Lucas Formula Recipe from Scratch "Really"

fatman7574 said:

Depends on waht your base fertilizer is. Ideally you want a 3:1:2 ratio. Lucas is not an ideal ratio. It is just a simple seasy to mix formulation to use. It does nor even work as well as using a mixture of Grow and Micro during veg and Micro and Bloom during budding, or even as well as some other even cheaper fertilizers. It is simply a fair working FAD fertilizer blend that an average hobby grower came up with a few years ago. Of the retail fertilizers out there I think at this time the best bang for your bucks comes from Dyna-Gro Foliage-Pro.

https://www.rollitup.org/nutrients/295437-methodical-scientific-approach-nutrients-nutrient.html

Click to expand...

fatman7574 said:

The closet to a MJ plant is the "hemp" plants grown through out the U.S.. during WW II and just after that time. They found that the plants grow best when fertilized as if they were tobacco, corn silage or fodder when field grown and as foliage plants when green house grown. One does have to consider all the early research geared mainly around growing plant in the vegetative state until the plants started diverting its energy into reproduction. Then the testing went into importing ruderalis and hash strains so as to shorten and bush out the plants as the combines could not handle the ntaural sativa plants which were to tall. It wasn't until the 60's that much research was geared towards improving its possible medicinal qualities.

Consider Green peppers or chiles are 3:1:3, fodder is 3:1:3, spinach is 3:1:4, herbs are 2:1:1.5 while tomatoes are 4:1:5 and very high in calcium. The hydroponic grows in the 50's and 60's showed that MJ responded best to the simple 3:1:2 ratios used for green house foliage type plants. Even AN, low and be hold, who say they are at the forefront of the MJ nutrient field are now putting out Sensi formulas that are nearing the old traditional 3:1:2 formulas of old. Why do I use a near 3:1:2 ratio etc, because over the years I have found it to work the best and have mixed and sold it to dozens of large growers who also swear by it. I also know many commercial growers who mix their own fertilizers and in general they always seem to return to a formula near the standard old 3:1:2 ratio. Recently (the last year or a bit more) has brought about better nutrient delivery systems and therefore allowing increases in the other parameters meaning a k higher potash than from the 3:1:2 ratio.

Lucas is not really a good mix, it is just a fair and simple mix that works. It is a 0.42, 0.83, 1.0 ratio. Nothing like what is really recommended. I really do not know why it made it to the Fad level. I really find it hard to believe that GH even came up with the Flora Bloom formula which is Lucas with humus. It is simply a matter of a manufacturer providing what people want even when it is not a better product. If you actually look at the analysis of GH FloraBloom and Flora micro you would see that Lucas was back ass back wards when he came up with his formula. He advised two parts Bloom to one part Micro. If he would have gone with two parts micro and one part bloom he would have gotten a ratio of 3.3, 1.6, 2 but it would have a mess of calcium at 333 ppm. That high calcium would mean that the reservoir s would likely have to be changed out weekly rather than going for weeks or a full grow by just adding water and more nutrients.

IMHO neither GH or AN make a really good mj nutrient product for hydroponics, especially not for a good aero system with large tubes or chambers. I really doubt they will ever make a good formulation for good intermittent mists systems such as high pressure chamber or atomized chamber. They do not make formulations for commercial growers just hobbyists and it is doubtful enough hobbyists will ever spend the energy, time or money to move up to the better more expensive systems. The more efficient the system is the greater the difference ratios, and balanced pH's mean. Carbonate chemistry is much harder to deal with when TDS levels low right from the beginning as they are with efficient systems. Consider this: the actual recommended calcium to nitrogen ratio for MJ is 0.8-1. How many retailed nutrients out there do you see where the calcium to nitrogen ratio is that high unless the nitrogen level is very low. That is why the retail manufacturers are selling low nitrogen formulas. They sell low nitrogen so they can use lower levels of calcium. Low level calcium formulations make growers happy as they can go longer times between reservoir change outs and so they have to adjust the pH less and worry about magnesium deficiency less.

