The Grow Awards 2026 🏆 
m0use
GrandMaster
#356
Global pos.
40
Harvests
#356
Global pos.
27
Diaries
40
Harvests
7
Growing, years
NA
Continent
1614
Answers
306
Followers
A 71%
Autoflower
P 29%
Photoperiod
100%
Outdoor
Breeders of choice:
20% Ganja Farmer
17% Fast Buds
Nutrients of choice:
50% Gaia Green
50% Lotus Nutrients
Lights of choice:
75% Medic Grow
25% Spider Farmer
m0useliked comment
m0useliked comment
<span class="link_user">@Ultraviolet</span>, 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.
m0useliked comment
<span class="link_user">@Ultraviolet</span>, I tried to ignore it but... "at worst he answers his own questions" ?!? Do you think I waste my time making spare accounts just to ask fake questions? Bwahaha. Absurd. That's a hobby for someone with microcephaly most likely caused by their mother drinking heavily while pregnant.
"Grumpy" and an "asshole?" ,,, ,,, Fair.
m0useliked comment
<span class="link_user">@Ultraviolet</span>, I tried to ignore it but... "at worst he answers his own questions" ?!? Do you think I waste my time making spare accounts just to ask fake questions? Bwahaha. Absurd. That's a hobby for someone with microcephaly most likely caused by their mother drinking heavily while pregnant.
"Grumpy" and an "asshole?" ,,, ,,, Fair.
m0useliked comment
m0useliked comment
<span class="link_user">@00110001001001111O</span>, I demean you, good sir! "Sloppy seconds" this is a derogatory slang phrase originating in the 1950s-1960s to describe having sexual intercourse with a partner immediately after someone else, implying the presence of bodily fluids. It is used metaphorically to demean someone dating a person previously involved with someone else in their peer group.