Water with plain water first before fertilizing?

[Shadeflower]

Originally Posted by isurus79

Watering first is a relict of the past that is disappearing, much like bloom boosters.[COLOR="Silver"]

If you say so stephen, clearly you don't listen to your fellow growers.

Otherwise you would know how much I believe in bloom boosters. Saying bloom boosters are a relic of the past is pretty much like saying kelmax is a relic of the past.

Did you realize that the fertilized version of kelpmax has a formulation of 3-9-8?

Wait wait hold on a minute. The people that make kelpmax are using an outdated relic of a formula? Yes because just like we have been breathing air for decades, plants have been absorbing potassium and phosphorous. potassium and phosphorous are what most root booster products are made of hence kelpmax too!

So are root boosters all a sham? No they are the same as bloom boosters.
And what is contained in 99% of all fertilizers.

So that statement is just really misleading, if you meant excessive use of bloom boosters are outdated belief, ie are even detrimental to use in excess, then I completely agree but to dismiss bloom boosters entirely is not right either.
You would know this if you followed what others were reporting about their growing methods or what whenever someone like me reports something or MOG then it is automatically dismissed as hogwash? How will you learn to distinguish between relics of the past that you started with but turn out to be bad practices if you don't keep up with latest practices?

Sure you can not believe what others do and only base your knowledge on your own experience but what is the point of participating in a forum then

I have seen huge improvements in some people growing flasks (seedlings) and the only thing responsible is what these growers add to their growing media. Since the jar is sealed for months at a time with no other changes but what some growers are adding compared to other growers is proving to make differences. It's worth finding out why, the healthier the orchid seedlings, the healthier the resulting plants.

[Mr.Fakename]

C'mon guys, show some Xmas/Hanukkah/wathever spirit and chill a bit!

Originally Posted by Shadeflower

Otherwise you would know how much I believe in bloom boosters. Saying bloom boosters are a relic of the past is pretty much like saying kelmax is a relic of the past.

Wait wait hold on a minute. The people that make kelpmax are using an outdated relic of a formula? Yes because just like we have been breathing air for decades, plants have been absorbing potassium and phosphorous. potassium and phosphorous are what most root booster products are made of hence kelpmax too!

So are root boosters all a sham? No they are the same as bloom boosters.
And what is contained in 99% of all fertilizers.

So that statement is just really misleading, if you meant excessive use of bloom boosters are outdated belief, ie are even detrimental to use in excess, then I completely agree but to dismiss bloom boosters entirely is not right either.

Root boosters and bloom boosters serve no purpose in most cases; they are a sham and are designed to make you spend your money.

The NPK analysis of root boosters is basically useless, what matter are enzymes and hormones that initiate root growth.

Bloom boosters can be useful in some instances, but it's not so much about P and K as is it about drastic N reduction.
When a plant gets less nitrogen content, it will shift from "leaf growth as fast as possible" mode to "fruiting" mode.

Those shifts are important for annual crops with no energy storing organs, to get the best yield before cold season kicks in. You want the plants to grow as fast as possible at the beginning of the season, and when they have the desired size, forcing them to stop growing and actually set fruit can be vital.

However, plants still need nitrogen to function, so unless you grow in soil, and your soil happens to be super healthy and loaded with nutrients, a fert with 0 N is plain stupid.

However n°2, orchids are not annual crops that need to grow very fast to set fruit and get their seeds out there, so I don't think there is a reason to use bloom boosters on them.

If you get good results with those boosters, I'd say it's more likely to come from appropriate care and all the supplements combined (and the fact that orchids are VERY good at storing and recycling nutrients), rather than a single magic product.

[Roberta]

The "water first" approach may work OK where there is medium that will stay wet and hold some fertilizer that will remain accessible to the plant after it dries out somewhat by the next watering (sort of a time-release approach)... Plants that need to stay wet, like Bulbophylums will be OK with it.

But, "OK" is not "ideal" ... think of what an epiphytic orchid actually evolved to do in nature for maximum efficiency... when it first starts to rain is when there are the maximum nutrients washing down on the plant, so it has evolved to grab those with the first drops of water... when the roots are dry to start. Of course, that natural "fertlizer" - from rotting plant materials, bird poop, etc - is very dilute. You should be fertilizing with very dilute mix anyway... Ideal is extremely dilute every watering, a compromise with practicaity is a little more (like 1/2 to 1/4 of what is on the bottle) once a week or so. But still, let the plant grab the nutrients first thing, then water as normal. Mother Nature knows best!

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by Roberta

...
Mother Nature knows best!

Setting aside the question about rates, frequency and dilution, you've hit on one of my pet peeves. Natural conditions are rarely ideal. Mother Nature gives plants what they needed to survive and reproduce. For every plant that survives to reproduce in the natural environment, vastly more die before getting there. Many species are barely surviving even in their pristine natural environment. Billions went extinct because Mother Nature didn't meet even their basic needs.

We cultivate and fertilize lawns, gardens, and crops giving them comparatively huge amounts of nutrients because we need them to grow a lot better than they do nature.

-Keith

[Clawhammer]

Originally Posted by K-Sci

Setting aside the question about rates, frequency and dilution, you've hit on one of my pet peeves. Natural conditions are rarely ideal. Mother Nature gives plants found in nature what they needed to survive and reproduce. For every plant that survives to reproduce in the natural environment, vastly more die before getting there. Many species are barely surviving even in their pristine natural environment. Billions went extinct because Mother Nature didn't meet even their basic needs.

We cultivate and fertilize lawns, gardens, and crops giving them comparatively huge amounts of nutrients because we need them to grow a lot better than than they do nature.

