Lucas Formula

  • Thread starter Moses249
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
M

Moses249

99
33
I've been running the Lucas formula for about 18 months now and its worked out pretty well for me. Despite problems with what I believe is cal-mag issues it seems to be cheap, simple, and effective. Recently I've been having issues with my rez's being low PH despite running the ppm at lower levels and adding ph Up. I use the 0-8-16 with the normal GH micro and GH bloom. Strangely sometimes when I mix up new rez's the PH seems to come out different every time, even when mixed exactly the same. I wonder if each batch of GH nutes is slightly different or something. Anyone out there currently running Lucas in some fashion or has run Lucas that would share their experiences good or bad? Even if you never used it but have something to add feel free, knowledge is power.
 
Rushoe

Rushoe

990
43
I use a tweaked lucas and yeah sometime ph is a bit different but for the most part its not to far off .....I even use maxibloom I love that shit is bomb and its lucas in a powder form just one scoop per gallon is about the same as the lucas u could check out the web page has a few more details.
 
HydroRocks

HydroRocks

348
43
We tested the Lucas Formula against using Dynagro Bloom only with some Cal/mag and Protek. Blew the lucas formula out of the water. IMO the Lucas formula lacks lots of nutrition that the plant needs.

The stronger the genetics your growing the better results you will get from using the Lucas Formula. Growers using the Lucas Formula ALWAYS mistake the signs of strong genetics and instead give the credit to the Lucas Formula for there success. MJ is such a diverse and strong survivor of a plant species that it will try and "adapt" to almost any environment that you subject it to.

People were even able to get it to grow in the soil at Chernobyl where there was a terrible nuclear accident that tainted the land there for example. The MJ actually leeched radiation out of the soil and made it usable again. This is also why you MUST be so very careful about what you feed your plants and that what you give them contains no toxic metals or other toxic or carcinogen components.

This is also why using a "systemic" type product is a bad thing. Lots of growers use PK boosters like Pure Flowers for example and also products like SM-90 which are both systemic type products yet they get used by growers who are not even aware of this at all. That is another story altogether though.

So whenever I see someone using the Lucas Formula with good results, I always pay special attention to the genetics being grown, as it shows signs of kick ass strong genetics.

I also think to myself, "WOW!, if that plant did that good on the lucas formula, imagine what that plant would have done if it was given 100% of its nutritional needs?"

Cheers!
 
Dirty White Boy

Dirty White Boy

884
93
We tested the Lucas Formula against using Dynagro Bloom only with some Cal/mag and Protek. Blew the lucas formula out of the water. IMO the Lucas formula lacks lots of nutrition that the plant needs.

The stronger the genetics your growing the better results you will get from using the Lucas Formula. Growers using the Lucas Formula ALWAYS mistake the signs of strong genetics and instead give the credit to the Lucas Formula for there success. MJ is such a diverse and strong survivor of a plant species that it will try and "adapt" to almost any environment that you subject it to. People were even able to get it to grow in the soil at Chenobyl for example. The MJ actually leeched radiation out of the soil and made it usable again.

So whenever I see someone using the Lucas Formula with good results, I always pay special attention to the genetics being grown, as it shows signs of kick ass strong genetics.

I also think to myself, "WOW!, if that plant did that good on the lucas formula, imagine what that plant would have done if it was given 100% of its nutritional needs?"

Cheers!

That is completely wrong. Like damn.
 
HydroRocks

HydroRocks

348
43
That is completely wrong. Like damn.

Like....no....its not wrong dude.......lol

Like... we tested it dude.......in...like....a lab dude....LOL!!

Your response if VERY typical and expected however for someone who is using the Lucas Formula and does not really understand plant biology very well.

Cheers!
 
