Thanks for the vindication, Phil - I had a faint suspicion I was going a little nuts, here.
Oliver's combining the same principle with higher light levels - while plant appearance may not be as 'aesthetic' by conventional standards, the system emulates Nature which satisfies one of my eccentricities. You see pictures of orchids in the wild with extensive root systems; Cattleyas for example with roots extended several meters along the trunk and branches of the host tree. The point here might be that with lower nutrient levels the root system compensates automatically, and within reason it might be better to err towards lower rather than higher nutrient concentration in cultivation. Orchids as I'd said are slower to respond but the temporary use of transparent containers allows us to monitor at root level, so we might get a better idea of what's going on a bit sooner. Disas might be a better subject in that regard, but might need 100+ ppm - haven't done any surveys yet. I think Ron is using about 200ppm (not sure) with ordinary hydroponic culture. BTW Ron gave me some Disa plants to try in semi-hydroponics - I have to say that this is the first time I've ever been able to grow the darned things. > > <snip> > >recalled Jim James' book having similar comments. "The New Zealand Orchid Grower"? I have a copy > >In his book he refers to work by Poole & Seeley in the US who concluded > that 100ppm was optimal for Cymbidiums and 50ppm for Cattleya and that > Cattleya growth was actually impeded at concentrations above 100ppm. > > >Sounds similar to your own results. > > >Regards > >Phil Norton > >Blenheim
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
