Lucas Formula Recipe from Scratch "Really"

Status
Not open for further replies.

pikes peak 69

Well-Known Member
Hello Fatman,
Curious if you'd mind calculating a formula for me. Grow and Bloom parts a & b. I'll be vegging for 5-6 weeks and then Bloom for 8-9 weeks. Earlier you mentioned skicking with the GH Floro series, so if it duplicates that it would be cool.

Thanks
pp69


Thank you fatman,

I must stick with recirculating for now although I understand the advantage of D-W. Actually when I set new patients up with a handwater system to start out with I recommend to them a Drain to waste with about 25% runoff. Everyone loves the simplicity of it.
Would you mind calculating a veg and bloom formula for recurculating system with the hiher Ca, Mg, P, and Fe that it would require?
I had looked at Bio Balls (weighted ones) but I now have enough perlite for a couple runs so I may switch after that.



pp69
 

fatman7574

New Member
fatmans Grow Recirculation 5-24-2010

ppm

Nitrogen 267
Phosphorus 82
Potassium 291
Magnesium 93
Calcium 261
Sulfur 123
Iron 10.00
Manganese 5.00
Boron 5.00
Zinc 5.00
Copper 1.00
Molybdenum .03

Ounces

Part A

Calcium Nitrate 17.3
Potassium Nitrate 3.3
Iron Chelate 1.35

PART B

Potassium Nitrate 3.3
MonoPotassium Phosphate 5.2
Magnesium Sulfate 12.6
Manganese Sulfate .269
Boric Acid / Solubor .368
Zinc Sulfate .291
Copper Sulfate .059
Ammonium Molybdate .03

Volume of Stock Solutions 1 Gallon Each of Part A and Part B
Dilution Rate 100

fatmans's Bloom Recirculation 05-24-2010

ppm

Nitrogen 293
Phosphorus 80
Potassium 350
Magnesium 91
Calcium 268
Sulfur 120
Iron 10.00
Manganese 5.00
Boron 5.00
Zinc 5.00
Copper 1.00
Molybdenum .0009

Ounces

Part A

Calcium Nitrate 17.7
Potassium Nitrate 4.3
Iron Chelate 1.35

Part B

Potassium Nitrate 4.3
MonoPotassium Phosphate5.0
Magnesium Sulfate12.2
Manganese Sulfate .269
Boric Acid / Solubor .368
Zinc Sulfate .291
Copper Sulfate .059
Ammonium Molybdate .001

Volume of Stock Solutions 1 Gallon each of Part A and Part B
Dilution Rate 100

The Bloom contains a little more Nitrogen and more Potash as is recommended with a Bloom formula. The Phosphorus is higher due to buffering uses of Phosphorus with a recirculatig reservoir. Note Pj hpsporus is about doble that as in the mj tissue sample avg. for both Grow and Bloom. Extra calcium is added due to buffereing needs with a recirculation reservoir.

The NPK ratios are For VEG 3.25 1 : 3.54 (tissue samples avg 7:1:7)

For Bloom 3.66 : 1 : 4.37 (tissue samples avg 5:1:6)

Recirculating reservoirs are a PITA due to buffering always going on in the reservoir. With rarin to waste you just set up formulations with ratios equal to your tissue sample ratios as no buffering is required. Not the case with recirculating resrvoir nutrient formulstions.

So ignore dumb asses like Fat Mikie of AN when he says stupid stuff like everyone is putting to much phosphorous in their formulations or more nitrogen is used by budding plants than veg. IE the Great Phosphorus Myth video. It is the ratios that matter not the single nutrient total when dealing with nutrient formulations. Veg ratio is 7:1:7 IE veg uses 7 nitrogen for a each 1 phosphorus. Bloom uses 5 Nitrogen for 1 Phosphorus. Sure in total more nitrogen is uptaken during budding then veg, however at a lesser lower ratio. So bloom does take up more nitrogen but it also takes up more phosphorus and potassium. IE the phosphrus ratio IS HIGHER during bloom. Fat Mikie is a dumb ass with no common sense when it comes to nutrients or chemistry. He does not work in the labs he justs runs at the mouth and talks garbage. The man can not even properly interpret his own bar graphs of tissue samples ntrient concentrations. Go figure, a multi millionaire who owns majoriy interest in a mj specific nutrient company (AN) and he is ignorant in regard to nutrient chemistry and can not even understand the data he psys for in reard to the performance ofhis products or the nutrient requirements of mj plant nutrient resrvoirs. Go figure.
 

cannatari

Well-Known Member
Hey fatman, I gotta say that I've learned more in this thread about nutrients than anywhere else on the web. This IS the best thread on nutrients on RIU. I've learned alot from your posts and will continue to learn more as my brain can grasp it all. I think your fertilizer recipes should be the standard for benchmarking an MJ grow. I'm sure people think you're a mean old man but the truth is that you must be very kind hearted to share your knowledge in such good detail with us and not keep it hidden from us like the rest of the nutrient manufacturing world. I thank you very much for your efforts fatman.

