well, i didnt see any difference between the tank with the hormone and the tank without it. i guess thats not really surprising. had to try it though.
So what would you tell the next person who posed the same question then?
Old saying: "it is good to learn from experience, as long as it's not your own."
Folks make mistakes, and that is how we learn(well, some of us anyhow).
I think you and other hobbyists would be much better served focusing on CO2 and light. Seriously.
Aquatic weeds have few other allocation properties other than biomass vegetative growth. This means the basic building blocks of growth are the limiting factor(light, temp, current, cO2, ferts), not adding more external PGR's.
PGR's mostly just change the allocation of resources. They do not magically make plants grow faster. Many folks, not just in the hobby, seem to have a real issue with understanding that concept.
Aquatic weeds also have the option/ability (so do terrestrial plants also if you use fertigation) to take in ferts from the water column, and the roots serve mostly as anchors/storage organs or as a back up if the water column is removed or becomes limiting.
Cedergreen and Madsen's paper(2001) even trimmed off the roots entirely and the plants had the exact same rates of growth in a nutrient rich water column. A very good paper for those interested in aquatic plant regulation and resource allocation.
Cloning, TC etc, then sure, but that's a very different goal and approach.
Folks muddle the two with aquatic plants and these other applications.
Good news is they do not cost much for many of the things. I've yet to meet a single person who reported any difference, it's been a good 15-20 years of looking.
Odds are not good or in anyone's favor.