Grower of the Month February 2026

@Theia, Stirring the pot, again, theia? Troublemaker I saw your answer the other day. It didn't blame "calmag" for everything so it was legit wrong with vibes that slap, no cap. Did i get the toddler newspeak correct?

@00110001001001111O , that's more like it . I thought my popcorn was going to go stale ...🍿🍿🍿

@00110001001001111O, organic is best 👌 👍 😍

@Ultraviolet, Is there inorganic popcorn? I've always been curious. What's the organic substitute for carbon dioxide? 😬

@00110001001001111O, surely that would be mushrooms..

@00110001001001111O, Organic carbon-hydrogen (C-H) bonds, living organisms, fossil fuels, sugars, inorganic forms, such as carbon dioxide, carbonates, and minerals. Carbon-e constantly cycles between these two states. CO₂ is similar to a used battery cell, mother nature recharges the CO2. Carbon prefers to be neutral, but its flexibility allows it to adapt to charged environments easily, which is precisely why it is the backbone of all life.

@Green_claws, Mushrooms, unlike plants, do not photosynthesize; instead, they consume oxygen and release co2 through respiration, they are increasingly used in controlled indoor environments to create symbiotic systems, particularly by boosting co2 levels to enhance the growth of plants. But the main challenge in using them for plant growth is that mushrooms prefer dark, cool, high-humidity environments, while plants need light and warmth. There are other ways once you know how.

@Ultraviolet, fungus,mold and spores i love the stuff..closest thing to an alien we will see...probs lol

@Green_claws, Mycelium networks give me the creeps. Cool stuff though.

@Ultraviolet, yeah there spread out there chatting between them selves, networking, stealing and warning plants of dangers and of course symbiotic perfection playing god with micro/macro even water. Love it. Strange strange species

@Theia, not just behaving though.. it's educational even in the comments,, 10/10

@Green_claws, Edumication is overrated.

@Ultraviolet, totally is.. pass it ova

@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 with all your negative energy.

@Ultraviolet, I've actually taken plant biology, microbiology and organic chemistry. How about yourself? Your 'studies' are a lesson in confirmation bias and how missing a lot of foundational knowledge makes one susceptible to psuedoscience that at best bastardizes a real scientific concept and at worst is 100% imagination land origins. There are a wide and varied set of psuedosience vidoes and visual aids in your diaries. The science term, "organic," doesn't have the causality you project on to the unscientific marketing term. All i did was argue that the causality is wrong. The cause of good results has little to do with that categorization of products sold, because that marketing term doesn't actually mean anything specific. It is marketing mumbo jumbo. Had you bothered to read, I do explain my slower than expected growth in the current diaries. Making a lot of assumptions based on a small, cherry-picked sample. I've looked at your plants before. They look fine. I'm not going to be petty, so i'll stick to quantitative reasoning. Your diaries typically take more days and have less grams per sq ft. I see a lot of extended vege phases, so you are throwing rocks from a glass house. If we are measuing dicks, you are coming up short comparing productivity. Plus, if all these gimmicks you employ actually do something, you'd think there'd be a measurable difference? Your results curve is not shifted to the right. How come that electrocuted soil isn't beefing up the results? Vibrations not helping, either? Weird, huh? I see normal grows within normal volatility given a competent grower. Fwiw, i don't think your answers are AI-generated. If you write in complete sentences, 50% of people think it's AI generated because the general population is effectively illiterate. If a few paragraphs are "TL;DR," then they should just move on to the next answer and nobody is negatively impacted in any way. People that want to learn how to fish will read. Those that want a fish handed to them will choose one of the shorter answers that doesn't teach them anything to avoid the problem in the future. Regardless, they should be verifying anything they read that is user-submitted on any website, ever. I've never used an LLM, but i understand what it is, and that's exactly why i wouldn't use one. They are flawed. They are chatbots; not reputable sources for information. A shortcut for lazy people One guy is telling people with confidence to water superficially. Talk about practices that supercede this marijuna growing hobby... completely disregarding well-established best practices while potentially spreading bad habits. Kinda wish he was using an LLM, as that is simple enough context that the AI could give a correct answer.

