Feeding Complex Paph to Foster Budset

[JMNYC]

Originally Posted by Ray

And what I am saying is that it might be the "low nitrogen" part of that, and not the "hi P", that is good for blooming.

I will add that "long established" does not mean correct.

Lastly - as I believe you commented earlier - we're talking orchids here, not food crops, for which the vast majority of nutritional experimentation has been done. And for those latter ones, you have the added dynamic of soil chemistry, which may supplement or antagonize the use of externally-applied nutrients, necessitating changing chemistry very specifically.

The simple fact is this: despite all of the studies done, nobody really knows what's going on inside of a plant from a nutritional standpoint. Even the "big guys" like Monsanto, who have billions of dollars invested in this arena, work by trial and error - observe and adjust.

Originally Posted by Ray

And what I am saying is that it might be the "low nitrogen" part of that, and not the "hi P", that is good for blooming.

I will add that "long established" does not mean correct.

Lastly - as I believe you commented earlier - we're talking orchids here, not food crops, for which the vast majority of nutritional experimentation has been done. And for those latter ones, you have the added dynamic of soil chemistry, which may supplement or antagonize the use of externally-applied nutrients, necessitating changing chemistry very specifically.

The simple fact is this: despite all of the studies done, nobody really knows what's going on inside of a plant from a nutritional standpoint. Even the "big guys" like Monsanto, who have billions of dollars invested in this arena, work by trial and error - observe and adjust.

Focused intelligence/acuity---getting things in perspective--- is often less about doctrinaire data chasing and cognition than it is about something visceral/intuitive.

As per what Einstein explained about his own genius: he EXPERIENCED the universe intuitively- holistically; the math, the science, the physics, the formal delineations were delineated AFTER.

Just because you can’t enter data for some bar graph with metrics, in no way means what you come to isn’t valid.

Unfathomable by narrow conventional means never means inaccessible……and the tenets of conventional means are often hobbling.

Some Chinese physicians can arrive at accurate differential diagnoses without any technology or lab reports. There was one guy way back depicted on PBS who, after graduating Harvard med….spent over a year there hoping these capacities cold be restored in him. Was depicted in a docu on PBS way back. For whatever reasons, he failed.

How we SEE, how much we see how we process what we see is far more complex than most formal scientific tenets can illuminate.

As per Proust’s seeing “with New Eyes.”
Everyone at Xerox where it was invented… and everyone else, used GUIs every minute early on.
Only when Steve Jobs arrived and saw a GUI for the first time, did he IMMEDIATELY GET… its singular importance and potential on every level. True account.

Marketing studies and focus groups are for those more linear and less endowed.

Again, illiterate tribes with no formal knowledge of botany (which can often hobble) often grow their crops better than those with all the formal knowledge on the planet. Including soil rotation, etc.

I think the challenge always is to fully experience the natural world, and again, the routes to that are far richer and more complex than what science alone often brings.

I hope none of the above is cryptic. I speak, of course, from my own experience/journey.

But Ray, the part of yr post which instantly resonated was, the issue may well be re lower nitrogen, not necessarily high P!

But that is what I will achieve with my New Plan re mixing the formulas.

Again, this....is a journey.

---------- Post added at 03:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 PM ----------

Originally Posted by quiltergal

The CEO of DynaGro shared on a different forum that the only reason they make Bloom Booster is because people requested it, not because it is effective.

As for my "regime". I have neither the time nor the inclination to create a separate watering/feeding schedule for each individual plant. I do have a life with other demands outside of cultivating orchids. I had to come up with some sort of schedule that would make most of the plants happy most of the time, and not have the hobby become a big time suck on my life. It's not perfect, but it works for me and my plants.

If you are willing to believe in high P as effective in setting blooms based on anecdotal "data" that's fine. There is no empirical data that supports this theory. My antenna, as you call them, are tuned to what can be proven scientifically. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the bloom booster point.

Pls see post #31!

[JMNYC]

k...meanwhile, both pots of this NOID paph were scheduled for drenching today, and they got drenched. BUT....as I observe this flower develop, it strikes me that it seems much smaller than I remember for this Paph!

Maybe that's cause both pots have so many mature fans and the emerging bloom only looks much smaller? I do not know.

What I really wanna know is....why that is the only bud in these 2 fan filled pots? Given I have no clue what this Paph is...maybe it's just not a good bloomer.