Basically it means poorer quality nutrients, potency and yields for a given growing time in order to allow for easier maintenance and less grower knowledge. It has become quiet common in the last few years for people to say the use plain tap water without problems. That says a lot about too low calcium levels supplied by manufacturers and that is usually an indication that their Nitrogen levels are really low also. Lately the trends has been high phosphorus and high potash, then throw in high calcium and magnesium at blooming. That is strange as balanced nutrients near or about 3:1:2, calcium of at least half to 1.5 to 3 and magnesium about half on the nitrogen or calcium through out still produce the best results. Calcium is really a very good way to control nutrient up take in efficient systems. As long as the ratio of calcium to magnesium is about 2:1 the calciums high EC means it has a lot of control over the amount of other nutrients that are available.

It is easy to experiment and see that increasing the ratio of calcium lowers uptake and lowering the ratio increases uptake when feeding low ppm nutrients. Kinda mind boggling though. With a captured drain to waste nutrient system allowing tds measurement you would find something like input TDS 600 ppm (with high calcium), drain at 450 ppm. 650 ppm input (low calcium), drain at 350 ppm. That means not only did the plants take up a higher ppm of nutrients but the percentage was also higher in nutrients other than calcium. To gain by this you have to be able to bring your self to almost daily read a nutrient deficiency and antagonist chart though.

I just checked out an add for FloraNova grow and it is 1.75 to 1 to 2.5. So it is swinging closer to 3:1:2 than the original Micro and grow mixed to 3.5:0.5:3.5. The FloraNovaBloom is 4:8:7, and there old Micro and bloom was 2.5:2.5:2.5. Sure seems strange that they only added humic and fulvic acids made from lenoraddite coal but now list the products as organic. I just in the last day or so added humus to the nutrient thread. For those curious, leonardite coal is the brown coal often found mixed in with soft black lignite coal. Some say it is almost coal and almost peat moss. They dissolve the coal with potassium hydroxide, they then add a little phosphoric acid. This form s mushy mass (humic substance) and fulvic acids (the solution). If the just want the humic acid, they pour off the fulvic acid and add water. The water contains humic acids. Usually most manufacturers use/combine the fulvic and humic acids and just call it humus. The new Fad.

For what it is worth for the set ups I use I run formulations of veg 3.26, 1, 3.55 and Bloom of 2.81, 1, 4.4 I am running closer to 3:1:4 rather than 3:1:2. My use of higher potassium is due to the use of tight SOG grows with growing temps around 88 to 92 degrees, very high transpiration due to low ppm nutrients and dehumidification down to around 35 to 40 during veg and 25 to 30 during budding, and lots of CO2.

The general horticultural description of potash as a nutrient: Potassium is a key activator of many enzymes, especially those involved with carbohydrate metabolism. Potassium is also responsible for the control of ion movement through membranes and water status of stomatal apertures. Potassium therefore has a role in controlling plant transpiration and turgor. It is generally associated with plant 'quality' and is necessary for successful initiation of flower buds. As a result the levels of potassium in nutrient solutions are increased as plants enter a 'reproductive' phase, and as crops grow into lower light levels, in order to maintain nutrient balance in solution.


So is the 3:1:2 ratio perfect. No it just seems to be one of the better choices of those nutrient formulas that are available for those who are growing at more common temperatures and humidities. Would added potassium make the formulation better. If you growing parameters are above average, then yes increasing the potash ppm would likely be helpful. If not you will very likely just be adding potassium hydroxide every day anyway so you might as well add it initially instead of adding so much every day by using pH up during budding.

Click to expand...

tree farmer said:

fatman
these are the listed NPK ratios for high pressure aero plants from the supposed leaders in high pressure aero systems. tomatoes 4-18-38, peppers and herbs 11-11-40, lettece 8-15-36, strawberries 8-12-32 and universal formula 10-8-32.

now unless i dont know how to interpet these values (which is certainly possible)or HP aero uses different values than regular hydro. these are not the values you have listed for the same plants ,tomatoes 4.1.5, peppers 3.1.3, lettuce 3.1.4, would not the ratios for these according to the NPK values listed for the HP plants be tomatoes .2,1,2.1, peppers 1,1,3.6, lettuce .53 ,1,2.4. show me what im not getting. what are the ratios for the NPK values listed (HP plant formulations)if what i have are not the correct numbers. i would like to get this figured out. thank you

Click to expand...

fatman7574 said:

Quey 10 different sites and you would likely get ten different answers.

