Watering orchids with vodka

[Ray]

Looks like my recollections are getting worse by the day. Jerry's Grow, AKA "Wundergrow", contained methanol, an even simpler molecule than ethanol, and is NOT limited to higher-light plants, although Jerry told me there was a greater effect with them.

US Patent for Method of improving growth characteristics of plants of the family Orchidaceae Patent (Patent # 5,642,586 issued July 1, 1997) - Justia Patents Search

US Patent for Use of methanol for improving plant growth Patent (Patent # 5,981,441 issued November 9, 1999) - Justia Patents Search

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by Ray

Looks like my recollections are getting worse by the day. Jerry's Grow, AKA "Wundergrow", contained methanol...

Ray, you've ruined our vision of drinking a fertilizer. Although we exhale 3-5ppm methanol, drinking only a few grams can destroy the optic nerve and make someone blind.

-Keith

[Shadeflower]

methanol? ethanol?
Nah that's not going near my orchids, I don't care how wunderful they grow.

the article kinda conludes

However, more publications relating to this subject have reported no evidence of growth gain. These contradictory results have left the usefulness of methanol treatment unresolved.

Further testing could no longer replicate the results achieved...

[Ray]

And now that “methanol” comes into focus, I remember getting some pure stuff from the lab and trying it in a side-to-side comparison, blended into MSU RO solutions used on my vandas.

I saw no response to it whatsoever.

[WaterWitchin]

Originally Posted by Ray

And now that “methanol” comes into focus, I remember getting some pure stuff from the lab and trying it in a side-to-side comparison, blended into MSU RO solutions used on my vandas.

I saw no response to it whatsoever.

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by Ray

I suspect that in an "average, intermediately-light orchid", having the relatively slow growth rate that they do, simply cannot take advantage of the added carbon (I'm assuming that theory is correct, for the purposes of the discussion), and that the plant that can tolerate higher light wouldn't be able to take advantage of it unless everything else is appropriately supplied to allow the entire system to up its game.

My experiments with KelpMax overdosing are consistent with this. Given an overdose of the KelpMax growth stimulant plant growth that would otherwise not happen was overwhelmingly obvious, but that growth seemed to hit hard limits.

For example with very old back-bulbs (e.g. 8-10 year old C. violacea bulbs), KelpMax sometimes failed to produce results no matter how heavily I dosed the division. With other very old back-blubs heavy dosing eventually forced new growth and new roots, but the new growths matured with the size of recently deflasked seedlings.

Another example is overdosing healthy growing plants. The KelpMax overdose almost always caused single lead plants to grow multiple new leads with amazing root growth, but again, there were limits. The new growths were mature and had sheathes, but were invariably somewhat stunted in size.

Again, for the record, I don't advocate giving overdoses of KelpMax, which is now sold as KelpPak I believe. What I described above was an experiment intended to prove (to me) that KelpMax was capable of causing growth that would would not otherwise occur. By overdosing I was able to get growth that was obviously abnormal, but the outcomes achieved by overdosing were not necessarily desirable (e.g. I would rather my backbulbs put out one larger growth rather than two very small ones, and that I didn't get so much roots growth that top growth came out stunted).

-Keith

[Ray]

Originally Posted by K-Sci

My experiments with KelpMax overdosing are consistent with this. Given an overdose of the KelpMax growth stimulant plant growth that would otherwise not happen was overwhelmingly obvious, but that growth seemed to hit hard limits.

For example with very old back-bulbs (e.g. 8-10 year old C. violacea bulbs), KelpMax sometimes failed to produce results no matter how heavily I dosed the division. With other very old back-blubs heavy dosing eventually forced new growth and new roots, but the new growths matured with the size of recently deflasked seedlings.

Another example is overdosing healthy growing plants. The KelpMax overdose almost always caused single lead plants to grow multiple new leads with amazing root growth, but again, there were limits. The new growths were mature and had sheathes, but were invariably somewhat stunted in size.