I have no clue....cept I will now fertilize both pots with only my new combo formula.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Hi JMNYC

I'm offering this article as an illustration regarding the limited effectiveness of increasing P fertilization:

http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/...2/328.full.pdf

The experiment described by the paper used a hybrid nobile Dendrobium (not a Paph.) so your mileage may vary if you are growing Paphs. The whole article is informative, but if you want the "highlights reel", have a look at Figure 5. There is a slight increase in blooms when P was increased from zero to 25 ppm. Beyond that, there is not really any gain realized from adding more P. Note also that there was not much benefit feeding more than 100 to 200 ppm N; up to 100 ppm K was beneficial, but above 100 ppm K, added benefits were marginal. In the end, the authors recommended 100 ppm N, 25 ppm P, and 100 ppm K as optimal.

I will admit that I haven't read this whole thread (I may have a look tonight). But, if you are planning to try a new fertilizer regimen, as the saying goes, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Good luck with your experiment & let us know how it goes.

[JMNYC]

Originally Posted by Orchid Whisperer

Hi JMNYC

I'm offering this article as an illustration regarding the limited effectiveness of increasing P fertilization:

http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/...2/328.full.pdf

The experiment described by the paper used a hybrid nobile Dendrobium (not a Paph.) so your mileage may vary if you are growing Paphs. The whole article is informative, but if you want the "highlights reel", have a look at Figure 5. There is a slight increase in blooms when P was increased from zero to 25 ppm. Beyond that, there is not really any gain realized from adding more P. Note also that there was not much benefit feeding more than 100 to 200 ppm N; up to 100 ppm K was beneficial, but above 100 ppm K, added benefits were marginal. In the end, the authors recommended 100 ppm N, 25 ppm P, and 100 ppm K as optimal.

I will admit that I haven't read this whole thread (I may have a look tonight). But, if you are planning to try a new fertilizer regimen, as the saying goes, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Good luck with your experiment & let us know how it goes.

Thank you! I will follow up!

And U bet: nothing ventured, nothing gained! It's a dynamic adventure!

[JMNYC]

Addendum:

Found this:

Making Orchids Bloom « RF Orchids

Pls scroll down to 'Fertilizer'

[james mickelso]

Changing the ratio of N to PK has always worked for me getting plants that won't bloom with my regular fertilizer to bloom. It seems to me that it is not boosting the P and K up but adjusting the N down in relation to P and K. And doing it at the time of flower bud initiation. Not as a regular feeding but when the bud primordial is initiating. Works very well for me.

[JMNYC]

Originally Posted by james mickelso

Changing the ratio of N to PK has always worked for me getting plants that won't bloom with my regular fertilizer to bloom. It seems to me that it is not boosting the P and K up but adjusting the N down in relation to P and K. And doing it at the time of flower bud initiation. Not as a regular feeding but when the bud primordial is initiating. Works very well for me.

Well, James.....I have finally arrived at the same conclusion!

The road to clarity is sometimes (not always, sometimes it's immediate) challenging and plodding.....but that grows us!

But, I do plan to continue my current strategy for my Phals: Hi P from late summer thru when the spikes are half mature, then switch to non urea high P. Cause, over time, I have found that works best for my Phals.

And, I remain rattled by picking up some growers are not in touch with that our orchids grown in cultivation absolutely need nutrition ongoing....as they receive in the wild. Such growers may end up unwittingly exploiting the atypically resilient nature that most orchids have evolved over time, and that pains me.

Thanks again!

[quiltergal]

I would suggest as an experiment that you use bloom boosters on half your Phals, and on the other half use the fertilizer you use the rest of the year but at a more dilute ratio, say 50-75 ppm of N. Ray has a ppm calculator on his website that will tell you how much per gallon you will need. It will be interesting to see the results.

[JMNYC]

Originally Posted by quiltergal

I would suggest as an experiment that you use bloom boosters on half your Phals, and on the other half use the fertilizer you use the rest of the year but at a more dilute ratio, say 50-75 ppm of N. Ray has a ppm calculator on his website that will tell you how much per gallon you will need. It will be interesting to see the results.

Hi, Terri!

To further clarify, when I arrived at my current fertilizing strategy for all my Phals as I have delineated the specifics above and above that somewhere....this was a while ago, but I can't say when exactly---the results were OPTIMUM.

Fact is, given the consistent results, year after year---I doubt anyone could want better.

So, please know my Phals were/are in no way the issue.

My Paphs are. And. while they all do pretty well, I think I need to make the same switch with all my Catt alliance plants as I have now begun to do with my Paphs.

[quiltergal]

The reason for the suggestion was to see if you notice any difference at all. If they all continue to be optimum bloomers, then that should suggest that ppm of N is the key. If there is a difference it would be interesting to note.

I would offer to do it but I only have one standard hybrid Phal. that blooms at the same time every year. All my others are free blooming species or novelties that bloom pretty much whenever they feel like it, so I never really know when they are thinking about setting buds.