Phal Spikes: To Cut of Not...
 

Ok, before you all harass me about posting this question... I'm a scientist, and this is how I think, sorry. But does anyone know of any studies that have been done on Phals that compare the benefits/problems with cutting the spike versus leaving it on for more blooms. I can see the benefits of both, hoping for a few extra buds from a beautiful phal, or boosting the plant a little for the next spike, maybe 2 this time.
Anyone have a percentage of success on getting a secondary spike when you dont cut, or having compared cutting of one to not cutting another similar one?
If noone has compared them, I was hoping to propose a project, or more of an experiment, comparing a couple identical, or as close as possible, phals, cutting some and not cutting others and comparing the next round of blooms. The results would obviously be affected by growing medium/watering/fertilizer/weather/on/on/on, but I think it would shed some needed light on this oft asked question:twocents:. What say you OB, worth it or not?

Sounds like a pretty fun experiment, but it sure will take a lot of time. I guess this could be an on going project?
Joann

Joann,
For sure. This will have to be at least a blooming season or 2 to get a good measure. I was hoping some people would chime in a say they have had a good chance of success with secondary spikes after not cutting it, but I think that's a variable of growing conditions and other variables. Maybe there is a published study out there someone has read that could solve this.
But I wouldn't mind hosting a project like this, not to mention who doesn't want an extra phal or 2 (or 8)in the window?? I could always convince my boss that it is a scientific experiment, and he'd probably buy it.

I personally, have not had great results from keeping the spikes. I can usually get a couple more blooms, but I usually just cut the spike when the flowers drop. Most of my phals are noids--I wonder if a specie phal would do better? Count me in if you want to do a "project"--maybe your boss would spring for the cost?:rofl::rofl:
Joann

Ha. I'd have a hard time convincing him that a mouse or human immune system would benefit from this project. That said, we do have some really nice windows that could use some "decorating:rofl:."
As to certain Phal hybrids, you may be right, maybe Dtps hybrids, or smaller bloom phals might do better than say the large standards... Yet another variable:(. Have any thoughts on a phal you really want? (Acutally 4-8 you really want?):biggrin:

Other than your avitar phal?? ha ha
No, I can't think of any I specifically want---maybe the minis?
Actually, the human immune system works with orchids: None of us are immune!:crackup:
Joann

Well in my opinion I think it's quite simple, do flowers help an orchid grow or hinder it? Are they an energy source or an energy sink? Flowers have no chlorophyll, they take up a lot of energy to bloom, so no doubt they would use up more energy than they could possibly produce.

So cutting off an old spike could be nothing but good for the orchid's growth. I think if you want better flowers next year, cutting off old spikes is a good idea.

Just ask farmers who grow Phalaenopsis and Cymbidiums for the cut flower market. Do they cut off old stalks that couldn't be sold? I'm sure they do.

The only reason you would leave an old stalk on the plant is if you want more flowers NOW! but for the period that those extra flowers bloom you're not going to see much new growth and the plant would be set back a while.

Of course if you REALLY want good flowers in a particular year, cut off ANY spikes in the previous year and put all that energy into better spikes the next year.

That's also what commercial cut flower growers do when they get first-flowerings on immature plants. They don't want the small one or two flowers that come with the first flowering, so they cut off any new spikes until the plants are 5 years mature, meaning their plants grow faster.

Interestingly, i HAVE read a paper (just recently) that looked at the purpose of aerial roots and whether or not it was better to cut them off or leave them be. They concluded that they expended slightly more energy than they gain from photosynthesis or water/nutrient absorption from the air. Therefore they recommended you direct them back into the mix or cut them off entirely.

Personally, i didn't cut off spikes but with one particular Phalaenopsis i did leave it in slightly low light conditions, such that it didn't flower for 2 years straight. It grew a total of 8 healthy, LARGE leaves in that period (it never lost a leaf either, so it still has 8 now).

This year, i moved it to a spot with higher light, and i'm pleased to say that it's double spiking, with at least 8 flowers on each spike that i can see so far (the spikes are still growing). The first year it flowered i only got 6 flowers on a single spike.

So yeah, if you want to get a plant awarded in a particular year or something, maybe it would be worth deliberately not flowering it for a few years and then BANG! Blast it with good light and low temps and see how many flowers you can get!

Wow. Can I get the citation on that paper. Was this study based on potting them or mounting. I would guess aerial roots may serve more or a purpose on mounts, but could easily see them be
more important in bracing against a tree. Good find undergrounder!

Sure

The study looked at both i think, but it was more to do with roots that aren't being used for support i think.

I didn't realise it was as old as it is.

The Role of the Velamen of the Aerial Roots of Orchids
Augustus M. Dycus and Lewis Knudson
Botanical Gazette, Vol. 119, No. 2 (Dec., 1957), pp. 78-87
(article consists of 10 pages)
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Aerial roots are an issue with potted plants only.

In nature the Phalaenopsis live attached to tree branches. The plant grows out and down. The roots are genetically inclined to grow up, that is where the branch is supposed to be.