-cannatari
 

pikes peak 69

Well-Known Member
Thank you very Much fatman1!!

pp69

ps: I agree with the above post. You are kindhearted and very knowledgeable.

pp69


fatmans Grow Recirculation 5-24-2010

ppm

Nitrogen 267
Phosphorus 82
Potassium 291
Magnesium 93
Calcium 261
Sulfur 123
Iron 10.00
Manganese 5.00
Boron 5.00
Zinc 5.00
Copper 1.00
Molybdenum .03

Ounces

Part A

Calcium Nitrate 17.3
Potassium Nitrate 3.3
Iron Chelate 1.35

PART B

Potassium Nitrate 3.3
MonoPotassium Phosphate 5.2
Magnesium Sulfate 12.6
Manganese Sulfate .269
Boric Acid / Solubor .368
Zinc Sulfate .291
Copper Sulfate .059
Ammonium Molybdate .03

Volume of Stock Solutions 1 Gallon Each of Part A and Part B
Dilution Rate 100

fatmans's Bloom Recirculation 05-24-2010

ppm

Nitrogen 293
Phosphorus 80
Potassium 350
Magnesium 91
Calcium 268
Sulfur 120
Iron 10.00
Manganese 5.00
Boron 5.00
Zinc 5.00
Copper 1.00
Molybdenum .0009

Ounces

Part A

Calcium Nitrate 17.7
Potassium Nitrate 4.3
Iron Chelate 1.35

Part B

Potassium Nitrate 4.3
MonoPotassium Phosphate5.0
Magnesium Sulfate12.2
Manganese Sulfate .269
Boric Acid / Solubor .368
Zinc Sulfate .291
Copper Sulfate .059
Ammonium Molybdate .001

Volume of Stock Solutions 1 Gallon each of Part A and Part B
Dilution Rate 100
 

YouGrowBoy

Well-Known Member
Fatman, I've been following your nut mixes (have not made one yet) for a bit and see this is close to the formula posted in #62. However, there is a major difference in the amounts need to get the ppm. In #62 you say use 82.2 ounces of Calcium Nitrate and in this post you have only 17.7. That's about 1/5 the amount for nearly the same ppm. I'm a little confused.


fatmans Grow Recirculation 5-24-2010

ppm

Nitrogen 267
Phosphorus 82
Potassium 291
Magnesium 93
Calcium 261
Sulfur 123
Iron 10.00
Manganese 5.00
Boron 5.00
Zinc 5.00
Copper 1.00
Molybdenum .03

Ounces

Part A

Calcium Nitrate 17.3
Potassium Nitrate 3.3
Iron Chelate 1.35

PART B

Potassium Nitrate 3.3
MonoPotassium Phosphate 5.2
Magnesium Sulfate 12.6
Manganese Sulfate .269
Boric Acid / Solubor .368
Zinc Sulfate .291
Copper Sulfate .059
Ammonium Molybdate .03

Volume of Stock Solutions 1 Gallon Each of Part A and Part B
Dilution Rate 100

fatmans's Bloom Recirculation 05-24-2010

ppm

Nitrogen 293
Phosphorus 80
Potassium 350
Magnesium 91
Calcium 268
Sulfur 120
Iron 10.00
Manganese 5.00
Boron 5.00
Zinc 5.00
Copper 1.00
Molybdenum .0009

Ounces

Part A

Calcium Nitrate 17.7
Potassium Nitrate 4.3
Iron Chelate 1.35

Part B

Potassium Nitrate 4.3
MonoPotassium Phosphate5.0
Magnesium Sulfate12.2
Manganese Sulfate .269
Boric Acid / Solubor .368
Zinc Sulfate .291
Copper Sulfate .059
Ammonium Molybdate .001

Volume of Stock Solutions 1 Gallon each of Part A and Part B
Dilution Rate 100

The Bloom contains a little more Nitrogen and more Potash as is recommended with a Bloom formula. The Phosphorus is higher due to buffering uses of Phosphorus with a recirculatig reservoir. Note Pj hpsporus is about doble that as in the mj tissue sample avg. for both Grow and Bloom. Extra calcium is added due to buffereing needs with a recirculation reservoir.