I have seen the "liquid Mineral Nutrient" formulation as sold on the Agrihouse Commercial site. http://www.biocontrols.com/secure/shop/category.asp?catid=19 I am not aware that they are the "leaders in high pressure aero systems." Perhaps you meant leading retailers. Saying that they are the leaders in high pressure aero systems is some what a kin to saying something absurd like AN is the leader in nutrient formulations.


First off you need to look at ratio's not the guranteed analysis. So consider the middle number as a 1. Tomatoes 0.22, 1, 2.11 That would be a fine formy ulation once t you have gotten enough vegative growth that you have switched to a fruiting formula, It wi ould be absurdly low in nitrogen during the seedling and vegetative state. Peppers 1:1:4.4 is also a fruiting formula. Using it early would mean a never ending battle with a daily increase of pH and required a high EC so as to provide adquate nitrogen. This formula would mean until the plants reached the age wherby they were tall enough to start encouraging flowering and fruit growth you would be throwing away large amounts of phosphorud and huge amounts of potash. No use in going on. All the formulations are fri uit biased. Basically they are Bloom formula for their respective products. All asume dwarfing intentional dwarfing/minaturization of the entire plants except the fruit, hence the high phosphorus. While if you are searching to grow nothing but SOG's they are the area in which you might try, they are not going to ever be able to suplly the nutruient needs of a mj tree. The formualtions are geared toward trying to produce chemicaly induced lollipopped plants essentially. They would be formulas that in the mj growing operations would be used if you are going straight from cloning to a 12/12 cycle for budding. The lettuce formula seems a bit absurd though. I know of a lot of lettuce formula around 6:1:4 I have not seen a 1:2:4 lettuce before. Lettuce is not a fruit setting plant, but an almost fodder/foliage type plant.

Click to expand...

tree farmer said:

ohh! so your saying the 3.1.2 ratio is best for vegging. i wonder if HP aero formulations are somewhat different. looking thru thier site on HP nutient products they dont seem to have any formulas for the veg state. i wish i had some other info besides thier site for HP aero. evrything does seem low in nitrogen even the lettuce ratios. maybe they have found lower nitrogen levels to work better with HP. i really dont know. ill be using higher nitrogen levels and i guess ill see what happens. thanks for your input.

Click to expand...

HDB said:

I have been using lucas sys myself, I dont have any fancy meters, just a nice ph meter. In laymens terms, if one has a couple gallons of micro and bloom stocked, how many ml's per gallon should one use of both for veg and flower. And what if anything would be needed to compensate any shortcomings. Im not a newbie, but I have been misinformed more than once. Just want the best advice for what I have to work with. After these nutes are all gone, what would you recommend a bubbleponic/aero user use?

Click to expand...

fatman7574 said:

There are two other better choices.

2 Parts Micro and 1 Part Bloom

ppm my weight mg/L
Nitrogen 333
Phosphorus 166
Potassium 200
Magnesium 50
Calcium 429
Sulfur 66
Iron 6.67
Manganese 3.33
Boron 3.33
Zinc 2.00
Copper .67
Molybdenum .05

29.7 Ounces Fertilizer Salts and Minerals
Ounces
Part A
Calcium Nitrate 28.4
Iron Chelate .90
Part B
MonoPotassium Phosphate 10.5
Magnesium Sulfate 6.7
Manganese Sulfate .179
Boric Acid / Solubor .245
Zinc Sulfate 1.17
Copper Sulfate .039
Ammonium Molybdate .001
Volume of Stock Solutions 100 gallons
Dilution Rate 1
EC 2.9
TDS 3562 by weight mg/L
pH 5.7
TDS 2079 mg/L with 070 conversion


1 Part Grow, 1 Part Bloom and 1 Part Micro
ppm by salt weights mg/L
Nitrogen 233
Phosphorus 200
Potassium 367
Magnesium 67
Calcium 246
Sulfur 89
Iron 3.33
Manganese 1.67
Boron 1.67
Zinc 1.00
Copper .33
Molybdenum .03

