Lucas Formula

Discussion in 'Hydroponics / Aeroponics' started by sealfever42, Jan 11, 2007.


    Mithrandir420 Well-Known Member

    I get better results using the 3 part than I did with Lucas. What really swayed me back over to all three bottles was that I wasn't able to tweak Lucas for each individual strain the way I can with Useless. Lucas works great, but I find that for me, I like being able to fine tune my formula. I get better results in my system this way.

    oceangreen Well-Known Member

    3 part all the way...

    why do lucas when youcan get all three parts dont get it
    churchhaze likes this.

    hugetom80s Well-Known Member

    You dismiss the idea that you're talking about conspiracies, but you're the one saying "the industry" has people thinking things they want them to think. That doesn't happen by accident. If The Industry is working to get people thinking a certain way, that's a conspiracy.

    Not all the nutrients in Grow are in the Micro and Bloom. Don't believe me? Pour some Grow into a bottle of Micro and a bottle of Bloom. "No, it'll precipitate out," you say. Of course it will. Because there are additional nutrients in Grow that are separated from the Micro and Bloom specifically for that reason.

    What you mean to say, precisely, is that the macro nutrients in Grow are also found - in lesser quantities and from different source minerals - in the Micro and Bloom. You can take an iron supplement pill, or you can eat some spinach. But they're not the same thing, particularly if you're not eating very much spinach.

    All peace of mind is. That's why it's called "peace of mind" and not "peace".

    Lucas is not a god. He's a great grower, no doubts about that. But you're saying "according to Lucas" as though that were some kind of magic gospel truth. He's a guy. You can't say that the burden of proof falls on me, when there's no proof that what I'm expressing skepticism in has ever actually been true. "Well, Lucas said so," isn't proof.

    Look at it this way: what happens if Lucas is wrong? He loses face. Certainly that would be unpleasant but this is an anonymous community we live in. My legal name isn't Hugetom80s. If his formula had been a death sentence to every plant fed on it, he could have simply reinvented himself, started a new account, and moved on. But what happens to a nutrient company if their nutrients don't actually provide plants with a complete diet? Yeah... much worse. They can't simply reinvent themselves with anything near the same ease. Companies sometimes do, but usually we know that Company X used to be Company Y and the stain of Y's failure still sits on X.

    So without my own lab and staff to do extensive testing, it comes down to a certain degree of trust combined with and tempered by practical first-hand experience. Is my personal, anecdotal experience growing on the Lucas formula scientific evidence? Of course not. Is it useless data? Absolutely not.

    Advanced Nutrients themselves publishes instructions for using their 3 part on the Lucas formula (or at least they did, I don't know if it still works with their pH Perfect nutes). So obviously it doesn't kill plants. But the question in my mind is not whether I can grow plants, but whether I am growing the healthiest plants I'm capable of growing. Any living thing that depends entirely on me is a living thing I have a responsibility for. I'm solely responsible for the health of my plants and if I can make them healthier and happier and yet choose not to, I'm not holding up my end of the deal. And since my plants produce much better, taking better care of me in return when I improve their health, it's also in my best interest to live up to my responsibilities.

    See above. Also, if you're going to throw around the word "proof" by defining all the things that aren't proof, how about defining what you believe proof is.

    (Actually, don't do that. As soon as you suggest something that would "prove" something I'll just point out all the variables your scenario fails to account for and is in fact not proof but simply a scientific study that supports a hypothesis.)

    Just as saying it's complete in spite of that omission doesn't make it complete. The company that makes the 3 part nutrient has more to lose than the Internet Guy who says you don't need all three parts. If you believe they make three parts simply to sell three bottles rather than 2, that's naive and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the principles of economics. So there must be a reason for 3 part solutions beyond "it's one more than a 2-part" and the rational one is that all three parts play an important role.

    You can live on an incomplete diet. People do it all the time. "Not dying" isn't proof an incomplete diet is complete. Some people who are technically malnourished even appear to thrive. That's not proof an incomplete diet is complete.

    So I feel it's irresponsible to give my plants what I suspect may be an incomplete nutrient feeding schedule. If you want to call that being brainwashed by The Industry Conspiracy That Isn't a Conspiracy, fine.

    I'll simply call it "avoiding the problems I've had running Lucas before".
    70's natureboy

    70's natureboy Well-Known Member

    Wow, this Lucas formula is really going over everybody's head. The GH micro already has nitrogen in it so you aren't really depriving your plants of nitrogen. A lot of people have had success with this formula for over 10 years I believe. People should really try it before judging it as worthless. I tried it and it didn't ruin my plants but I do like a little more green on my plants so I use the 3 part or floranova grow now. It could just be my strains but as one wise poster already said, "green plants are happy plants". If you try Lucas formula and get yellow leaves, just add some grow. It's all about reading your plants anyway.

    ledcflgrow Member

    To keep it simple, the Lukas Formula basically turns your ferts into a 5-5-5, 5% N, 5%P, and 5% K. It only uses the micro and bloom, no grow. So if you want to use other fert brands, just look at the two in the series that will give you a bout a 5-5-5 ratio. If it gives you 10-10-10, that is the same thing, just use half less, so instead of 8ml and 16ml, use 4 and 8.

