Water with plain water first before fertilizing?

[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

[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.

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by Clawhammer

Thanks Keith.

I was wondering if aquarium test kits would work on the nitrogen range we use for fertilization. They can be a bit hard to read, but a +/-20% error would probably be inconsequential. One thing I wasn't 100% clear on, is that I think you were saying you use 25ppm at every watering. Is that right?

I water with a garden hose about once per month to give everything a thorough soaking and a good dose of Ca and Mg. This could be called a "rinse" but I don't think of it that way.

-Keith

[Clawhammer]

Originally Posted by K-Sci

They can be a bit hard to read, but a +/-20% error would probably be inconsequential. One thing I wasn't 100% clear on, is that I think you were saying you use 25ppm at every watering. Is that right

I actually calculate out the ppm using math and use the test kit periodically to confirm my calculation.

Yes 25ppm every watering. For reference, most greenhouse horticultural crops on a continuous feed utilize a 150-250 ppm concentration, even higher for our marijuana grows out here in Oregon.

[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.

[Roberta]

Originally Posted by K-Sci

I water with a garden hose about once per month to give everything a thorough soaking and a good dose of Ca and Mg. This could be called a "rinse" but I don't think of it that way.

-Keith

If fertilizer is part of this "rinse" than it's an example of "it works but not ideal". Sort of like binging on a huge meal once a month and then fasting the rest of the time instead of modest portions every day. The efficacy of Clawhammer's approach is confirmed by the glories of his growing area. This is the way that orchids really prefer to be fertilized. (That is the approach used at Sunset Valley Orchids, too.)

[WaterWitchin]

Originally Posted by Ray

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.

I'm far away from royal, sacrosanct or always correct. Moderators here don't deal with technical issues either, so even further down the food chain. Also, you are taking out of context, Bill, to the overall statement. Or it's also very possible I didn't word it well enough.

Whether whatever ShadeFlower states is gibberish or not isn't relevant to what I attempted to state. And certainly I'm not attempting to stop one who is highly knowledgeable from giving their opinion in response to another's opinion, gibberish or incorrect or just plain bad advice. Go for it on either side. What I was saying was either give your response or opinion back or if you can't control yourself ignore it.

The dumbing down of individuals belongs to the individual that looks at one opinion and makes a decision, without studying one's own opinions or numerous opinions. That isn't a moderator's job.

Moderators are not here to take sides. They are here to keep the peace, not allow obscenities, personal attacks, and all the other schtuff we do behind the magic curtain. We are not the gatekeepers of advice or opinions, good or bad.

My comment was not directed specifically at Steve. It was directed at his comments toward moderators and intended that anyone could comment. Which you've done. It was addressed in this thread, and I responded in this thread. And if we want to continue this conversation, I'm fine with it, but will move the various comments to a new thread, as we're way off topic starting with the moderators comment.

It still seems more to me like a Saturday Night Live skit revisited, as opposed to Fox news. But since I no longer watch SNL, and never watch Fox news, it's likely also not a valid opinion.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------

PS Notice how KSci (the original poster) and Clawhammer and now Roberta have ignored all the extraneous BS and just continued on topic with the conversation? It's another way to deal with a social media board.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by WaterWitchin

I'm far away from royal, sacrosanct or always correct. Moderators here don't deal with technical issues either, so even further down the food chain. Also, you are taking out of context, Bill, to the overall statement. Or it's also very possible I didn't word it well enough.

Whether whatever ShadeFlower states is gibberish or not isn't relevant to what I attempted to state. And certainly I'm not attempting to stop one who is highly knowledgeable from giving their opinion in response to another's opinion, gibberish or incorrect or just plain bad advice. Go for it on either side. What I was saying was either give your response or opinion back or if you can't control yourself ignore it.

The dumbing down of individuals belongs to the individual that looks at one opinion and makes a decision, without studying one's own opinions or numerous opinions. That isn't a moderator's job.

Moderators are not here to take sides. They are here to keep the peace, not allow obscenities, personal attacks, and all the other schtuff we do behind the magic curtain. We are not the gatekeepers of advice or opinions, good or bad.

My comment was not directed specifically at Steve. It was directed at his comments toward moderators and intended that anyone could comment. Which you've done. It was addressed in this thread, and I responded in this thread. And if we want to continue this conversation, I'm fine with it, but will move the various comments to a new thread, as we're way off topic starting with the moderators comment.

It still seems more to me like a Saturday Night Live skit revisited, as opposed to Fox news. But since I no longer watch SNL, and never watch Fox news, it's likely also not a valid opinion.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------

PS Notice how KSci (the original poster) and Clawhammer and now Roberta have ignored all the extraneous BS and just continued on topic with the conversation? It's another way to deal with a social media board.

I only have one response:

[SouthPark]

It's true what WW mentioned - about the food chain. Us regular members are actually way higher up in the food chain than mods. But of course - it is a joke. Equality and respect and diplomacy is what it is about.

[WaterWitchin]

No, SouthPark, Knowledgeable folks are higher up the food chain. You have no right to put yourself in that group!