The NPK ratios are For VEG 3.25 1 : 3.54 (tissue samples avg 7:1:7)

For Bloom 3.66 : 1 : 4.37 (tissue samples avg 5:1:6)

Recirculating reservoirs are a PITA due to buffering always going on in the reservoir. With rarin to waste you just set up formulations with ratios equal to your tissue sample ratios as no buffering is required. Not the case with recirculating resrvoir nutrient formulstions.

So ignore dumb asses like Fat Mikie of AN when he says stupid stuff like everyone is putting to much phosphorous in their formulations or more nitrogen is used by budding plants than veg. IE the Great Phosphorus Myth video. It is the ratios that matter not the single nutrient total when dealing with nutrient formulations. Veg ratio is 7:1:7 IE veg uses 7 nitrogen for a each 1 phosphorus. Bloom uses 5 Nitrogen for 1 Phosphorus. Sure in total more nitrogen is uptaken during budding then veg, however at a lesser lower ratio. So bloom does take up more nitrogen but it also takes up more phosphorus and potassium. IE the phosphrus ratio IS HIGHER during bloom. Fat Mikie is a dumb ass with no common sense when it comes to nutrients or chemistry. He does not work in the labs he justs runs at the mouth and talks garbage. The man can not even properly interpret his own bar graphs of tissue samples ntrient concentrations. Go figure, a multi millionaire who owns majoriy interest in a mj specific nutrient company (AN) and he is ignorant in regard to nutrient chemistry and can not even understand the data he psys for in reard to the performance ofhis products or the nutrient requirements of mj plant nutrient resrvoirs. Go figure.
 

fatman7574

New Member
Like my mental health people say, you have a heart of gold, and would give your life for the life of a total stranger without a second thought, but due to your past your so spiritually and emotionally damaged that you show no natural signs of possessing any positive social emotions skills what so ever. When you do appear to be acting in a socially acceptable manner it is all through metal control IE an Act to appear normal by mimicing others. Then they would say, "You really do not ever expect to have any real, open, intimate, meaningful relationships with anyone do you?" My reply, why would I ever want to do that? The Veterans Administration classifies me as permanently wounded emotionally. Doesn't stop me from learning or teaching. Actually, lecturing is a more appropriate description.
 

AeroTrek

Active Member
Fatman, I've been following your nut mixes (have not made one yet) for a bit and see this is close to the formula posted in #62. However, there is a major difference in the amounts need to get the ppm. In #62 you say use 82.2 ounces of Calcium Nitrate and in this post you have only 17.7. That's about 1/5 the amount for nearly the same ppm. I'm a little confused.
Fatman uses "waste to drain" method. That's what post #62 formula is for...the formula you are comparing to is for recirculation systems.

My appologies fatman I didn't notice you were online.
 

pikes peak 69

Well-Known Member
Hello fatman,

So looking at those mixes, both parts A&B are dilution of 100:1. So when I mix these in reservoir I would use, as an example:
In a 100 gallon reservoir:
19ml of each part (A&B). That would allow mixing 200 gallons total.
Is there a way to know how much A&B (in ml) per gallon for a specific ppm. ie: maybe like every ml equals 50 ppm or something like that?

Much appreciated,

pp69
 

fatman7574

New Member
Yes, that is right. 200 gallons at the ppms shown.

The formulations are each a formulation of something like micro and grow or micro and bloom. But you do not mix them at ratios of say 2 part of Part A and 1 Part Part B like with Lucas etc. They are always mixed at a 1 to 1 ratio. So to get the ppms as shown you would be mixing aprox 19 ml of each. If 19 ml of each say equals 293 ppm of nitrogen then 1.9 ml of each is equal to 29.3 pm of nitrogen. IE if dividing the amount added by ten the end result will also be divided by10. The formulation is based upon proportional ratios. So if you mix up some thing and get an EC of say 3 if you gain mix the new nutrients up with one tenth as much salts you will end up with an EC of 0.3. Or if you mix up something suc as above and get a meter reading of 1690 ppm, if you made the mix with 1/10 as much nutrient concentarates you would get a total ppm reading of only 169 ppm. Say you want a reading of 500 ppm. Oh boy algebra: 38/1690 = X/500, so (38*500)/1690= X, so X=11.24 ml total. So that means (11.24/2)= 5.62l per Part A and 5.62 ml per Part B per gallon of reservoir water for a total ppm of 500.

