Once again it is how the industry have ppl thinking, you didnt mention that maybe the 3rd bottle isnt needed at all, because all the nutrients in it are in the other 2.
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.
So your peace of mind is just "in your mind"
All peace of mind is. That's why it's called "peace of mind" and not "peace".
according to lucas who came up with the formula, the micro and bloom have everything that is in the veg bottle. As for the right tool for the right job, youd have to prove lucas formula is the "wrong tool" for the job for that point to mean anything.
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.
Your saying " I know 3 parts of a 3 part is enough" - you "know"???? how do you know, have you done any scientific studies or side by side comparisons?? Also you say it is a case of "enough is enough", to say that youd have to prove the 3 part is "enough", its all opinion. As you mentioned its from your "growing experience", which is fine, but that is not "proof".
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.)
Dont get me wrong, everyone can use whatever they want, but saying something is incomplete because it omits 1 bottle from a 3 bottle regime doesnt mean it is incomplete, that is just an opinion.
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".
I guess I dont want to waste them but wont use if not needed too.
