|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 31, 2010 13:52:20 GMT -10
Heiko Rischer was able to grow Nepenthes in completely inorganic substrate, without any organic matter whatsoever. He fertilized them using inorganic fertilizers. Here is his article: www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/samples/Cult292NepInorSub.htmIf soil organisms were necessary, then I don't understand Heiko's success, as I don't know where the organisms would (or could) live in a completely inorganic substrate. Note that I'm not saying that soil organisms offer no benefits; what I'm disputing is the notion of necessity. They probably do help, but from the evidence I have available to me, it would seem that Nepenthes can do well without them, too. If anyone has contradictory evidence, by all means do share -- I would like to learn more.
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 31, 2010 12:04:43 GMT -10
Just a courtesy reminder: the "needed" in the phrase "needed microbes" is rather subjective....If plants couldn't absorb nutrition without soil organisms, hydroponics would not work...
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 31, 2010 9:15:22 GMT -10
Not entirely true...Hydroponics involves no medium at all or the use of inorganic media. Fertilizers are dissolved into the water that sustains the plants, and the plants seem to absorb those nutrients just fine
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 30, 2010 4:26:10 GMT -10
Sounds like you answered your own question, Noa
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 25, 2010 12:26:29 GMT -10
Actually, Sam, I had a fairly good idea of what you meant. I was just trying to deviously lure you into my logical net, and it seems to have worked I was hoping you'd say that Until someone either a) offers up some kind of chemical content analysis comparing coffee to more traditional, store-bought fertilizers or b) posts pictures of (at the very least) 3 plants, one grown with no fertilizer or coffee, one grown with coffee, and one grown using regular fertilizers -- keeping all other conditions the same -- then we just don't know how coffee-fertilizing sizes up against regular fertilizing. (Some other kinds of controlled experiments would do, too, I'm just giving an example). Speculations, hypotheses, and even wild claims about how coffee can balance the chakras of our plants are all fine, as long as we recognize their limits. As for coffee fertilizing seeming like a "magic bullet", I'd have to agree that it does have the trappings of a magic bullet. In the end the proof will be in the pudding...or pitchers...or tree-shrew poo (I get confused...). And I don't mean to sound mean or argumentative; I don't have strong feelings on the matter. I just enjoy playing with people's minds, especially if it involves logical games
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 25, 2010 5:34:58 GMT -10
Why, Sam? What makes a fertilization regime "real"?
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 24, 2010 6:56:15 GMT -10
Doug, I had never considered using one of those for watering, and I would have thought that the force of the spray might move the surface soil around too much. I guess the fine mist setting doesn't disturb the soil much?
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 23, 2010 12:52:06 GMT -10
Oh, and nice plant, Doug
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 23, 2010 12:51:18 GMT -10
Actually, we have no idea of whether this single individual is typical for the species or not -- we cannot judge it without comparison to a population of individuals of the species (statistically or taxonomically speaking) or without comparison to a published description (taxonomically speaking). Just because this plant is still on the small side, or because it is in "artificial" cultivation, does not automatically mean that it provides us with no information about the species, or that it is somehow deviant and "unrepresentative". Rather, it would be better to say something like "Conclusions from a single, immature individual are tentative. While we can make some interesting observations, we need more data". It could well turn out that this little plant is spot-on, typical as it gets; or it might just be an outlier of the world's ephippiata population -- no one has pointed out any strong reasons one way or the other (yet). Just wanted to clear the logical air
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 16, 2010 4:33:11 GMT -10
Beautiful satire, Sam. Swiftian, even.
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 9, 2010 6:08:35 GMT -10
Beautiful plants, and some interesting crosses. Curiously, the maxima x (lowii x ventricosa) seems to show very little lowii x ventricosa influence.
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 9, 2010 6:05:42 GMT -10
So I guess we have reason to assume that the "common" Miranda was not used in this cross?
Outstanding plant, Sam.
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Mar 9, 2010 5:46:55 GMT -10
I didn't realize that fusca Sarawak would become such a beautiful plant (not to say that the others aren't gorgeous as well).
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Feb 3, 2010 5:02:58 GMT -10
Me likes the Freder -- definitely keeps the narrow shape of the tentaculata pitcher, and the peristome shape. And the pitcher:leaf ratio at this stage is really good, too. My hopes are for a small-statured plant like tentaculata that thrives in warmer temps Polydorus is looking good. This one is definitely more elongated than the representative posted on the registered hybrids section. And the lid on that second Song of Melancholy...! Excellent work, Sam.
|
|
|
Post by mikuláš on Feb 1, 2010 5:39:18 GMT -10
I won't presume to speak for anyone who has done actual experiments with lavicola in various media, but the idea strikes me as rather costly. How many individuals would you need to test in order to have some kind of generalizable results? You could grow two plants side by side, just in different media, and note the differences. However, what if one plant just happened to suffer from some unnoticed disease or viral infection? That would skew your results. You'd need several plants growing in each of the media you wanted to test -- IF you wanted to do an actual experiment. If you tested 3 mixes with 5 plant each, and if each plant costs $27 for a small TC plant (the only price I could find anywhere for lavicola), then you're looking at $405 in plant costs alone. Pennies for some, a lot of dough for others. That being said, most people aren't thinking that rigorously when it comes to media "experiments" (I know I don't). I'm just trying to point out a caveat -- small sample sizes don't necessarily yield meaningful results. Sometimes they do -- it's just that we can't really judge on the basis of a few plants. In reading lots of archived posts (both here and on other forums), I have to come to believe that there is an interaction effect when it comes to the variables of cultivation (light, water, medium composition, watering schedule, fertilizing, etc.) -- that is, the effect of the whole is different than the effects of each variable in isolation. So just because lavicola might grow well in cinders in some setups, it might do poorly (or at least less-well) in the same medium in other setups. I had a thorelii x alata that grew very well in LFS + a little perlite all summer when grown outdoors -- I think the water-retaining LFS probably kept the little guy alive during those hot, sunny days. But after moving it to a light box with cooler temps and less drying due to wind, heat from the sun, etc., the same mix spelled death for that plant -- when repotting I was horrified to see that every single root had rotted off! No wonder it had been looking so sickly... My point: True experiments can be pricey. The results aren't necessarily generalizable beyond that species, and may not hold true in other growing environments. This isn't to minimize the importance of smaller, less rigorous experiments. We just have to be aware of the limitations of those efforts. Now, how's that for pedantic-sounding?
|
|