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 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.

@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.