I have a great deal of respect for Alan Koch as a grower - he and I seem to be cut from the same “better living through chemistry” cloth - but “epiphytes need more micronutrients than macronutrients“ is not entirely correct.
If you do dry tissue analysis of wild-collected epiphytes, you’ll find them to be about 90-95 % C, O, H, & N, with the majority of the balance being P, K, Ca, Mg, & S, with that last fraction of a percent being the trace elements.
If you look at the chemical processes going on within a plant, those in that largest fraction are actually consumed, meaning taken up and permanently incorporated in tissue so require replacement, while much of the remaining mineral mass consists of “transient” ingredients, meaning either they act as catalysts or “transfer agents” during the action of those biological processes and can be passed onto the next round of reactions, the ones after that, and so on.
Having said that, unlike the macros, the trace elements are prone to degradation by UV, so maybe the intended message is that the available supply - occurring on the surfaces of host trees - needs to be enhanced because it will be degraded by sunlight, something that doesn’t happen sub-surface soil to affect terrestrials.
If you use a quality, complete fertilizer, such as the MSU variants, K-Lite, etc., trace elements are included and needn’t be considered further.
I used to sell such trace-element products, but discontinued when I learned how easy it is to screw up a plant by overdosing them, or at a minimum, throwing them out of balance.
Don’t forget why STEM products exist: Pound-for-pound, trace element minerals are far more costly than are the macros, so it was common for large-scale nurseries to only apply cheap NPK fertilizers through most of the growth cycle, hitting them only once with the STEM.
Last edited by Ray; 01-12-2023 at 09:50 AM..
|