nico239 wrote:
All this to say that whatever our "level" as long as we remain curious about what is different from our practice is rather positive.
Seems a bit "short" to me ...
We can eternally re-invent the wheel or the thread to cut butter ... "Discover" that a pebble thrown in the air falls ...
The difficulty in a garden, I repeat, is that even bullshit works (nature is resilient). The conventional farmer can exactly hold this reasoning: I am curious, I try this product, it works! So I continue. And I convince my neighbors to use it ... This has earned us the last 40 years of intensive farming.
It is sometimes necessary to acquire a more efficient "means of analysis", to look at the "system" more globally, from a little further and also through knowledge (analyzes of the effects of these products - which cannot be seen. "not) ... Etc ... Etc ...
I try to apprehend my vegetable garden "system" of the sloth in a rigorous way, with all the aspects, including what is happening in the ground but which is not visible. And who in fact is at the origin of what "works" (or not) ...
I have written it a number of times: I obviously respect that we do otherwise. This will not prevent me from thinking that it is a "mistake".
Last point, and then I'll leave you alone: a garden is such a complex system that “good” or “bad” means absolutely nothing (in general). There is a whole graduation between "very negative effects" and "very positive effects". In the "real" life of your garden, you are always between these two limits. Closer to one. Closer to each other. Especially when, as I wrote for the cardboard, you look a little beyond your garden (and it is made).