M

moodster

363
28
well im loving the lucas in coco i will leave you with your expensive nutes LOL
 
surferbum6900

surferbum6900

177
18
hostile damn.. hydrorocks- post that shit. imput your nute levels into a nutriant couculator and see what profile your coming out with. now compare to
N 120-150 ppm
p 40-60 ppm
k 180-240 ppm
mg 60-80 ppm
s 40-50 ppm
ca 100-140 ppm

now lets start with that and see where this goes
 
SweetTooth

SweetTooth

248
28
Dyna Gro Bloom (3-12-6) (NH4) 0.7% (NO3) 2.3% Mg0.5% Ca2% Fe0.1% S0.09% Mn0.05% @10ml/ Gal
N 103
P 181
K 172
Mg 17
Ca 69
S3
Fe 3.4552
B .691
Cl NOT LISTED
Co 0.0518
Cu 1.7276
Mn 1.7276
Mo 0.0311
Zn 1.7276
 
HydroRocks

HydroRocks

348
43
Surferburn- I already know what the profile is as we worked on it for about 2 years. And I have no need to try and PROVE anything to you or anyone else. You can either take my advice and try for yourself and see...or not. Either way will not affect me at all you see as I have already done the work and the test.

The nutrients used were Dynagro Bloom and cal/mag and Protek, you are more than welcome to add up the numbers yourself and try it out. What we did was one step further, we took those numbers and then compared them to tissue samples from healthy growing plants, then adjusted our formula accordingly. You repeat this process MANY times over a 2 year period and "dial" it in along the way. What you end up with will EDUCATE you greatly on what these plants actually need and want. And it is NOT the Lucas Formula, If the plants could talk and you would listen, you would hear how lacking your Lucas Formula is.

I already know where this discussion will go because I also did another study, this one was on why people react the way they do (so hostile) when you say something that goes against there belief system...turns out that we use the very SAME part of our brain that we do when someone physically attacks you and you were defending your very survival, as you do when someone says something you do not think is true. Same part of the brain fires regardless which is really happening to you and your brain can not tell the difference between these two.

This is why all the childish like behavior happens and people get so angry when you say something they "think" is not true, you might as well have taken a baseball bat and attacked them with it as far as there brain is concerned....we are very strange creatures indeed!

Cheers!

PS- FromGROtoFLO- I cant reply to your PM as I do not have enough post yet. Some person decided to restrict PM messages until I have 50 post. If that does not encourage worthless post like "looking good" then I do not know what does or would....I guess these guys want a forum filled with worthless post like that as some poor soul trying to send a NEEDED message to another member racks up his post count ANYWAY he can! Nice!
 
HydroRocks

HydroRocks

348
43
And FYI- You can not just run the numbers like that. All formula's all NOT created equal and you can get Nitrogen for example from MANY different sources. THIS makes a HUGE difference! What form these elements are in is even more important (chelated or not)

A sad fact is that most growers do not have a clue what those numbers REALLY represent and how to interpret that data correctly. Couple this with the sad fact that most of the numbers that your shooting for are all off by a considerably error margin. AN claims to do specific plant testing yet there numbers in some of there formula's are way off as well. AN is ok for soil (still alarmingly over priced) but in hydro most AN plants show signs of over feeding......even when you reduce the dosage, the reason for this is because there is to much of one element and not enough of another, in other words the "ratio" is off and you will not fix that by reducing dosage.

UREA as an example is organic and basically consist of mammal urine. This is a source of nitrogen for a plant.

There are other forms of Nitrogen as well (mineral based to keep it simple).

So my point is that those numbers do not mean a whole lot if they are consisting of certain source materials. UREA as our example is organic and not available to the plants until bacteria first break it down and convert it to a useable form by the plants. If the grower is running sterile tanks what happens to the plants ya think? They start to yellow perhaps? I know this is a bit off the subject but thought I would mention it.

My main complaint with GH products is they are PURE salts almost and will destroy and cause leaching in plastics if ignored for too long and lots of build up. GH just bottles most of its stuff from other companies that actually make the nutrient. I think recently hey finally started making some of there own products in house. They are the most cheaply made nutrients IMO.

Moodster- the whole point of creating a nutrient profile was avoid wasting money on snake oils and other additives and what not. Dynagro bloom formula has the MOST concentrated amount of P and K on the market so it is VERY cost effective to create a nutrient profile. Your at least spending money on the "right" things for excellent quality products. Dynagro was the first company to make a hydroponic specific nutrient over 30 years ago.

