Grower of the Month February 2026

@Ultraviolet, This argument does not preclude the possiblity that some organic products might be better options, but the causality of why it is better or not has nothing to do with this arbitrary distinction. I orignally had this sentence at the end, but i think it's better to start. If they don't bother to prove the hypothesis, Then it's likely just manipulative in nature and not based in fact. The point was CO2, obviously incredibly important to a plant, is an inorganic molecule. It makes no sense to be a nazi about 'organic' nutrients and products. Also, none of what you mentioend provides carbon to the plant, so the vast majority of a plant's mass is coming from an inorganic molecule. "Inorganic vs organic" is not a parallel to "bad vs good." Also, how a molecule was made is irrelvant to its behaviour. All elements are inorganic, so everything is made from inorganic material. It's such a meaningless term, bwahaha. Carbon-hydrogen bonds are not organic themselves. Covalent bonds are the sharing of electrons in the valence shell regardless of this arbitrary categorizataion of "organic" or not doesnt impact the energy stored or released by those bonds when they form or break. This tells me that the source(s) for these beliefs obviously use some real scientific terms and concepts, but then bastardize them. It's the same tactics used for selling expensive dietary supplements that provide no measurable benefit 99.9% of the time. They'll over simplifiy or leave important parts out to lead consumers to buy their product with unsupported claims of magical effects nobody else can see... truly an emperor's new clothes context. Heck most of the time the differences in these products are of no relevance once the nutrition can enter the plant. It might be important to the rootzone, but if the same stuff enters the plant at same rate/concentratione etc, then the plant will have the same outcomes. This is a deterministic reality. There is no place for magic here. Education would help avoid going down rabbit holes of psuedo-science.. .like electrocuting the soil or "1x1=2" psuedomath, lol.

@00110001001001111O Fishing line didn't have to cast far to catch a fishy. The interaction between microorganisms and the plant rhizosphere creates an active environment that directly contributes to soil electrical conductivity (EC), facilitating nutrient availability and, consequently, enabling better plant growth. A healthy, microbially active rhizosphere acts as a living, conductive bridge that converts locked-up resources into bioavailable, charged particles (ions) that the plant can directly use to grow. Microbes break down organic matter and minerals, releasing ions (N, P, K, etc.) slowly and in alignment with plant needs. Unlike synthetic fertilizers that dump a high concentration of salts at once (causing instant, great EC osmotic shock), microbial processes provide a steadier stream of nutrients. Beneficial microbes produce osmolytes, antioxidants, and signaling molecules (like auxins and ACC deaminase) that help plants manage drought, salt, and temperature stress. Microbial exopolysaccharides (EPS) create hydrated biofilms around roots, maintaining a more stable water environment. If an excessive amount of soluble nutrients or salts is added (e.g., heavy compost, manure, or excessive mineral amendments), the total dissolved solids can still exceed the plant's tolerance threshold. Intense evaporation, drought, or extreme heat can concentrate salts in the soil solution regardless of how active the microbes are. (Balance). The ability of microbes to buffer the soil is finite. If the input exceeds the biological processing speed, osmotic stress can occur. This is where high CEC comes in useful. Because of this active exchange, the plant creates a localized chemistry that favors what it needs: If the plant needs calcium, it increases exudates that favor calcium solubilization and exchange. The plant can alter the pH immediately around the roots to make specific nutrients more available while locking up others. It doesn't need. The high CEC acts as a buffer against over-fertilization or pH swings. Instead of nutrient antagonism (where too much of one thing blocks another), the microbial activity helps balance nutrient availability. In a high-CEC organic system, the plant acts as a manager, utilizing microbes and root chemistry to pull exactly what it needs from the "bank" of soil nutrients. Nature knows best. I let her feed herself now. If a leaf is photosynthesizing, it makes ATP (via light reactions) and sugars. If a root is respiring, it burns sugars to make ATP for itself. They do not share a common, transferable "pool." While you don't get a "bigger ATP pool" by adding root ATP to leaf ATP, growing organically allows for better energy allocation. In organic systems, mycorrhizal fungi and bacteria break down nutrients. This requires less direct energy expenditure from the plant to seek out raw minerals compared to hydroponics/synthetic, where the plant might have to push harder roots to find uptake points. Healthy, microbe-rich roots need less energy for defense and can focus on absorption. Plants send sugars (made in leaves) down to roots to feed microbes, which in turn bring back nutrients/salt ions to create a EC of 0.5ms/cm. This symbiotic loop means the plant spends less energy on acquiring nutrients, leaving more energy available for building biomass. Leaves make Glucose (Sugar) via Photosynthesis. Sugars travel to the roots. Roots use that sugar to fuel respiration to gain nutrients. Nutrients travel back up to fuel more Leaf growth. Organic growing doesn't create a larger combined ATP pool; it creates more efficient energy usage and resource allocation. Because the plant isn't wasting energy fighting for nutrients or managing osmotic stress from synthetic salts, it has more metabolic energy left over to put into growth. High Transpiration Rate. Stronger Mass Flow. More water/nutrients to roots. Increased uptake. It is a "pull" system that acts as the primary conveyor belt for plant nutrition. Science is up for debate, nature's laws are not. How much you wish to dedicate yourself to actually learning organic methods is up to you, but don't sit there and waffle with regard to something you clearly have given little study.The idea of using electricity in so electroculture or bioelectromagnetics—is rooted in real science, not pseudoscience I'm afraid. Plants are electro-chemical beings, and manipulating that environment scientifically is legitimate. The issue is just in the marketing hype surrounding it. People like the wanderer use it for personal monetary gain rather than helping. Each to their own. While the physics is real, the field is plagued by exaggerated claims, "magical" devices, and lack of rigorous, repeatable data. Correct.

@Ultraviolet, more efficient yet grows slower with same or less yields... "efficient" organic methods are not science.. it's a cult. You are mixing vodoo with 5% science.