Youre right when you say that lucas isnt 100%, nothing is really, you will never reach 100% perfection
True, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. Excellence is like life: it's a journey rather than a destination.
Just like any other journey, it's up to each person to decide which course and what speed they want to move. What's right for me is right for me, but not necessarily for you. Vice versa. So say, just arbitrarily, that Lucas is 90% of "whatever standard" we're using to define 100% (I was simply saying that it doesn't work perfectly for everyone, every time). If something 95% costs X amount more or requires Y amount more work on the grower's part, is that enough better to justify the cost? Depends on each of us, and what we consider more important. Is 5% worth X dollars or Y work? Maybe for me, maybe for you, but it really doesn't matter to anyone but the people trying to sell it and the individuals deciding whether or not to buy it.
I think the comment " I'd rather buy another bottle and sleep easy at night" kinda sums up how the nutrient industry have people thinking. They make you think that by buying more you are doing more for your plants, sometimes less is more.
You completely missed my point, maybe I didn't make it clear. I'd assumed we all knew that the Lucas formula is simply using 2 parts of a 3-part system, in different ratios than normal, to provide a "complete" nutritional basis for growing your plants. I, like many others, find this to be questionable simplification. The third bottle I'm talking about is the third bottle omitted in the Lucas formula from that 3-part formula. I know for certain that all three together represent a balanced nutritional regimen for my plants because that's the way it's designed. I'm not convinced I can omit one third of the formula and compensate with the other two and still give my plants everything they need. My personal growing history tends to support this and it's worth the few bucks to buy the third bottle and KNOW I'm getting complete nutrients rather than wondering.
It's not a "more is better" thing. It's an "enough is enough" thing. I know 3 parts of a 3 part is enough. I know 2 parts of a 2 part is enough. I know that lots and lots of people have grown with 2 of 3 (Lucas formula) without problems, and I know some haven't had the same luck. I'm not talking about going out and buying all 15 or so bottles and running the full line. There's nothing wrong with that, either,
if that's what you want to do. But that's not my point.
Peace of mind is my point. Everyone puts a different price on it and again, that's perfectly fine. For me, the cost of buying a bottle of Grow along with the Micro and Bloom, is well-worth the gain in Peace of Mind that I get from it. It's not a matter of being gullible or falling for a "more is more" school of thought. I own more tools than I need in the strictest sense because I'm a firm believer in right tool, right job. Use the right tool for the right job instead of using a similar tool for a job it's not really designed for, and you're much more likely not to get bad results. Can you use slip joint pliers be used to loosen/tighten a nut? Sure, but you're probably going to chew it up a little and possibly strip it out entirely. It's going to be harder to do. Use a crescent wrench or better yet, a socket wrench with a correct-sized socket. But if I could only afford one of those tools and space was a concern, the slip-joint would do more jobs.
It's not some Tool Industry conspiracy that they make so many different sized sockets or that they make so many different tools. If someone made a tool that did multiple jobs just as well as the individual tools for those jobs (and, in keeping with the analogy here, cost less) those other tools wouldn't stand a chance in the market. It's happened before.
My (long-winded) point is that wanting the right tool for the job isn't the same as playing into some imaginary master plan to sell more nutrients.
