redrosesforabluelady i apologise for going off on your thread eariler.... i just see smoky being a "spectical" of himself in different places and i get mad when he questions peoples knowledge.... and since i caused a disruption, i will make it up by tryin to help you with the research ive done on this topic

Fertilizers are usually described by their N-P-K ratio. The three numbers represent the amounts of Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), the three most important nutrients for green plants.

Table sugar is comprised entirely of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. No nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium. So, it would make a pretty poor fertilizer.

It's sort of easy to see how a mistake can be made, considering how we often refer to fertilizer as plant "food."

A plant's "food" is actually the glucose it makes for itself, using the sun's energy, carbon dioxide from the air, and water.

If sugar were anywhere near a suitable substitute, then we'd all have gone that way years ago. The people that push this stuff, are those that struggle to grow anything and grasp at straws. Or out of sheer coincidence, they move a plant to better light, and feed it some sugar, and the plant gets healthy and BAM! But the sugar has little to do with the turnaround in actuality. This is why fertilizer R&D departments hire phd's. This stuff has been studied in labs for many years and there just are no big secrets, or mysteries.
The fertilizer we give it is really more like "vitamins" than "food" Hope this helps.

have a good one