26.7 Ounces Salts and Minerals
Ounces
Part A
Calcium Nitrate 16.3
Potassium Nitrate 2.2
Iron Chelate .4
Part B
Potassium Nitrate 2.2
MonoPotassium Phosphate 12.6
Magnesium Sulfate 9.0
Manganese Sulfate.090
Boric Acid / Solubor.123
Zinc Sulfate.058
Copper Sulfate .020
Ammonium Molybdate .001

Volume of Stock Solutions 1 gallon
Dilution Rate 100
pH 5.9
Total Salt mass to TDS 3048 mg/liter
EC 2.97
TDS 2079 by 0.70 conversion reading

If using standard hydropnic systems such as DWC, NTF, Bubbleponic I would use the 1 Part each mix if I was going to run long intervals between reservoir changes. However, the mix of 2 parts micro and 1 part Bloom is a better ratio mix except for the large concentration of calcium. This large amount of calcium could mean doing frequent reservoir changes and no addition of nutrients between changes, just RO water top offs and pH adjustments. Better results but more labor and possibly more costs. If you are not one for running high EC the costs will be about the same. Personally I like drain to waste, but in general it takes a bit of experience to take the jump to drain to waste. It is a matter of trying to stay between providing too little and wasting to much to drain. Takes a bit of time to reach the point of being willing to take those risks. A lot of it comes from the realization that you can prepare better formulas for drain to waste and not worry about buffering and inbalances than you can with recirculation stystems where everything is always changing and seldomly balanced beyond a few hours after mixing.

Click to expand...

tree farmer said:

good post fatman.

if doing dtw and using the 2micro one bloom do you think the extra calcium and higher other micros would cause any antagonizing in my HP system. you probably already posted it somewhere but what ppm for cal you looking for.

Click to expand...

Old Fat Dude said:

I've been following your posts and hope you will give me some advise ...

In a DWC system using GN's FloraNova Grow/Bloom, temps 76-82, 400HPS,and humidity 45-57%

I keep my pH between 5.5-6.5 usually hovering around 5.8, not usually changing much between reservoir changes every 2 or 3 weeks .

I was keeping my TDS around 1200ppm,but kept experiencing nutrient damage .
I now keep it around 900ppm.

I use hydroton as my medium and wonder if there is any Cation Exchange Capacity.

First off an explantation of Hydroton.

Hydroton is made up of small red clay marbles. Another variety is not rounded marbles but irregular-shaped small red clay pebbles.

Most artificial mediums retain positive ion charges, called cations. These positive charges change the electrical balance in the nutrient solution, affecting the entire workings of nutrients on plants, and the effect is not easy for a grower to detect until production starts to drop off.

Experiments have shown that after 4 weeks in a nutrient solution, the Hydroton absorbs 12-15% calcium cations (Ca++) and a proportional amount of potassium cations (K+). It takes about 4 weeks in pure water to wash out the Ca ++ and a lot longer to flush out the K+.

Hydroton claims its pellets are made out of a neutral pH clay and therefore the claim is that they have an extremely low cation exchange capacity.


[Cation-exchange capacity is defined as the degree to which a soil can adsorb and exchange cations.

A cation is a a positively charged ion (NH4+, K+, Ca2+, Fe2+, etc...)] ​

There is only one clay type that is not a Polar charged clay (negative charged) clay and that is a mixture of Ilites/chlo rites and Daigenesis clay which can be a Dipolar Clay blend made up of both negative and postive charged clay particles. To say it has extremely low cation exchange capacity is a bit of a far reach however. Clays have a range of CEC rated in MEQ with the range being typically being described as between 0 and 100. The mixed clay has an average MEQ between 20 and 60. Organic soils usually have a CEC of 50 to 100. So does Hydroton really have an extremely low CEC? ​

So in reality Hydroton is just a inert mediun as in it provided no nutrients through its decomposition as does organic matter in soil, however it still has catonic exchange capacity but in genearl only half of that of a rich organic soil or peat moss medium. Just not as much as soil or peat moss. Basically put Hydroton is not a good hydroponic medium, nor is peat moss. They are essentially like a nutritionless soil in too many aspects.​

Q#1, after reading in other threads ,I wonder if I should mix 1part FNGrow and 3 parts FNBloom together as my blooming formula, to keep my nitrogen levels up to keep my older leaves healthy ?

I will discuss that after the Tap Water issue when answering the Flora-Gro question.

Q#2, My water analysis .....
TDS 470 mg/L
Hardness as CaCo3 270 mg/L
Chloride 77mg/L
Chlorine 4.6 mg/L
Cu .00065 mg/L
Fe 0.02 mg/L
Mn .0024 mg/L
Na 54 mg/L
Sulfate 190 mg/L
Zn 0.01 mg/L
pH 7.69

The water analysis does not show much except to show that the water is hard water. Water hardness is principally made up of calcium and magnesium. It is always better when you can obtain the alkalinity and either the calcium amount or the magnesium amount or both. With your Hardness readings though it can very likely be assumed yhough that yu water contains quite abundant amounts of both calcium and magnesium.

However what is alarming about your water is the level of sodium and chloride. The total of the combination of the two together shouldnever get to 300 ppm in your reservoir. It is also reported that the sodium should not exceed 60 ppm. And that is with plants in general. So essentially using your tap water is like adding Botanicare Cal-Mag but without the nitrate and iron that is in the Cal-Mag.

How much of this water can I use in my mix with RO water ...
I'm thinking 25% would be safe .

Cal-Mag is 200 ppm Nitrogen, 320 ppm Calcium, 120 ppm Magnesium, 156 ppm sulphur and 1 ppm iron. Essentially your hardness is going to be neraly all alkalinity so it will be mainly calcium and magnesiunm so figure 240 ppm combined. Typically in natural water the calcium is double the magnesium so figure your straight tap water will add 160 ppm of calcium and 80 ppm magnesium and 300 ppm sulfur and negligible copper.

GH is known for not needing supplemental calcium or magnesium though. If you need it though I would consider that botatnicare suggests that their Cal-Mag be used at 400 to 1. That would sugeest if your wanting to consider using your tap water as a replacement for Cal-Mag supplementation that 25% would be tops.

Q#3 If I change to Dyna-Gro Foliage-Pro will I have water or pH issues that I don't have now?

That is a loaded question. It depends. If used when the plants are in early veg under low lighting it will acuse more ammonium to be taken up than the nitare ratio is set up for so pH drops will be karge. If the temperature are low more ammonium will be taken up and the pH will be large. If the plants are bushy this will provide low lighting intensity to many of the leaves causing incraesed levels of ammonium to be taken up and the pH declines will bee large. If the grow area is set up with reflected wall paint or milar and therefore reflective lighting is provided to the sides of the plants the pH drops will be large. Even side lighting less intnse that the top lighting means incaresed ammonium uptake than nitrate and that causes large pH drops.

What this all boils down to is if there is low lighting any where the ammonium uptake will be larger than the Nitrate take up so the pH will drop. If there temp is low then this will have the same effect.

On the other hand if those conditions do not exist then the nitare will be taken up morethan the ammonium and the pH will rise. Typical formulas have much less ammonium than the FoilagePro and it is common for the pH to drop during budding. However Foliage Pro contains about 5 times the average levels of ammonium contained in MJ specific formulas for hydro.

If you have packed closet type grow in SOG with a very full canopy then there is no low intensity lighting just high intensity lighting of the canopy so no ammonium uptake so the pH will rise. If you have lollipopped plants the pH will rise.

So it all depends. Also if you have high humidity the pH will drop.

As for the mixing of the Grow and Bloom at 3 part Bloom to 1 part Grow. That would only increase the Nitrate to 4.75 % The bloom contains at 4 and the grow is 7. So [4*(3/4) + 7*(1/4)] = 4.75%. That would likely make little difference.

Thanks Fatman I'm looking into creating my own nutrient mix ,just not there yet .

Click to expand...

Old Fat Dude said:

Thanks Fatman, I added to your reputation .

How does this affect pH ... if hydroton is used repeatedly

Quote Fatman "Experiments have shown that after 4 weeks in a nutrient solution, the Hydroton absorbs 12-15% calcium cations (Ca++) and a proportional amount of potassium cations (K+). It takes about 4 weeks in pure water to wash out the Ca ++ and a lot longer to flush out the K+."

Click to expand...

sherriberry said:

dude... how are you not a millionaire

youre one of the smartest dudes on this forum

you must be really ugly like me

Click to expand...