FlytrapCare Carnivorous Plant Forums

Where do you guys buy this? Where's the best place?

I get mine from CalWest.

jamez wrote:You're growing in the Greenhouse right?

Yes, both sets of plants in the experiment are growing side by side in one of my greenhouses.

jamez wrote:What size/type pots are you using for them?

I'm using tall thermoform pots that are 5 inches deep and 2.5 inches across (I think?).

Matt wrote:Blake, I believe, has had some issues with keeping the LFS moist though.

Yes, I've been having some moisture issues on both ends of the spectrum. Initially I was following the advice that was given to keep the LFSM in some standing water at all times. This resulted in some rot starting on one of the LFSM plants (I'm trying to recover it, but it appears to be slow progress, if there's progress at all). After I noticed that I cut back on the watering. Unfortunately it's difficult for me to keep the LFSM from drying out since I have to be at work all day. In addition to that we have very intense sun here in CO and even with "hardened" VFTs they all get sunburn out here. That makes the recovery period for my plants quite a bit longer. I finally have one in Peat/perilite coming around and putting up healthy looking growth and I believe one that was in the sphagnum is starting to make a comeback as well. All of the plants I have are growing in a large east facing window in 16oz Styrofoam beverage cups. I plan to move them to a west facing window that gets more sun once I'm sure they're happily rooted in.

Overall I am pretty frustrated with the LFSM plants. I find it difficult to keep the moisture at an acceptable level since I'm away from my house for at least 9 hours each day and we have a pretty dry climate here. Maybe things will improve when the plant(s) root in, but only time will tell. As of now they're looking pretty sorry

California has a more intense sun than CO. Water it more if the sphagnum is evaporating it that quickly. Double it. The sphagnum should be wet.

jamez wrote:California has a more intense sun than CO.

Sometimes the high-altitude sun in the mountain states, with less atmospheric diffusion and buffer, can seem awfully intense.

Just looked it up. The light intensity is identical.

jamez wrote:Just looked it up. The light intensity is identical.

Where did you look it up, and what definition or type of measure of "intensity" are you referring to?

Jamez,
I already stated I tried keeping the LFSM wet and it resulted in one of the rhyzome's to begin rotting. I would appreciate it if you read my posts before giving advice that is not relevant.
As far as the sun goes, I'm sorry if I'm not a super experienced ulta-vft grower like yourself. Your plants always have been and always will be superior to my tiny insignificant poorly grown flytraps. I'm simply stating my experience that every time I get a new VFT the leaves promptly burn off down to where the rhyzome begins to get shaded by the soil. The plant growing where it's shaded and not growing where it's getting hit by light has always led me to believe this is sunburn. Maybe I just can't grow and pot flytraps as good as you so they're doomed to be crappy plants with long recovery times after I repot them. I'm just here to state my results.

You will also notice the state that has a gigantic red blotch in the middle of this photo, but you know what, you're right, your sun is probably way more intense than mine...

Steve_D wrote:

jamez wrote:California has a more intense sun than CO.

Sometimes the high-altitude sun in the mountain states, with less atmospheric diffusion and buffer, can seem awfully intense.

I agree with Steve. The sunshine out on the plateaus of New Mexico is VERY intense. 24000+ foot candles 310 days per year. Great for a solar power farm. No so great for skin cancer rates. It was fscking hard to keep things alive in my greenhouses there compared to my greenhouses in SoCal.

Here near the coast of SoCal I rarely measure above 16000 foot candles outside as the humidity and smog prevents a lot of light from making it to my meter.

If you want to find plots of light intensity across the entire US, then look for data for proposed solar farms. It is the same data set. It might give you better information on light intensity instead of UV intensity.

Regards,
-The209

209 wrote:It might give you better information on light intensity instead of UV intensity

Pure light intensity sure, but UV is what burns leaves. Plants grown in a green house will burn if you toss them out into the sun because the glass blocks the majority of UV-A and all UV-B. Either way, to be fair I present: solar intensity for solar power

95slvrZ28 wrote:

209 wrote:It might give you better information on light intensity instead of UV intensity

Pure light intensity sure, but UV is what burns leaves. Plants grown in a green house will burn if you toss them out into the sun because the glass blocks the majority of UV-A and all UV-B. Either way, to be fair I present: solar intensity for solar power

Humm...Interesting....I've found that I can expose plants to higher light levels as long as I can keep the leaf temperature cool. If I have more air movement, then I can have higher light levels. If I have cooling pads under the plants and swamp coolers installed on the walls of the greenhouse, then I can have even higher light levels. For checking leaf temperatures I've found the IR temp guns to be reliable.

The next time that I run into a nerd from UC Davis I shall pick their brain about plants' reactions to UV-A and UV-B. Thanks for the idea for a fun discussion!

Regards,
-The209

Interesting thought about the cooling. I've never really looked into that much (not that I'm planning on buying cooling pads for my plants...), but it's something I never really thought of. Since I'm growing all inside this season maybe my burning is more of a function of heat rather than UV. I wish I had more equipment to measure leaf temperature and such, if you want to mail some my way I'd be happy to accept it

209 wrote:The next time that I run into a nerd from UC Davis I shall pick their brain about plants' reactions to UV-A and UV-B. Thanks for the idea for a fun discussion!

UV-A really isn't harmful to the plants (from what I've read). Plants actually get a reasonable amount of photosynthetic benefit from UV-A. UV-B however is harmful to the plant tissue, just like in humans. UV-B is high enough frequency it causes near instant chromosome mutation in human dermal tissue. Although I don't know the exact mechanism (biology is not my specialty), it seems reasonable to believe that it's a function of the frequency of the light and the structure of DNA that causes such easy mutation. I assume the same goes for plant tissue since DNA is DNA. In plants it may also cause damage to chlorophyll, but I haven't really looked into this much. If you can find more information with more detail I'd love to know!

An IR temp gun can cost as little as $20. I am not sure how well the $20 ones work though.

The 2nd map is the one I was referring to. They look almost identical on the PSR. Actually on that one coastal CA shows more red than Aurora.