Orchid Detox - The Experiment Begins

I just thought I'd share with you what I am planning to do with my orchid care regimen.
Now that I have a greenhouse and I have some significant control to counteract what Mother Nature throws at me, I feel it is time to strip clean my feeding regimen and go back to a simplified feeding regimen for a couple of years and see what happens.

When I was taking an inventory of what I feed my plants, it is amazing that I still have not appeared on the Department of Homeland Security watch list.

Here are the items that I have on my feeding regimen.
I feed weekly, 3 weeks out of 4, with the 4th week just watering to flush.

Fertilizer based on season (soluble powder, 20-20-20 balanced, 6-30-30 bloom, and 30-10-10 foliage) 1/2 tsp/gal every feeding.
Superthrive - 1/8 tsp/gal every feeding.
Sea Weed extract - 1 tsp/gal every feeding.
Pro-Tekt - 1/8 tsp/gal every feeding.
Epsom salt - 1/2 tsp/gal every feeding.

It is possible that all these ingredients mixed together are ending up with a solution that is so saturated that it becomes counter-productive to the plant growth.
I may be giving the plants something that they just end up discarding, or worse, something that is actually harming them.

So this is my plan:
1. Starting August 2008, I will reset to using just the 20-20-20 balanced fertilizer and Superthrive for 3 months and observe the plants.
It is possible that some plants would manifest "withdrawal" symptoms from the omission of their usual "goodies". But the situation should stabilize as the plants make adjustments.
This new fertilizer mix will be administered weekly, 3 weeks out of 4.
20-20-20 Fertilizer 1/2 tsp/gal.
*Superthrive 1/8 tsp/gal. - After some thought, I have decided to remove Superthrive from the first year of the experiment.

2. First observation window - 3 months (Aug-Oct 2008).
I will observe the plants' response and performance, and continue with the feeding regimen.
The plants are probably still experiencing some transition shock during this time, but should be minimal.

3. Second observation window - 3 months (Nov-Jan 2008-2009).
I will observe the plants' response and performance.
This also goes into our winter season so this fact will be considered when measuring plant performance as some plants naturally go dormant in winter.

4. Third observation window - 3 months (Feb-April 2009)
I will again monitor the plants' performance during the sprouting season (new pseudobulbs and roots) as they wake up from the winter rest.

5. Fourth observation window - 3 months (May-July 2009)
This is the active growing season for me. I will observe the plants performance.

6. Repeat the process for 1 more year (without altering the feeding regimen from the first year of the experiment)

At the conclusion of the first year (July 2009) I will compare the plants' performance to the previous year, quarter by quarter.
I will then be able to make a reasonable statement whether the simplified feeding formula has produced better results or worse results compared to my original "fat" formula.

Some considerations:
1. Feeding is not the only factor that influences plant performance. There might be plants that do better next year because I learn more about their individual quirks and thus they respond and perform better as I get to know them more. The plants will also be older next year, so that will account for more robust growth regardless of feeding regimen.

2. If a plant is suffering from any form of disease or infection, I will take the usual steps to cure the plant, even if it involves giving it other chemicals as needed. This plant will then be marked so that this fact is accounted for when it is time to compare the annual performance of the plants.

3. If a particular plant is sulking because of non-disease related factors (it does not like my greenhouse temperature, humidity, etc) and it appears that these plants are a very small fraction of my collection, I will not compensate for environmental factors by giving the plants any of those "miracle products" that supposedly help the plant tolerate warmer or cooler or drier conditions, etc. If the plant's preference is outside of my growing environment conditions, that plant will be traded or discarded in any other means possible.
I am no longer bending over backwards for one plant, at the expense of the rest of my collection. :)


Possible results:
1. Bad: The plants show less vigor and lower quality blooms compared to the previous year.
If this is the case, then I will slowly introduce new supplemental products to my feeding regimen (one by one) and go through a reasonable observation period.

2. No Difference: Plants show the same vigor and bloom quality compared to the previous year.
This would indicate that my "fat" feeding regimen was just resulting in wasted supplemental products which translates to money ill-spent.

3. Good: Plants show more vigor and better quality blooms compared to the previous year.
This is unlikely, but hey it is a possibility. This could be a case where "less is more" applies.

4. Catastrophic: I buckle and abandon the experiment.
If this happens, then I am probably forever an "orchid fashion slave", buying every single "miracle product" advertised on orchid magazines that claim to give my plants super large flowers.

Admittedly, this will require TONS of discipline on my end. Not only do I need to take notes on my experiment faithfully, but I also must resist the urge to reintroduce my old chemicals into the feeding regimen.

If the simplified feeding regimen produces positive results, then it will be a better gardening experience for me.
1. The plants will be happier.
2. I have an easier time preparing the fertilizer.
3. My wallet will thank me too.


My hypothesis:
Excessive "performance enhancing" products are counter productive to orchid plant and flower quality.

The plants were regularly dosed with "performance enhancing" ingredients advertised to promote better plant growth and more beautiful flowers and better tolerance to environmental stress.
With this experiment, I intend to validate if the substances:
1. Are working as advertised and do deliver better plant performance.
2. Are actually hindering the plant's growth instead of enhancing it.
3. Are doing nothing at all and is causing a placebo effect on the growers.

The main process will be a "reverse process" experiment.
Instead of introducing suspected harmful substances to previously sterile subjects, the suspected harmful substances will be omitted from the test subjects already exposed to said substances.
**Imagine an experiment where you deflate a helium balloon to see if it loses altitude, as opposed to introducing helium into a balloon to see if it gains altitude.
**Another experiment of this fashion is to have a frequent aspirin user stop taking aspirin to see if the mysterious symptoms stop occurring.

Wish me luck, and May The Chlorophyll Be With Us!
John