-Keith

The conditions where ever that plant evolved, when it evolved, were ideal because the plant evolved to that environment. Not all places orchids grow naturally are the exact same as the envirmonet they evolved in due to inevitable change over time (climate, human intervention).

We have the ability to create an artificial environment where we can balance the plant's needs and achieve optimal growth, but that rarely means providing an over-abundance, its more about providing the optimal balance.

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by Clawhammer

The conditions where ever that plant evolved, when it evolved, were ideal because the plant evolved to that environment.

This might have been true if the environment and pressures from competition were not rapidly moving targets on an evolutionary timescale, if conditions in natural ranges were uniform from boundary to boundary, and if species never faced competition from others species that crowd them out of their most favorable niche. The enormous gap between the natural environment and what the organism needed to survive is why mammoths, saber-tooth tigers, dinosaurs, and billions of other species are extinct.

-Keith

[Clawhammer]

I think he is saying that orchids need very little phos and it is unnecessary to use a high phos fert as it will have no positive effect on the bloom (for orchids). That is why the research team at MSU designed their optimized orchid fert mix as a 13-3-15. That has also generally been my experience in my environment too. My blooms improved when I went from using a bloom booster to a constant weak feeding program in my indoor environment.

I look at ferts as potential bottlenecks and my goal is remove bottlenecks. More does not always equal better as orchids are adapted to need only minute quantities of non-nitrogen nutrients to grow vigorously. The right amount of any fert is dictated by the environment and the plant's genetics.

I think too much importance is placed on the fertilizer question. We aren't growing produce here, we are growing generally very slow growing plants that are adapted to live in a nutrient scarce environment.

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by Shadeflower

If you say so stephen, clearly you don't listen to your fellow growers.

Otherwise you would know how much I believe in bloom boosters. Saying bloom boosters are a relic of the past is pretty much like saying kelmax is a relic of the past.

Did you realize that the fertilized version of kelpmax has a formulation of 3-9-8?

Wait wait hold on a minute. The people that make kelpmax are using an outdated relic of a formula? Yes because just like we have been breathing air for decades, plants have been absorbing potassium and phosphorous. potassium and phosphorous are what most root booster products are made of hence kelpmax too!

So are root boosters all a sham? No they are the same as bloom boosters.
And what is contained in 99% of all fertilizers.

So that statement is just really misleading, if you meant excessive use of bloom boosters are outdated belief, ie are even detrimental to use in excess, then I completely agree but to dismiss bloom boosters entirely is not right either.
You would know this if you followed what others were reporting about their growing methods or what whenever someone like me reports something or MOG then it is automatically dismissed as hogwash? How will you learn to distinguish between relics of the past that you started with but turn out to be bad practices if you don't keep up with latest practices?

Sure you can not believe what others do and only base your knowledge on your own experience but what is the point of participating in a forum then

I have seen huge improvements in some people growing flasks (seedlings) and the only thing responsible is what these growers add to their growing media. Since the jar is sealed for months at a time with no other changes but what some growers are adding compared to other growers is proving to make differences. It's worth finding out why, the healthier the orchid seedlings, the healthier the resulting plants.

I've never heard of anyone considering kelmax as bloom booster, so your entire premise is wrong, as usual. Baseless attacks like this are one of the reasons I don't take any stock in what you report. For some reason, every single one of your posts is about yourself. You, you, you. Everything is about you.

Dear Mods - How many threads need to be shut down because of Shadeflower's unrelenting hostility and misinformation before you boot him??? Seriously?? This is getting ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Clawhammer

I think he is saying that orchids need very little phos and it is unnecessary to use a high phos fert as it will have no positive effect on the bloom (for orchids). That has generally been my experience in my environment too. My blooms improved when I went from using a bloom booster to a constant weak feeding program in my indoor environment.

I look at ferts as potential bottlenecks and my goal is remove bottlenecks. More does not always equal better as orchids are adapted to need only minute quantities of non-nitrogen nutrients to grow vigorously. The right amount of any fert is dictated by the environment and the plant's genetics.

I think too much importance is placed on the fertilizer question. We aren't growing produce here, we are growing generally very slow growing plants that are adapted to live in a nutrient scarce environment.

Exactly.

[WaterWitchin]

Originally Posted by isurus79

...Dear Mods - How many threads need to be shut down because of Shadeflower's unrelenting hostility and misinformation before you boot him??? Seriously?? This is getting ridiculous.

It isn't against the rules to have differing opinions on care/culture, whether right, wrong, or just different. It's up to each member to choose what they think works or doesn't work for a particular setting. If someone starts a thread or participates in a thread, then engages with another's opinions, it's called discussion.

No one is calling anyone a fat toad or stringing together expletives. Use your ignore button if you need to. You can either agree, disagree, or not participate. You are neither the one to judge what constitutes misinformation, nor the one to question the moderators.

Carry on folks.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by WaterWitchin

You are neither the one to judge what constitutes misinformation, nor the one to question the moderators.

Sorry, even though it wasn't addressed to me, I believe you've gone too far with that comment.

There are folks that are highly knowledgeable and those that are not. If the former do not help folks see that the latter are mistaken, then follow up with solid guidance, they are contributing to the "dumbing down" of the community, or at the very least, allowing it to happen. Many of us don't want to see the Orchid Board become the Fox "News" of orchid discussions.

Being a moderator of a forum does not make the individual royalty, sacrosanct, or always correct. It makes you someone nice enough to volunteer to help with technical issues and keep discussions "moderate". Questioning why such gibberish is allowed is not "immoderate", nor a challenge of the individual.