And I am not boasting JUST Dynagro, House & Garden Aqua Flakes also provides a very good ratio and nutrient profile that can be used for grow and bloom stages, there are others as well.

Cheers!
 
Dirty White Boy

Dirty White Boy

884
93
How would you compare Dynagro bloom to Floranova bloom. Ive used them both the Nova worked much better for me. I was having to add more than twice as much cal/mag to the Dynagro then i have to add to the Floranova. The dynagro has more P. K. but a dash of almost any bloom booster evens them right out. The floranova contains more of every single other nutrient. Im not understanding why you say dynagro is so much better. Would you mind posting up your studys or pictures or maybe just get a little more in depth as to why. Whats so special about the dynagro its nearly identical on paper and when put into a nute calculator
 
HydroRocks

HydroRocks

348
43
It depends on how and what was used to get the different elements in the bottle. Dynagro is a better formula because EVERYTHING is in a usable form to the plants, and specifically the bloom formula by chance I guess has a really close ratio that matches tissue samples.

The GH one part formula is not a bad nutrient. It tested fairly well and was much better than the 3 part by GH.

And yes, you do use lots of cal/mag during grow and transition period when using Dynagro Bloom as your only base. The Cal/Mag will balance off the nitrogen needed for one.

The nutrient you use should be based off your growing style and environment. If your going for soil then I would not use Dynagro bloom as the base nutrient, I am talking about hydroponics.

I edited the above post with more details of what I mean.
 
W

willy led wonka

156
28
what nutrients do you recommend for total aeroponic growing? Ive played with Humboldt, FN, AN, and im just curious as to what you think here. I dont understand why people cant take information for what it is...just that. A person can choose to take it or leave it. Thanks for the good work Hydrorocks!!
 
surferbum6900

surferbum6900

177
18
hydro rocks- dude im not getting defensive im asking you to explain yourself.. seems you like to just hoard info and talk shit about how everyone is against you.... im not saying your wrong bro. i just want to understand what your saying. i dont even use lucas hahah i run raw salts. just break that shit down is all im sayin
 
sdgrower

sdgrower

788
93
Hydro,

Can you please provide some more details about your tests? For example what strain did you use, what medium, lighting etc.
I am not doubting your word but another farm member did a comprehensive nutrient test and DynaGro did not perform very well.
Thanks for the info.
Cheers
:animbong:
 
dirk d

dirk d

1,538
263
hey Hydro you got me thinking lol. i was considering changing to the lucas formual. i want to go organic though. I use the botanicare lineup right now ,pbp, but was thinking about changing to general organics.

been hearing lots of good things about them from my hydro shop. i was wondering if you have any experience with general organics in a ebb n grow. thanks.
 
dankworth

dankworth

1,519
163
Hey Dirk D you should be careful w/recirc and organics. In a situation like yours, organic sediment can collect easily and provide fuel for pathogens. I like organic additives to salt-based fertilizer in a dtw, but I did not have great luck with organics in several different types of nutrient delivery systems. Shit will accumulate on the walls of your tubing and such.
But maybe recirc like you described would be okay w/organic stuff if you ran ewc tea.
Or maybe you could foliar with cool organic stuff.

Lucas (6/9) has npk ratio of 30-45-41 (about .67-1-.9 or so), this ratio can grow cannabis but is suboptimal. Check out the nute ratios of other foods in hydro, maybe look at the nutrient thread that uses Jack's as a base. Those guys I think run like 3-1-4 or something for recirc hydro, but don't quote me on that.
Nute values should if possible be governed by the medium, and whether or not you recirculate. That is what I learned from the nute game so far.
Hope this helps.
 
surferbum6900

surferbum6900

177
18
dank worth.. i agree to the fullest. and about using jacks. its 3-2-1 "jacks pro hydro, calcium nitrate, epsome salt" works great!! i use it with caps beneficial's DTW.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom