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.

@@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.

@Mrs_Larimar, beyond absurd, especially when half information is too wide, because ai cant read time in photos, aka dont understand grow time in specific case. Think we all can type in questions , attach photo from it and copy AI generated ideas ...

@AsNoriu, Beep-boop. www.youtube.com/watch

@00110001001001111O, Away and genetically depress your plants some more.

@@Ultraviolet, TL;DR

@00110001001001111O, Standard botanical science regarding plant dry matter composition. 94% of a plant consists of Carbon (C): ~45% Oxygen (O): ~43–45% Hydrogen (H): ~4–6% Total CHO: ~94% (The "structure") NPK and all the rest make up the other 6%. Rather than spend your entire life measuring ratios every week, let's take my approach and throw that entire 6% into a pot with a high CEC and let the plant dictate its own feeding schedule. With allllllll my spare time I can truly focus on the 94% that actually matters. You wanna grow your way, go right ahead, you are a talented grower in your own right. Stick to your lane and for once try to stfu, its like you trying to explain how much you know about UV when you freely admit you have never used it. Its laughable. Not my fault there are people in high places who do not want the general population to actually grasp "carbon", just saying enjoy the cancer, the destroyed endocrine system and eventual starvation when no plants will grow any longer in barren lifeless soil. Have a lovely day. But as long as the DOW is over 40 its all good, right.

@@Ultraviolet, Bwaha, you complain about tl;dr, then you write all this nonsense after the conversation clearly concluded. There's too much to unpack succintly, and it would be a total waste of time anyway. but fuck it... i'll just summarize without much explanation. Prepare yourself. This will take several sentences that form an entire paragraph. CHO definitely isn't "structure." Tracking concentration of nutrition provided absolutely correlates to health of the plant over time. Ratios are absolutely related to availability of nutrition around roots. You think people in high places have some conspiracy about what, exactly? That's some weird unrelated paranoia that requires a psychologist to unpack. A farmer's ignornace isn't a conspiracy. See the Great Dust Bowl of the 1920s for an example of that ever-repeating phenomenom. It sounds as absurd as your comment about sperm traveling up people's spines that you made not long ago - which i hope that was a joke but you say crazy shit too often to assume. How much time do you think it takes to input grams/gal dissolved into a properly made spreadsheet? LOL, "all my life." All you do is misrepresent things in some absurd, unrealistic way to form an argument that has little to no relevance. Again, just backhanded personal attacks and grand generalizations that ignore or bastardize existing knolwedge. Now, i am a competent grower? I thought i grew microbuds and had long vegetative phases? You don't get to act magnanimous at this point, bubba. Your emotionally-driven opinions of my grow or my person don't carry any weight with me. I may make some people 'cringe,' and good for them, but you belong in a padded room.