Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.

General Growing Questions

26,329 topics in this forum

    • 120 replies
    • 72,289 views
    • 169 replies
    • 123,463 views
    • 235 replies
    • 161,826 views
    • 320 replies
    • 193,842 views
    • 0 replies
    • 25,639 views
    • 0 replies
    • 20,962 views
    • 0 replies
    • 32,945 views
    • 0 replies
    • 42,071 views
    • 17 replies
    • 257 views
    • 6 replies
    • 87 views
    • 10 replies
    • 138 views
    • 13 replies
    • 727 views
    • 31 replies
    • 368 views
    • 7 replies
    • 103 views
    • 11 replies
    • 103 views
    • 32 replies
    • 402 views
    • 2 replies
    • 76 views
    • 62 replies
    • 1,101 views
    • 21 replies
    • 308 views
    • 26 replies
    • 349 views
    • 4 replies
    • 62 views
    • 7 replies
    • 91 views
    • 17 replies
    • 176 views
    • 8 replies
    • 104 views
  1. newbie

    • 4 replies
    • 60 views


  • Posts

    • hash72
      neil young harvest moon
    • JeezaK
      Respectfully m8 can you not go making that public, im still on run
    • FunkyJazzJesus
      Aye, i'm not exactly saying DON'T HAVE ELEMENTS, i sort of scattered my point into lots of different things, which seems to disturb peoples need for direction and the point of what you're saying when it isn't very one sided.
        You can get seaweed for instance, which is a plant that extract minerals from the sea which you can then apply, the problem is knowing what you are applying if you are applying it because the processes of nature such as baterial interractions and fungal breakdown  are the kinds of levels above this idea of adding elements.
        It is the microscopic world that orders and organises the soils, things in nature are quite gradual for the most part, evolution is quite steady for long periods, lots of organisms have evolved to be able to adapt to having less, its only fairly recently that we've been interfering with it and breeding our own versions of plants which you see in the form of most edible foods and so we've enriched the soils in certain ways, in fast ways and got these plants we make used to it.
        It's just moving onto a FAR more complex subject where exact strains of bacteria matter, not just the elements and their balance at all because you'll find that when something is disturbed it is dealt with, for instance its found that elements will be moved around to other plants and parts of the soil because one area is too rich, there is some kind of bartering system going on at the microscopic level, like a market for the elements that are available in the ground.
        It's just alot easier to add than it is to remove things and people tend to go for the easier options to try something new, see if they can get something better without mastering other elements of the practice first.
        The point is, everything is different, every soil in nature is different at any different time you look at it, its constantly changing, theres so many variations in dna because of this, because of the constant changes, things have adapted to all kinds of niches, so what exactly is "the best" or the "the best way" when there are so many ways and new things can arise that didn't exist before???
        Science is just some people looking at all different occurrences and making their best attempt to summerise whats going on but its all over the place, to get a handle on exactly what is being said requires you to know more than the science, so you can see how far it is or has to go, just because it seems like its more than YOU know doesn't mean its nessicarly knowing more, it might only be 10% through discovering something but act like its a big deal because its new, how would you really know that? When people are used to reading words and expecting they're actually valid because it took you ages to digest it all this sort of becomes the problem, its not even about whether the info is right or wrong, its about what people think when they think something is right and science is always wrong because its an on going process of learning.
        If we had all the answers it would still be pointless because you have apply those answers and they don't come in a form where it tells you exactly what to do because there is no guide.

      People garden in a certain way and have done for ages, very choppy, very destructive but it comes back, so we think it works because it has results but you can even have better results than that but people are already used to the lesser results because they did it for so long, same with farming, same with alot of things we do, we shapeshift our points of view because of our memories plasticity, if we're doing shitty, lazy practices this can make it look like you're doing something great because its better than shitty and lazy but in reality, comparisons don't particularly matter when something isn't working, it just doesn't work. We can destroy many species and since they're gone, we don't seem to notice, you can grow up in a city and basically just live in a box and people adapt to it.

      It's this ability to see all the pieces at play and understanding why and what they're doing which is something you can't really be taught because it arises through knowing millions of little pieces of information until it conglomerates into your brain into something much bigger.

      Imagine you wrote what happened in your body in 1 second, in scientific language, it looks all fancy and big, extensive, even that wouldn't include all the processes, also the odd names can make you presume its something more drastic and important than it is because someone mentions that some molecule you have has some properties, its sort of like how people go on about cannabis being bad for you when looking from sciences view point because it sounds like its saying something dangerous, oh this tetrahydracannabinol is psychoactive it can give you schitzophrenia but except that isn't exactly proven and is extremely unlikely because of this, this can easily go over peoples heads as we've seen countless times.
    • JeezaK
      looking hard at that one pal....good luck with the pick