Here is the problem. I can supply a theoretical EC and ppm. The total of total of all the salt weights converted in mg/liters divided by 2 is the real ppm. Theroretically you then just divide this number by 700 to get the EC. IE I use a 700 conversion ratio for calculations as I also use 700 conversion EC meters. However your EC meter will NOT give you the true reading as calculated. For example these nutrients are around a 2.8 EC so the ppm at a dilution of 100x is 1960 ppm. The salt weight is 3920 ppm. The metered EC or ppm reading, who knows.

Evert thing really depends on your mixing up say a batch of 1 gallon at say 19 ml each and use your EC meter. From there you can determine any amount for any ppm you desire. Just remember they are metered meaurements not true measurements.. truemeasurements maen converting the total weight of all the ingrediants to mg then converting 200 gallons to liters. Divide the total weight in mg by the total volume in liters. This will give you a number in mg per liter (mg/L). 1 mg per liter is 1 ppm.

I really doubt you want to see all the math behind the nutrient top off calculators or mixing calculators. Just like above they can give you at laest three different answers depending upon what method they use for a basis of determing the inital ppm to use in the calculation programs. Based on EC calculations, EC maeasurements and EC conversion factors of either 500 or 700, or based upon real calculations using real water volumes and salt weights. All are just tools none are totally accuratte. The weight in mg divide by total water volume is the closest. The simpliest method is to do the one gallon test mix the solution, measure the ppm and use the algebraic equation plugging in the ppm reading the ml used and the desired ppm results.
 

fatman7574

New Member
Humus, Humic Acid and Fulvic Acid

Humus is defined as the organic matter in soil, a mixture of partially and totally humified substances. Compost is an intermediate product consisting of humic substances and partially decomposed organic matter.

The use of numerous names to describe commercially available humic materials has contributed to the confusion. Humates, humic acid, leonardite, brown coal, lignite, slack lignite, oxidized lig- nite, weathered lignite, humalite, fulvic acid, fulvates, ulmic acid, humic shale, carbonaceous shale, colloidal minerals, humin, concentrated humus, soil organic matter, peat, humus acid, humus coal and dead organic matter are some of the terms that are used to describe and/or market humic substances.

Potassium hydroxide is the typical alkali used by manufacturers to extract humic acid from leonardite. Since the remaining liquid solution is very alkaline, in the range of 8 to 12 pH, it is incompatible with acids. Here lies some of the confusion, the humic acid synthesized by this operation is not actually an acid. Because it can also be described as the product of adding acid to an alkaline solution, it is a salt — therefore the word “humate” may be more appropriate.

Some manufacturers follow the traditional method described above by treating the alkaline extract with acid, precipitating out the humic acid portion, leaving behind the so-called fulvic acid fraction in solution. The fulvic fraction is acidic, with a distinctive yellowish tint. Note, however, that the operation is vague. There is no definite pH at which the precipitate and acid are separated.

As various fractions of humic substances are soluble in a wide pH range, it makes sense that some fractions must be soluble at neutral pH. Some manufacturers treat humic materials with water, extracting the water-soluble fraction, calling that fraction either fulvic acid or “colloidal minerals,” which are promoted in human neutraceutical markets. Fulvic acid can be operationally defined as “the fraction of humic substances that is soluble in water under all pH conditions.”

The marketing of humic substances is interesting in that there is a lack of standardized analysis within the industry for fulvic acid and humic acid. For example, if liquidized humic materials are subjected to analysis, it is difficult to determine what the analysis reveals because of the infinite number of reassociations of free radicals that are possible during the extraction process. Some scientists argue that the reaction products are substances created by alkali treatment as complex degradation products, stripped of many of the original functional groups and recombined into an indescribable material. This may seem to be a nit pick, but some scientists like to argue about it.

The humin fraction gets very little attention. It may seem somewhat inert, but it has been described as acting like a sponge, soaking up nutrients. M.H.B. Hayes and C.L. Graham report in “Procedures for the Isolation and Fractation of Humic Substances” that the composition of humin is the same as humic acid and fulvic acid. They say that humin may be a humic substance in association with mineral oxides or hydroxides (from the reaction), or that humin may be coated with hydrocarbons or lipids (fats) stripped during the reaction, making them insoluble to aqueous solvents. Nobody really knows for sure.

