Perhaps this one is of interest?
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37789&highlight=sodium
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37789&highlight=sodium
You may be right naoki, obesity in plants does sound strange, and looking at it from that perspective....? Nevertheless my observations can be condensed into:
1) they grow just as fast (or faster?) with low fertiliser levels(e.g. 20ppm N) than with higher nutrient levels (e.g. 100ppm N) and producing just as much - or more biomass
2) seemingly the rate of decease incidents has been reduced.
Of course this does not necessarily have to do with the fertiliser level, since so many other things have changed in parallell - it could be due to other factors like availability/non-availability of some micro-nutrients.
The latter is examplified by the fact that leaf-analyses mostly show rather high sodium levels, sometimes similar to P2O5, but nobody fertilises with it. Probably since its always there? But what if it is not?
just a thought:evil:
I know I'm late to the party here, and I certainly don't get all the scientific, engineering stuff, but...
How can "less be more" when the author of the thread - Ray - describes the orchid as undernourished with mottled leaves.
Shouldn't the title be something like "Less is enough if you want to grow substandard orchids"?
Enter your email address to join: