Amazing New Fertilizer

[ronaldhanko]

Thanks, Ray, for the help. This has been the most significant thing that has happened with my collection in a long time. I am starting to see some effects on flowering as well.

[Island Girl]

Originally Posted by ronaldhanko

Molly,
Now you are making assumptions. The problems I was having had nothing to do with seasonal changes. These were problems of long standing that the new seasonal growth flush was not correcting. Over a period of 4-5 years these plants and others were gradually declining in spite of the fact that I have over 30 years of growing experience. The symptoms exactly matched the information in the article and the fertilizer corrected the problem in months.


---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

I am really amused. I found information that seemed to address long-standing problems I was having and that offered a solution that worked for me. I thought I'd share what I discovered and it has turned into a massive argument.

I have to say Ron, thank u for posting this thread

My Despite the argument, (& it did have some interesting info- always fun to learn ) I like to hear about other peoples experiences and successes! I also enjoy reading 'Orchids' magazine from time to time (don't read it from cover to cover always, but sometimes I do) and I also realize that what works for one person, may not for another for many many various reasons... But that is what makes it interesting, is all the different conditions we grow in, and the differences in how we treat our plants, and seeing that in many cases our orchids (hopefully all) end up being the same kind of healthy just via different methods... and I/we (all) can always learn something, whether it is by learning from others mistakes, or their successes.... So thank u & it is wonderful that ur 'chids r doing so well!

[The Orchid Boy]

Glad to hear you're having success. I'm hoping to see a little improvement as well.

As regards to this turning into an argument, it seems that if anyone starts a thread on fertilizer or on noids in big box stores, it will always turn into an argument of one kind or another... LOL Loosen up people!

[escualida]

Or viruses lol

[goodgollymissmolly]

When a scientific claim is made it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove it. It is not everybody else's responsibility to disprove it.

The claims for K-Lite are just that..claims without the statistical proof normally associated with agricultural/horticultural science advances. Like it or not, doubt about unproven theories are not "close mindedness" as Ray claims, but in fact informed skepticism required for scientific truth. If I believed everything that shows up on the internet I would correctly be branded an idiot.

When that claim is associated with mis-statements like "potassium is rare in nature" it is sure to raise questions about the rest of the assumptions and supposed facts associated with the claims. When plants contain levels of potassium that exceed greatly the natural availability claims, then some recycling theory has to be generated to fit the content fact. That's where the "plants efficiently recycle potassium" came from. No proof, just conjecture.

No where have I said that K-Lite does not represent an advance in horticultural science. I am saying repeatedly that unproven publication with all sorts of conjecture about surrounding issues is not proof.

Those who think skepticism about unproven issues is some kind of personal argument need to revise their thinking. You would never survive an engineering meeting where everyone in the room is trying to prove you wrong so you will bring excellent proof you are right.

No Ray, I'm far from "close minded", but I'm not gullible either. How long ago were you promoting MSU as the ultimate fertilizer or 125 ppm N as the proper dosage? Now you're on to seaweed and K-Lite. Seems to be the chemistry magic of the month. Anecdotal data from untrained observers will never amount to proof of anything. Those who are not even aware of the uncontrolled variables are unlikely to make reliable observations and that's exactly why controlled statistical experiment designs are required by science.

Yes, to the person who said Orchids is a hobby magazine. Because most of its readers are not scientifically trained is exactly why it should be wary of presenting theoretical information without warning the reader that these are new thoughts, not proven science. I remain doubtful about the wisdom of this article without proper disclaimers.

You have to admit that those who have worked at it have managed to grow pretty darn good orchids using conventional fertilization techniques. So exactly what is to be gained by some new fertilizer? More near perfection? Easier cultural care? Cheaper growing? Even better orchids? Is that possible? Do you think growers for 200 years have been sitting on their behinds with their thumbs in dark places? Is improved fertilization possible....maybe so, but prove it. Take the idea to a fertilizer manufacturer or university and convince them to test it in a scientific manner. If you sell the idea, they will test it and provide the unbiased proof required. Remember MSU was tested at MSU in their GH....do the same with this. Then come back armed for bear.

[Leafmite]

After growing plants for nearly forty years (actually keeping them alive), the only thing I can say with conviction is that plants truly respond differently in different environments, with different care. What soil/media one uses, combined with lighting, humidity and water quality makes a big difference. Different plants have different needs, too. If something works, I embrace it as long as it works. I grow everything from spices and chocolate trees to herbs, apples, berries, nuts, and and normal flowers/house plants. I love reading science books/articles but they certainly do not explain how, simply why. I know that growing tropicals and dealing with Ohio's crazy environment takes a bit to figure out the best care...it isn't Florida or Seattle. I have had to experiment and ask questions from people who have grown plants much longer than I. I find argument an effective way to learn but growing plants, like caring for anything living, cannot always follow a single rule.
That being said, the best fertilizer for plants I ever used was my goldfish pond water.

---------- Post added at 10:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 AM ----------

I think people might get me on the 'how'. Yes, science explains 'how' things work but not always 'how' to put the science into practice in a practical manner. That is the difficult part. I think all the arguments are good ones.

[The Orchid Boy]

In some ways I agree with you goodgollymissmolly, I'd really like to see K-lite tested like MSU was.