When you mount a Phal naturally hanging down the roots will all grow up and attach to the mount. there will not be any aerial roots.

There is never the problem of crown rot since there is no crown to hold water when it points down.

Most surprising is that hanging down the Phals can take very high light levels.

Light is never a problem with orchids, they like all you can give them. The problem is the heat that comes with the sun. As the heat builds up it kills the chlorophyll in the leaf, we call it burn.

Well the side of the leaf that faces the sun naturally has no chlorophyll. I grow mine with my Vanda and Cattleya.

It is only when we put them unnaturally in a pot upside down, that heat buildup becomes a problem. For a million years these orchids have had to survive with only light levels bouncing from the forest floor. As a result the bottom (top in a pot) has evolved to become super sensitive. Upside down in a pot they need very low light.

I always cut the spike at a diagonal above the 2nd node. More than 50% of the time the plant will send another spike from that node. It may happen within months or usually the next blooming season. Either way, if it turns brown cut it off. You really can't go wrong!

I agree with Undergrounder on this one. I have left spikes on before and cut to the next viable node and it has almost always sent out a secondary spike, however, the flower count and flower size is always smaller than when the spike bloomed initially. Not worth it for me. I cut all spikes now and allow the plant to recover and store up some energy for the next bloom cycle. The exception to this rule are some of the species Phals. particularly the summer bloomers. They seem to like to hang on to the old spike. These novelty Phals are sequential bloomers for the most part so having a big flush of blooms at once never happens anyway.

I have phals,species and hybrids,potted and mounted,and have tried both techniques with mixed results both ways.As near as I can figure,individual plant vigor determines the results. I hope this doesn't muddy the issue.

Speaking not as a scientist but as one who cuts the spike when the blooms have all fallen off, I have not found in the past a 'used' spike to ever produce another bloom afterward. My granddaughter left the spike on her orchid, it did nothing but gradually wither away to a dry hollow stick. I had no idea the spikes were capable of a second blooming - if I understood your post properly in the first place.

Well after lots of thinking, I've got to agree with Undergrounder, which shouldn't surprise anyone. It makes a great point, that spikes should be cut down completely for the best chances of a healthy orchid. Unless you're looking for a second round of blooming, or you've got a really healthy orchid with multiple spikes, I'd lean towards cutting them off as suggested.
Thanks to all the thoughts, sadly I'll have to do some other experiment instead. Maybe I can talk Ray into figuring out some way to put S/H to the test over sphag/bark? Who knows.

Am still feeling my way around in here - asked somewhere if I could snip away some of the tangled roots that are all over the top of my pot - and some of the ones that resemble a snakepit in the humidifying water at the bottom. Have some really fat strong healthy roots going straight up. Are all those tangly rather withered ones vital ?

There are many interesting studies out there.

How about how growing in very wet conditions is beneficial to Phals.

Frequency of Watering and the Growth of Phalaenopsis

But as to your original question, commercially we are always considering factors like these. With Phals the results are obvious. Secondary spikes are small with fewer flowers and smaller flowers. The plant then misses its normal blooming season.

Phals with secondary flowering are unsellable. They just look poor next to a new spike.

Commercially we must cut the spike. Actually we usually cut the flowers when they are in full bloom since they are already flowered out and can only be sold at big discounts even with perfect flowers.

To quote Bill Porter of Porters Orchids,"Mother nature doesnt run around with a pair of scissors." But you are right on the money about flower count,sales issues, et all.

OT, as it is not about spikes, but I would love to share my findings this growing season.

I had several Phal's that decided to grow roots above the medium. Some plants didn't have a lot of roots so I would *love* them in the medium, not crawling around in the air.
I tried these roots to convince to grow downwards but these roots were stuborn and had a mind of their own. Seems to me if you don't want roots above the medium, cutting these roots is the only good option. But...
if you cut a root, it often sends out 2-3 roots from the tip of the cut root, giving you even more roots that might want to avoid the medium.

Nicole

I've had good luck with rerouting aerial roots back into the medium. Most of the time the velamin will crack but as long as the whole root doesn't break off it's still viable crack and all. I bend them down and gently push them down into the medium trying very carefully to not damage the growing tip. Often even if the tip is damaged it will start to grown again.

i get one secondary spike on one of my phals. others are still with the old spike and no seconds yet. 1-2 lose the old spike. note that i cut the spike halfway after the second node after flowers drop and i only have a handful flowering ones.

my neighbour on the other hand, didn't cut hers at all. many develop into keikis and no secondary spike at all. i didn't get any phal keikis at all!

note that both of us have different phals, mostly noids.

on the other hand, while mother nature didn't run around with a pair of scissors, how the naturally induced keikis going to get down from the sky high condo? or, in nature phal keikis aren't produced?

I'm no expert, but I'd say in nature, as Phals normally grow on tree trunks and the like, the spike with keikis attached will gradually bend under the weight of the growing keikis, and eventually come to a point where the baby plants can attach themselves to the host tree's bark and start living on their own.

yeah, that is possible too... but i think the mother plant would be exhausted producing the keikis...