Some people think that fulvic acid is more biologically active than humic acid because of its smaller molecular size. There is some truth in these representations as there is evidence that the lower molecular weight fractions have the ability to cross plant membranes and improve permeability of cell walls. It is true that fulvic acids have a higher “total acidity” than humic acids, but the chemical reactivity and chelating ability of humic acids is equal to or greater than fulvic acid, making them very bioactive substances. The humic acid fraction may be more effective than fulvic acid at solubilizing extremely stable aluminum and iron phosphates.

Carbon nuclear magnetic resonance and mass spectrometric analyses have revealed that the main structural features of humic acid, fulvic acid and humin are nearly identical. To scientists who study humic substances, the names have no meaning chemically. Some scientists say that humic substances from different sources are essentially the same.

Reported variations in plant response to different sources of humic substances are rare. In one case reviewed by Y Chen and T. Aviad in “Effects of Humic Substances on Plant Growth,” the young age of the humic materials were suspect, because humification is a time-dependent process. As the material ages, more bioactive ingredients become incorporated into the humic complex.

COMPLEX GEOBIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

The lower molecular weight (the mass of a substance expressed in gram equivalents of its atomic mass) of fulvic acid is sometimes said to account for its greater biological availability. That is somewhat correct, but vague — the industry has not agreed on standardized molecular weights for fulvic acid. Defining humic acid, fulvic acid and humin by their molecular weights is a controversial concept.

Humic substances change their structure depending on pH and the type of metals present. High pH (or the presence of multivalent ions, such as calcium Ca +) makes humic substances open up their long-chain polymers, whereas low pH makes them close. In the presence of toxic metals, humic substances remove the metals from the surrounding environment by forming insoluble aggregated spheres around them.

Humic substances are polymer-like molecules that demonstrate self-organization. The bi-layers formed by humic substances to surround otherwise insoluble minerals are reminiscent of the way all living things utilize biochemical reactions. The self-organized (micellular) colloidal phases act like biological molecules in cellular systems, showing a strong resemblance to the biological mechanisms of living membranes, as described in college textbooks. Humic substances are more like living creatures than chemical entities, but they don’t reproduce.

Slight changes in pH will actually cause the humic polymers to fracture, breaking up the original molecules. The fractured molecules are then free to associate with numerous other free radicals, metals or impurities. Humic substances are made up of hundreds of different molecules of many different sizes (polydispersity) with many ways to orient them-selves by twisting, bending, compressing, and expanding (conformational changes). They are held together loosely by weak forces in a colloidal state.

Any change in solution pH, concentration or the presence of metal ions — especially calcium ions — will cause huge changes in the physical makeup of the humic molecules. Even slight changes cause the molecules to change in orders of magnitude. Rapid changes in molecular structures are not unique to humic sub- stances — water molecules, for example, change their structure 10 trillion times a second. Although water is an extremely simple molecule, the determination of its structure at any given instant is still not fully known. The amazing complexity of humic substances may forever keep their structures a secret.

FULVIC ACID

The primary reason why there is so much confusion about humic substances is the fact that the procedures used to describe them are based on “classical” aqueous extraction. If minerals are present in the parent material, they become complexed by humic substances. This allows more humic and non-humic material to be solubilized during extraction by breaking down ion bridges that would normally hold the molecules together in higher-purity materials. Unless the super- natant is separated by special procedures (such as passing over an XAD-8 resin) to isolate the fulvic portion, the extracted substances may contain amino acids, proteins, sugars or fatty acids in addition to the fulvic acid.

In biological molecules, it is an established fact that the presence of functional
groups such as carboxyl, phenol, quinone and hydroxyl are responsible for the activity of these molecules. There is some evidence that there are more functional groups in fulvic than in humic acid. The effectiveness of fulvic extracts may be influenced by the way they are synthesized during chemical processing. The fulvic fraction of humic substances is undoubtedly a beneficial part of oxidied lignites.
 

