Interesting study in fertilzer

[vpsihop@hotmail.com]

This is an old study, but the ideas are pretty basic, so I'm sure most of it applies. It echos alot of what Ray says.

Interestingly the organic fert with the mineral fert addition did the best.

I'm curious though if a fertilzer like MSU, or K-Lite would have preformed equally well as it isn't deficient in micronutrients, as the peters fertilzer was.

I'm curious as to sulfur needs. They seem low, but the
study hypothesised that sulfur deficiency contributed to the poor performance of some of the orchids. I don't see sulfur in K-Lite or MSU.

Make sure to look at the pdf download as it breaks down growth and mineral analysis of the different fertilzer

Orchid growth and nutrition in response to mineral and organic fertilizers
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
This

[naoki]

Both MSU (for pure water) and K-Lite contains sulfur. If you make strong stock solution, then you might end up with sulfur deficiency because CaSO4 precipitate. When this happens, S should become less available before Ca.

I wonder an alternative explanation could be that the organic fertilizer changes the microbe community in the root zone, which will influence the plant growth. I read the paper long time ago, so I don't remember if they discussed this or not.

[estación seca]

The study is so poorly designed I recommend people not waste time reading it.

Rather than provide a useful comparison that could be generalized, the study is only good for telling which of the fertilizer regimes picked is better. Because the author didn't identify which organic fertilizers were used, it's of no help at all.

The author didn't analyze the organic fertilizers so he couldn't report their constituents. There is no way of drawing conclsions of any sort from the study.

[vpsihop@hotmail.com]

Weren't the constituents analyzed in the section that shows water soluabiity?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Ray]

Originally Posted by estación seca

The study is so poorly designed I recommend people not waste time reading it.

Rather than provide a useful comparison that could be generalized, the study is only good for telling which of the fertilizer regimes picked is better. Because the author didn't identify which organic fertilizers were used, it's of no help at all.

The author didn't analyze the organic fertilizers so he couldn't report their constituents. There is no way of drawing conclsions of any sort from the study.

Ooooooh.. I just love it when you talk all scientifical.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Ray

Ooooooh.. I just love it when you talk all scientifical.

This comment is useful . . . how?? Was there a reason for this meaningless snarky comment?

[estación seca]

The only mineral measurements I saw were from dried plants after the growing period finished.

What leaches out of organic fertilizer will also depend on the pH and mineral content of the water applied.

Studies like this are used to claim "organic is better than mineral" when the only thing the study shows is "of these four treatments, this one is best." Perhaps with differing amounts applied at differing time intervals a different one of the four would have been best. And perhaps an entirely different mode of fertilizing would be even better.

The boron toxicity mentioned might or might not be an issue in other parts of the world. The organic material will not likely be shipped from Brazil to other countries. Boron content of bone, blood and feathers from slaughterhouses and industrial farms used for organic fertilizers probably varies around the world.

I don't regard Ray's comment as an insult; I thought it was humorous. I don't take offense at things other people say, anyway. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.

[vpsihop@hotmail.com]

What I took from the study is that a fertilizing regimen which covered NPK and micro nutrients produced the "best" plants. I think that some of the usefulness of studies is revealing the need for more study😉 .
I believe there is an analysis in the study of all the fertlizers in the dry form, and a comparison of what was water soluable

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[vpsihop@hotmail.com]

I'm sorry, if you download the PDF, you will see the tables and analysis of minerals and different aspects of growth

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Orchid Whisperer

This comment is useful . . . how?? Was there a reason for this meaningless snarky comment?

A c'mon, OW. You know how much I like to delve into the science behind all of the passed-down BS in orchid growing. That was meant, not as a "snarky comment", but as a humorous version of a "Like."

Back to the subject at hand, I think it's important to realize than nobody, including the major agrichemical companies, knows diddly about how nutrients truly function within plants, especially orchids, and diagnosing deficiencies is particularly fraught with problems. The interactions and interdependencies are mind-boggling, and what might appear to be an affect of enhanced nutrient "X" might actually be due to a deficiency in nutrient "Y" instead, caused by the excess "X."

For me, the best course of action is to select a fertilizer formula that is complete with all of the macros, minors, and micronutrients, in a ratio that either you or folks you respect feel is reasonable, and use it sparingly and regularly for a bare minimum of 6 months. Then, make an assessment of the plants' performance, and see if you want to make an adjustment.

Trying to do a research project to find the holy grail of fertilizers is folly. Believe me, I've tried for years! Fortunately, the PhD who invented the MSU fertilizers, and is actually degrees in this field, helped me grasp that reality.

Now, doing a research project to try to discern what orchids need is a worthwhile, while frustrating endeavor, in my opinion, as there isn't very little info out there, and it is conflicting in many ways.