@00110001001001111O, Trumps Executive order: Declares Deadly Weed Killer Herbicide to be National Defense Critical Resource FEB 18th 2026. When talking about the differences between organic and synthetic, glyphosate serves as the primary marker for synthetic chemical intervention and is the main substance excluded in organic production. Organic growing is best. Wishing you all a glorious day. www.youtube.com/shorts/ATfFgRubiFQ

@Ultraviolet, a chemical made to kill life (plants or anythng else) is not a parallel to so-called 'synthetic' fertilizers. A herbicide is a poison for plants. That's its function. It's not surprising it is also dangerous for humans. These are not differences related to this arbitrary, unscientific categorization onto which you project false meaning. There are organic compounds that are incredibly deadly to humans and plants, too. Organic or not is irrelevant to the cause and effect of these dangerous molecules. This article isn't relevant and proves nothing... doesn't even hint at anything relevant. The deterministic reality around us doesn't give two shits about a made up human marketing term. "Organic growing is best." And, there's the truth of this.. it's about you feeling superior and validating long-held beliefs despite a lack of foundational concepts that would have helped you avoid the common traps of psuedoscience. I don't care which is 'better' ... I simply am saying the causality you associate with the term "organic" belongs in imagination land. More so, your orgnaic products have to be broken down into the same/similar ions for the carrier proteins to recognize, grab and transport against concentration gradients into the plant (active transport). The plant isn't taking in bat shit or organic goat cheese... LOL. If an organic product has better results for one reason or another, those reasons have nothing to do with the term "orgnaic"

@PurpleHazeSoldiers, use a site that calculates and totals the ppms of each nutrient element... it's not about the 10% concentration. I use a product that is 15-0-0. My base is 5-12-26 and 0-12-26. High concnetration just means you dissolve fewer grams. MKP is something like 0-44-53? In the end, it's the ratio and dissolved concentration that matters - of all the products used. while there may be some shifts for flower or seedlings, in gneneral you don't want ot be playing mad scientist with the formula unless it's a reaction to a toxicity or deficiency developing over time. Tracking this stuff for soilless/hydro contexts makes things easy. you'll gain familiarity with the N levels you want in vege and when it needs to be reduced to avoid tox in flower etc etc... the goal is a good solution around the roots.. not necessarily in the ratio of use but in a ratio that allows all to be readily available and not impeding each other. Taking in nutrients is an active process. it's not just flowing in with the water because semi-permeable membranes are filtering it. Brand is mostly irrelevant to soilless/hydro contexts... the types of ingredients necessary are commodities. you don't get different grades of quality calcium nitrate... it's always calcium nitrate, e.g. There's no high-grade ammonium nitrate or MKP or fulvic acid etc... if it's costing more than 4-6 cents per gallon mixed, there are better prices out there with the exact same results.

@00110001001001111O, Hello zero zero one one zero zero zero one zero zero one zero zero one one one one zero thank you for your reply to my message! Can you please tell me what website you are using? I fixed the toxicity by not giving the Sugar Royal and the Cal-Mag Agent at the same time but switch them with every feeding. Yes I know that some brands are overpriced and next grow I will go back to GHE tripart nutrients and additives 😋

@PurpleHazeSoldiers, https://precisionag.sites.clemson.edu/Calculators/Fertigation/LiquidSolution/ is one i found with a google search. There may be better options. Or, look up the math, it's pretty easy stuff. i have a spreadsheet that works for dry nutes, but not tested for liquid nutes that needs specific gravity. Think tha tportion works, but again, not something i use so i never bothered verifying that portion of my spreadsheet. the individual products mean less than peopel project... especially in a soilless context. The total soluble, plant-available nutrients is what matters not the fancy name on the label. whether you provide 'enough' ca with one product or another is irrelevant. i don't know the gauranteed analysis of either product listed off the top of my head. simply do the math, add it up and over time you'll see what levels lead to toxicities and deficiencies and easier to gain familiarity if not waffling with formula week-to-week. I'm sure there's a free app for a phone/tablet, too. Just have to look.