Again, for the record, I don't advocate giving overdoses of KelpMax, which is now sold as KelpPak I believe. What I described above was an experiment intended to prove (to me) that KelpMax was capable of causing growth that would would not otherwise occur. By overdosing I was able to get growth that was obviously abnormal, but the outcomes achieved by overdosing were not necessarily desirable (e.g. I would rather my backbulbs put out one larger growth rather than two very small ones, and that I didn't get so much roots growth that top growth came out stunted).

-Keith

I have never tried to OD plants on Kelpak/KelpMax, but I have "pushed" my normal 1 TBSP/gal, monthly recommendation and seen both dormant eye "resurrection" and multiple growths.

I think your observation of the OD'd plants' resulting growth supports the "limited resource" restriction quite well.

Again, a gradient, rather than a "stepped" difference:

1. Untreated plant getting an "inadequate" diet - grows slowly, doesn't bloom well or branch much.
2. Untreated plant getting an "adequate" diet - grows and blooms reasonably well, but only branches when very matures and the colony can sock away reserves.
3. The plant from 2., above given an occasional KelpMax "I.V." grows and blooms better and branches better on smaller plants, with the growths being "normal" (whatever that means...).
4. The plant seriously pushed with a lot of KelpMax revives a lot of dormant eyes and may branch like crazy, but the size of the plant doesn't have the capability of providing enough of whatever is necessary to grow properly - the stimulation rate outstripped the basic chemical processes' rates.

If we extend that concept a bit, it might suggest that while a smaller plant can easily be "over-augmented", enough to outstrip the other resources, a larger, more mature, multi-growth specimen might better tolerate it.

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by Ray

I think your observation of the OD'd plants' resulting growth supports the "limited resource" restriction quite well.

Again, a gradient, rather than a "stepped" difference:

1. Untreated plant getting an "inadequate" diet - grows slowly, doesn't bloom well or branch much.
2. Untreated plant getting an "adequate" diet - grows and blooms reasonably well, but only branches when very matures and the colony can sock away reserves.
3. The plant from 2., above given an occasional KelpMax "I.V." grows and blooms better and branches better on smaller plants, with the growths being "normal" (whatever that means...).
4. The plant seriously pushed with a lot of KelpMax revives a lot of dormant eyes and may branch like crazy, but the size of the plant doesn't have the capability of providing enough of whatever is necessary to grow properly - the stimulation rate outstripped the basic chemical processes' rates.

We are in complete agreement. I don't want anyone reading this to think that the recommend dose could cause stunting. The only time I would even consider overdosing is on an orchid I want to force to branch this year with stunted growth so it will have more leads next year.

If we extend that concept a bit, it might suggest that while a smaller plant can easily be "over-augmented", enough to outstrip the other resources, a larger, more mature, multi-growth specimen might better tolerate it.

I only used mature plants or back-divisions with full size growths for my overdose testing.. My seedlings get KelpMax at the label rate.

I have received plants that look overdosed on growth stimulants. A walker I purchased on eBay turned out to be a 4-bulb back division with clustered growing points starting at multiple stem locations, almost in clusters, and a plantlet growing on the apex of a pseudobulb. The other was a small catt hybrid seedling with 4-5 leads. It was almost bushy, but the leads didn't get progressively larger.


-Keith

[Ray]

I think back-growths tend to be more like "storage tanks" for the colony, rather than resource producers that the more recent, active growths are.

Like everything else, I'm sure it's both, but I think the priority shifts with age, suggesting that 3 newer growths, even without an active rhizome tip, are likely to have more overall "vitality" than is a division of three older growths. The older ones will just be starting at a "lower" point, so may take longer to regain their past glory.

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by Ray

I think back-growths tend to be more like "storage tanks" for the colony, rather than resource producers that the more recent, active growths are.

Like everything else, I'm sure it's both, but I think the priority shifts with age, suggesting that 3 newer growths, even without an active rhizome tip, are likely to have more overall "vitality" than is a division of three older growths. The older ones will just be starting at a "lower" point, so may take longer to regain their past glory.

If they are energy or nutrient storage tanks, why are very old back-bulbs so hard to root.
-Keith