YouGrowBoy

Well-Known Member
Fatman uses "waste to drain" method. That's what post #62 formula is for...the formula you are comparing to is for recirculation systems.
Does that really explain why both are nearly the same PPM yet the one above uses a little over 1 pound of Calcium Nitrate and the other (#62) uses over 5 pounds of the same. Wouldn't the starting ppm of N in #62 be 5x more then the N of the post above as the dilution rate is equal?
 

patlpp

New Member
Does that really explain why both are nearly the same PPM yet the one above uses a little over 1 pound of Calcium Nitrate and the other (#62) uses over 5 pounds of the same. Wouldn't the starting ppm of N in #62 be 5x more then the N of the post above as the dilution rate is equal?
My take is that in #62 the volume of stock = 5.3 gallons (2.65 A, 2.65 B) and that of the new recirc formula should be for 1 gallon total stock :1/2 gal A and 1/2 gallon B. You would than have the same solution with the same EC value as in #62, just 1/5 as much.

However, this recipe is for a very concentrated 2.5 EC, so to bring it to a more manageable EC of 1.25 you would dilute each concentrate A and B with another 1/2 gal water. the result would be 2 gallons of concentrate @ 100:1 EC 1.25
 

YouGrowBoy

Well-Known Member
My take is that in #62 the volume of stock = 5.3 gallons (2.65 A, 2.65 B) and that of the new recirc formula should be for 1 gallon total stock :1/2 gal A and 1/2 gallon B. You would than have the same solution with the same EC value as in #62, just 1/5 as much.
I see the error, thanks for pointing it out.
 

fatman7574

New Member
Also notice some recipes will use both calcium nitrate and Potassium nitrate so as to raise the nitrate without raising the calcium.
 

Enterpol

Active Member
Aaah, glad to see there is a calculation for 1gal stock of part A & B. After reading all this my head hurts. Now I really want to mix my own nutes but I have r GH flora products to use up. Also, one question Fatman; Why are the dry weight calculations in ounces, when most scales are weighted in grams?

P.S. I am in awe of your knowledge and grateful for the sharing of it.
P.P.S. How does the strain (Sativa, Indica, or Hybrid) change the calcs?
 

fatman7574

New Member
As using grams just means posting huge numbers I simply just use ounces. Just multiply ounces by 28.35 to obtain grams. Also consider most gram scales that have accuraccy down to mg typically max out at 250 to 500 grams. most people can get by with a cheap food or postal scale measuring ounces and a cheap ebay 1 gram scale for trace nutrients. People tend to go WTF when I state the major nutrients part in ounces and the micro nutrients part in grams or milligrams.

In reality the strains have little effect on formulating the ratios, just the required EC or total amount used through out the grow. The sativa or sativa dominant strains have a higher ratio of leaves and stems to buds, so they use more nutrients but at about the same ratios (a bit more calcium as calcium is mainly in the stems). The taller plants tend to take up ammomium nitrogen more when it is available due to a large percentage of the plant revieving low intensity lighting and side lighting, which cause more pH declines. This means higher usage of calcium amd magnesium as buffers. Indicas being shorter tend to be grown with more intense lighting as the light need not travel as far. They have a smaller artio of stems to buds so need less calcium. This uptake of nitrate as the major nitrogen source tends to cause pH increases, this leads to a higher demand for phosphorus due to its buffering pH rises. That is why nearly all but drain to waster nutrients conatin levels of calcium, magnesium and phosphorus above that of the plant needs. They are needed to keep ionic balances (ph balances) in the reservoir not due to higher plant needs. Without the excesses pH drops and rises would be huge. The reason mostnutrient suppliers use lots of extra phi opsphorus is that most nutrients for mj i use nitarates for nitrogen alost entirely. This means pH rises. The extra phosphorus makes these pH rises a lot smaller. Even so to lower the pH rises not handled by the excess phosphorus Phosphoric acid is used.
 
Hey fatman,

Wow you are a new legend in the cultivation scene! I'm currently running a "modified lucas formula", I know I know, Lucas sucks and I shouldn't even be using it. Thats why I need your help.