    ledcflgrow Member

    70's, if you see yellow, why not try instead of 8mL micro 16mL bloom, 9mL micro 14-15mL bloom? Or 10micro and 14 bloom. Micro has way more nitrogen than grow.

    hugetom80s Well-Known Member

    Happy plants are green, but green plants aren't necessarily happy. They're no different than people... you can have enough to eat and still not be at peak potential. Like I said before, there's a difference between not killing a plant and it reaching its full potential. The Lucas Formula isn't bad, I'm just not convinced it's as good. My personal experience with it says it does not perform as well as the full three-part line involved.

    Don't forget that not all Nitrogen is the same. Different sources are more soluble than others and plants even grow differently according to the type of nitrogen source involved. Unless you're absolutely certain that every type of nitrogen in the Grow is present, and in precisely the same ratios, in the Micro you're not growing with the same nutrients.

    Who knows what the difference is? There's "good", there's "as good", and there's "as good as it gets". None of them are the same thing.

    karmeron Active Member

    Only soluble forms are in nutrients - nitrates

    churchhaze Well-Known Member

    The reason the third bottle (grow) is useful is because it's higher in potassium!! It has nothing to do with nitrogen! The main ingredient in it is potassium nitrate which is more potassium than nitrate! Pure potassium nitrate has an NPK rating of 13-0-44. Think about that for a second. What is the NPK rating of the grow bottle?

    Why would people say "it has enough N" when "grow" has more K than N? Shouldn't the argument be that lucas already has enough K and doesn't need grow? The argument (that the extra N isn't needed) as it stands makes no sense.

    churchhaze Well-Known Member

    Actually, you could probably get away with mixing grow and bloom and you could also get away with mixing grow and micro. You'd have a problem mixing micro with bloom. Calcium phosphate would precipitate out quickly. The reason for having the separate grow bottle has nothing to do with precipitates.


    churchhaze Well-Known Member

    The nitrogen in the "micro" bottle comes almost entirely from calcium nitrate. The nitrogen in the "grow" bottle comes almost entirely from potassium nitrate.

    They are both nitrates. Ammonical nitrogen is really low in both bottles. That's really not the difference here. The difference is that micro is nitrate rich while grow is potassium rich. This is because by mass, potassium nitrate has more potassium than nitrate, but calcium nitrate provides a greater amount of nitrate per mass because there are 2 nitrates per calcium Ca(NO3)2.

    Calcium nitrate is the primary provider of nitrates and calcium in every successful hydroponic solution, period.


    churchhaze Well-Known Member

    This beats the 3 part mixture + 1000 additives any day. :)

    swedsteven and shadyslater like this.

    budtoker0987 Active Member

    This is what I have been wondering. So you dont use additives with this formula at "full strength"? (8/16)
    So like, Rapid start, Diamond Nectar, Flora Blend, Liquid Kool Bloom, ect.. Of course I just bought a gallon of kool bloom and flora blend and floralicious plus before I started reading about Lucas formula :( I guess I dont want to waste them but wont use if not needed too.

    thenotsoesoteric Well-Known Member

    I read somewhere I believe on a cannabis world forum, but the Lucas formula came from an Ask Lucas thread from that forum. Lucas came up with this formula to solve the newbie nute problems and to save people money by making a simplified method. It was not made to replace someones feeding regiment that is actually working. So if your stuff is on point, you will not get better results from lucas. If you can't grow for shit or you are light on cash, then Lucas was made for you.

    Dogenzengi Well-Known Member

    I don't get it?
    i use Ff hydro and when my res goes down I just add a gallon at the proper PH and PPM.

    I do supplement w 1 gram of Epsom salt for every Gallon I put in my reservoir for Magnesium.

    I am not trying to talk about Lucas, I know nothing about it, it sounds highly technical and controlled and I like that.
    I am a Noob a Beginner, but I did pull 6 oz off one plant in my first grow using just the FF trio and Epsom Salt.

    I flowered from 750 up to 950 ppm max during flower then tapered off to 350 PPM at the end of flower.

    I just started a new plant in my flower tent today, it my 2nd grow.

    I transplanted into a hempy style container and fed 2 gallons of fresh water PH corrected no Nutes.

    the first feeding will 300 PPM, FF grow big 1 tsp per gal tiger bloom 1 tsp per gallon.

    I will increase Nutes in each gallon then decrease nutes each gallon.

    That is instead of a flood and drain with reservoir, how I grew my first plant.

    being new to Hempy I would love any helpful hints.

    hotdogski Member

    Hello, everyone I enjoyed this thread. I do realize its more than a few years old, but Im just wondering, when we are talking about "1300ppm @ .7 conversion". What does that mean exactly?
    Does it mean that we are measuring 1300ppm per .7 gallons?


    mrgreen2015 Well-Known Member

    bump. awesome thread

Share This Page