---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------

Originally Posted by DavidCampen

http://ican.csme.utah.edu/wp-content...ordan-1980.pdf

There are a number more.

First of all, please excuse my non-scientific approach. And please correct me if I'm wrong.

Glancing at this article, it seems to me that there is 24.8 (precipitation) and 10.7 (throughfall) phosphorous. (Chart on 5th page. Second to last reading, Venezuela) There is 27.0 (precipitation) and 3.6 (throughfall) calcium. So maybe, just maybe, K-lite has been a success for some because of added calcium, urea free N, and maybe not because of the low amounts of P and K.

Just a few questions regarding this article... With the throughfall and precipitation, how much P and Ca is available to the plants? And what do the last numbers on the chart represent?

In the "What do orchids eat?" article, it mentioned that orchids that have partnerships with ants get more K and such orchids would probably benefit from more K. Is there any specific study on orchids in the wild with nutrient availability? This article seemed to be general. I'd also enjoy reading any other articles you have David or if anyone else has or finds articles like this.

[ronaldhanko]

Originally Posted by goodgollymissmolly

You have to admit that those who have worked at it have managed to grow pretty darn good orchids using conventional fertilization techniques. So exactly what is to be gained by some new fertilizer? More near perfection? Easier cultural care? Cheaper growing? Even better orchids? Is that possible? Do you think growers for 200 years have been sitting on their behinds with their thumbs in dark places? Is improved fertilization possible....maybe so, but prove it. Take the idea to a fertilizer manufacturer or university and convince them to test it in a scientific manner. If you sell the idea, they will test it and provide the unbiased proof required. Remember MSU was tested at MSU in their GH....do the same with this. Then come back armed for bear.

You've seen some of my photos, Molly, and you know that with "conventional fertilization techniques" I was growing "some pretty darn good orchids." Changing fertilizers is giving me exactly what you mention, "more near perfection" and "even better orchids." Nor have I been sitting in the dark. I've tried a lot of different things over the years, though I am not one to be always changing, and this has been the most dramatic thing that has happened in my collection in 35 years. It works for me and that is what matters, and I repeat (you didn't address that), this is not seasonal new growth.

[DavidCampen]

Originally Posted by The Orchid Boy

...Glancing at this article, it seems to me that there is 24.8 (precipitation) and 10.7 (throughfall) phosphorous. (Chart on 5th page. Second to last reading, Venezuela) There is 27.0 (precipitation) and 3.6 (throughfall) calcium. So maybe, just maybe, K-lite has been a success for some because of added calcium, urea free N, and maybe not because of the low amounts of P and K.

When switching from a conventional water soluble fertilizer that does not contain calcium and magnesium to k-lite then 4 variables are being changed -calcium and magnesium are being greatly increased while potassium and phosphorous are being greatly decreased.
So for people who have been watering exclusively with RO water and using a fertilizer that did not contain calcium and magnesium then I would expect that switching to a fertilizer such as k-lite that has ample calcium and magnesium would be beneficial.

Just a few questions regarding this article... With the throughfall and precipitation, how much P and Ca is available to the plants? And what do the last numbers on the chart represent?

The last numbers are Precipitation minus Througfall to give a number for how much is being scavenged by the canopy. The article postulates that most of the retention in the canopy is from algae and lichens growing on the leaves. It is hard to calculate a total balance for the system - you have to account for stemflow, litterfall and absorption from the soil as well as rainfall and throughfall.

In the "What do orchids eat?" article, it mentioned that orchids that have partnerships with ants get more K and such orchids would probably benefit from more K. Is there any specific study on orchids in the wild with nutrient availability? This article seemed to be general.

I don't know of articles detailing nutrient uptake by orchids in the wild. The study that had data shwing a differences between ant asociated orchids and others was not intended to study that. I believe that most of the ant associated orchids that were analyzed can also grow without ant colonization and the study did not even make a note of the presence of ants or not. From that study I believve you could argue either that the ant associated plants had more K because they needed it or simply because it was available.

---------- Post added at 12:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 AM ----------

Originally Posted by ronaldhanko

You've seen some of my photos, Molly, and you know that with "conventional fertilization techniques" I was growing "some pretty darn good orchids." Changing fertilizers is giving me exactly what you mention, "more near perfection" and "even better orchids." Nor have I been sitting in the dark. I've tried a lot of different things over the years, though I am not one to be always changing, and this has been the most dramatic thing that has happened in my collection in 35 years. It works for me and that is what matters, and I repeat (you didn't address that), this is not seasonal new growth.

In a couple of years, if a number of people like yourself are reporting that they have been using exclusively k-lite
and are getting excellent results then I would also consider switching. The author of the AOS article argues that it takes years for toxic levels of nutrients to accumulate in an orchid (I am doubtfull but that is what he argues) so by the same token one could argue that it will also take years for deficiencies to show up.

Also note though that even the author of the AOS article reports that he is not using k-lite exclusively on all of his orchids. He is fertilizing his "ant associated" orchids once with MSU for every 3 times with k-lite.

In a couple of years, if people are still reporting glowing results from the exclusive use of k-lite, then perhaps someone at a university could be convinced to undertake a multi year controlled study.

[ronaldhanko]

One more comment, David. I am not using RO water nor have I ever used it, and at least one of the fertilizers I was using claimed to have trace elements as well.