Here are my specs:

10x10x8 room.
4x 600w HPS lights.
4x 3x3 trays (upgrading to 2x 3x6 soon)
2x 40 gal res.
Running ebb & flow set up
AK-47 from Serious Seeds
Veggin till 18 - 24 inches tall (under T5 bulbs)
Flowering for 9 complete weeks (Under HPS bulbs)
10 decent sized plants per tray. (a little crowded, not bad though)
Hydroton medium in 2.5 gal buckets, with Coco Coir matt lying on the bottom of each tray.
Lights on Temps run from 79 - 94f (while co2 is on), normal room temps are around 78f.
Night temps are 72 - 76f.
Using close to RO water. pH 6.5 ppm under 10

Thanks a lot Fatman, you're a lifesaver! Any help would be appreciated.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
It is at least a 300 to one concentration micro formulation. It is definitely designed to use with their own formulation though as they threw in the Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium and Magnesium to keep growers from using it as a micro mix for other brands of nutrients. I would not recommend that it be used as the micro portion for other nutrients mixes as it contains a butt load of Phosphorous and Potash even if diluted 300 to one. A 100 to 1 dilution would be 1400 ppm phosphorous and 2400 ppm potassium or 466 ppm and 800 ppm diluted 300 to 1.
hi again Fatman

I wanted to ask you about 2 things.

First, your response to this post of mine, is diluting so bad? My math seems to be a bit off from yours
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/articles/profiles.htm
The % content is 0-14-24, but the PPM would actually be with a dilution of 6.2g/gallon of this formula,
N-66ppm
P-100ppm
K-326ppm

and I could adjust the ratio with nitrate or monopotassium to make the ppm ratios look better.



Second question. I know you mention regarding all the AN additives, that they are basically cheap fertilizers with vitamins and minerals and enzymes we could buy at the local health food store. Do you think these have beneficial effect though (even though we could reproduce them)? ie, is the addition of amino acids, enzymes and vitamins a good booster?

thx, look forward to your response.
 

fatman7574

New Member
0-14-24 means zero ppm of nitrogen, 14% is 1400 ppm Phosphorus, 24% is 2400 ppm potash. However they did not list the concentrate. IE say the dilution factor. you can mix a fertilizer abnd sat y it is 0-14-24 and sell it as a 100X concentrate or a 200x or a 300 X or higher untill the salts start precipitation. Without know ing theconcentartion theguarnteed analysis means not a lot as the guarnteed analysis indicates the strength after dilution. Meaning you have no idea of the actual amount of salts present unless you know the concentration of the mix. A 100X mix diluted with say 38 ml would provide zeroppm of N, 1400 ppm of P and 2400 ppm of p. If it was a 300X mix the strenth would be if diluted to 38 ml in one gallon, zeronitrogen, 5200 ppm phi osphorus and 7200 ppm Potassium. Ie three times as strong. I dont rember what the product is that you are asking about, but Iassume I looked at the trace element guranteed anaysis or ppm and saw that they were aboutthree times the normal levels fora 100X concentration. this would n mean thatdiluted to 300 gallons instead of 100 gallons they would be about the strengthnormally used with mj specific nutrients. I did not likely run any calculations etc. butjust looked at the limited info they supplied in their add.

I believe I likely said that the higher priced top of the line AN nutrients are typically just standard two part type formulations with a few minor changes and with cheap supplements added like humic acids, fulvic acids and some cheap amino acids. They like to makeit look like they arecreating special formulations but they really are not. If you wish to add such things just use the standard two part formulas and add the supplements bought from a supplier of such supplements IE http://www.super-grow.biz/KelpFulvic.jsp They presently have not got the bulk amino acids in stock but they will be back in his store as soon as he finds another cheap source. Any other supplement he has. When you see the prices and then look at how liitle AN puts in their top nutrients and supplements and look at the price differences you will see AN products are a rip off.

There are no magic formulas. No new discoveries. Just new marketers with new scams like Fat Mikie at AN. If you actually looked at the analysis and ingrediants list ofn the many AN products you would see that 3/4 of them can be ignored. Anything and everything Fat Mikie says should be ignored. He knows absolutely nothing about chemistry or nutrient chemsistry, he is just a marketer and a scammer. Research the enzyme concentrates and you will find they are just the fluid that drains from chicken compost. If you really want to try some amino acids I have pounds of mixed amino acids as I use it on some clone cuttings that are slow to put on many roots in the second and third week. I use rooting auxins in my cloing water and foliar spray the clones with diluted kelp/sea weed extract for week one and add amino acids to the clone water plus foliar spraying for weeks two and three.

I use the amino acids at no other time as they really do almost nothing with inert hydro adult plants that already have a good root system. You can't fix something that already works and amino acids do not help in the up take of chemical nutrients. It is alledged that it contains some nutrients missing from regular nutrients mixes., but no reasercher has ever identified these nutrients. They have only said some amino acids are beneficial when the roots system is still poorly developed. Amino acids should never be used in the last 6 or seven weeks of growth (budding).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top