I need help with methodology!

[deleted-71447]

Hi ttl64,
Those are some interesting results. In scientific writing and speaking, there is a hierarchy of terminology to describe results, interpretations, conclusions. I think this hierarchy would be helpful to you, so I'll explain more. When you describe your results, you can usually present them as fact. For example "After 14 days Container A contained 14 worms and container B contained 18 worms". On the other hand, when you give an interpretation of your results, it is important to "qualify" your statement to let people know (and to show that you know) that it is a possibility, but not necessarily a fact. This is usually done by adding a words like "possibly" "or "may have" or "likely". For example, "The high average body mass of worms in container B may have resulted from nutrient additions to the conventional flour in that container" or " the high rate of mortality of worms in container A possibly resulted from lower moisture content in that flour."
This may seem like picky semantics, but it is actually a very important convention in scientific writing and speaking. It shows that you are aware that other possibilities exist, even if you don't have space or time to explain all those possibilities. Currently it seems you have these possible interpretations: (1) organic flour was very dry, which inhibited growth of the worms and (2) added nutrients in the conventional flour made the worms grow faster (3) both 1 and 2.
The conclusion about "longer life time cycle" is not clear to me. You might want to clarify and/or reconsider that point.
I hope that helps,
Chris