicals., or nutrition or desinfecting stuff.

Sometimes less is more, and for beginners maybe its better to spend time reading on the natural environment of the plant. Make sure you can make an environment the plant is somewhat happy in- and then make it thrive even better- with the correct amount of nutrition. And for those really advanced- that might even be making their own nutrition, different for different plants. And again- a happy and healthy plant that has its "own environment" going on in the rootsystem, will probably have a better uptake of the micronutrition aswell. No need to feed a plant that cant make any use of it.

I didnt have much to give my plants before, so I started reading instead. And since I dont have physan and stuff like that- I washed my seedlings with water, I let them dry a bit. I add a tiny amount of a bio nutrition that seems to make good environment in the roots. And I try to keep it simple, let them do their thing, just trying to compensate for nature- and givinf them a chance to grow strong.

And yeah- now I do use fertilizer, but I like to keep it really low, and more often.

I do try to keep the environment in the pots, though. Mostly because I dont have a greenhouse, and I think my hubby wouldnt appreciate if our living-room started growing algae or moss

Bjørn: lol, you have made your greenhouse into a big terrarium it sounds like

Kelp- hmm, maybe a walk on the beach some day. But it smells awful when cooking in the sun, smelly tea.

Well, my best advice: do whatever works for you