Water with plain water first before fertilizing?

[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 The people that make kelpmax are using an outdated relic of a formula?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So that statement is just really misleading, if you meant excessive use of bloom boosters are outdated belief, ie are even detrimental to use in excess, then I completely agree but to dismiss bloom boosters entirely is not right either.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.

[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:

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by WaterWitchin

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 start these controversial threads because the resulting train wrecks are such good entertainment .

-Keith

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by K-Sci

I start these controversial threads because the resulting train wrecks are such good entertainment .

-Keith

[Dusty Ol' Man]

Originally Posted by K-Sci

I start these controversial threads because the resulting train wrecks are such good entertainment .

-Keith