From Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nzFri Apr 7 11:13:12 1995 Date: Fri, 07 Apr 95 13:14:44 +1200 From: Valerie Cowperthwaite To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: biodynamics The trials J Haskett suggested have in fact been carried out. Maria Thun and Ehrenfried Pfeiffer have published works and there is a research institute in the Netherlands that has conducted similar trials and is engaged on ongoing studies. I do not have references to hand but will post them as soon as possible. As to the 'fingerprinting' and 'vibrational' aspects. Because we have no way as yet of measuring such energies doesn't mean we won't be able to in the future. It's not too many centuries since electricity was a mystery to even scientific minds. Water can give us a clue to how fingerprinting works. As a non-scientist I have been given to understand that it is recognition of this unique identity that enables trout and salmon, to name just two, to find their way back to a particular spawning ground years after their own birth. Schwenk (another reference I will endeavour to locate and post) also demonstrated this beautifully with drops of coloured water. The inherent rhythm or fingerprint of a particular element was imparted to water and then demonstrated by injecting one drop of the treated water into distilled water - the individual rhythm was replicated in the distilled water. Like much of natural science it is a beautiful process and highly aesthetically pleasing. Regards, Valerie From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CAFri Apr 7 11:16:17 1995 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 09:53:22 EDT From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: re. "proving" biodynamic techniques Ray: what a brilliant, insightful, and stimulating commentary. Thanks very much for taking time to write. We just submitted a manuscript on the issue of the Need for Long Term Research, and it substantiated much of what you stated. Very few "long term" studies (in space or time) are conducted anymore, which allows us to monitor short term responses to (largely purchased, proprietary) inputs but which diverts us from observing and acknowledging the long term, often biologically mediated responses to those inputs. If time and resources were available to continue these short term studies for longer intervals, or at more locations, a) we would be more aware of potential side effects (+ and -) which unquestionably occur in response to these short term inputs, and which would either encourage or discourage purchase of those short term inputs, and b) we would be much more aware of the repeatability of responses over years and over locations - e.g. G x Management x Environment interactions. What works on research stations for a few years may very well not work at all on farms that do not attempt to mimic the level of control (fertility, drainage, timely harvest, etc.) that pertains on research stations. Your point on asking the right questions is BANG ON! It is entirely understandable that individual companies seek to fund research of a proprietary nature - that will benefit them and their sales prospects. What I cannot figure out, however, is why government funding priorities are increasingly supporting the short- term, profit-motivated priorities of individual companies, instead of the long-term, societal and environmental good of the people at large. Can they think that the two are synonymous? Ann ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca Dr. E. Ann Clark Associate Professor Crop Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508 FAX: 519 763-8933 From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govFri Apr 7 15:35:43 1995 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 13:30:07 -0400 (EDT) From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov To: Senior Program Manager -- PMP Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: re. "proving" biodynamic techniques I assert that there are regularities in nature that can be determined by observation. Using inductive reasoning predictions and hypothesis about the world can be developed. These can then be tested against observations and their accuracy can be determined. Different observers, with different lanuages and different cultural backgrounds can make these observations and tests and find a common set of results. This is also the basis for much of natural selection for as W.V. Quine (1969) put it "Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praise-worthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind." Thus there is an objective standard by which things can be determined, and assertions about the regularities of nature can be tested. Assertions about Biodynamic agricultural techniques come in two varieties: those that address regualrities in nature such as imporvements in crop yield, crop quality, nutritional value, long-term productivity, soil biological activity, or other measurable things; the other varitiety are a priori unmeasurable matters of belief, such as the difference between tap water and tap water that has been blessed by a Catholic priest and has become Holy Water. Where testable assertions are made such as the assertion that calcium and potassium can be converted into nitrogen by the addition of yarrow, camomile and stinging nettle to a compost heap, those assertions should be subject to verification and scrutiny. Other statments, having to do with the ethical, or spiritual aspects of biodynamics are matters of beleif and should be treated as such. Further, concerns about the environment and management of farms for sustainability or efficient use of renewable resources should not be conflated with specific assertions about the efficacy of biodynamic techniques. It does not follow that because a particular farm is successful that all of the biodynamic techniques are efficacious and contribute to the production of this success. In the past there were villages (cited in Fraser's "The Golden Bough") that suspended horizontal logs at their entrance so that evil spirits would bump their heads and be detered. Pointing out the long term agricultural success of such a village does not demonstrate the effectiveness of the log. Preferences for different computer operating systems have been cited as an analogy to the current debate. Certainly different people prefer different opperating systems, but there are also very specific and testable statements that can be made about opperating systems (i.e. benchmarking, the 640K limit, etc.) So testable statements and personal preference are separable. Because I like MSDOS doesn't mean I can assign filenames of 127 characters. If Microsoft announces that Windows 95 will be able to interface with Novell software, this is a testable question, as is the ability to make elemental conversions under ambient conditions. Neither of these are subject to personal preference. Certainly it is important to ask the right questions. The question that I am asking is as follows. Where assertions have been made about the specific benefits of biodynamic techniques have these been tested and what are the results. These questions should be separated from questions of spiritual belief. So let me pose a question. Where is the evidence for elemental transformations using biodynamic methods (i.e. potassium and calcium to nitrogen in a compost heap). Cheers, Jonathan Haskett From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govFri Apr 7 15:36:13 1995 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 13:30:07 -0400 (EDT) From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov To: Senior Program Manager -- PMP Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: re. "proving" biodynamic techniques I assert that there are regularities in nature that can be determined by observation. Using inductive reasoning predictions and hypothesis about the world can be developed. These can then be tested against observations and their accuracy can be determined. Different observers, with different lanuages and different cultural backgrounds can make these observations and tests and find a common set of results. This is also the basis for much of natural selection for as W.V. Quine (1969) put it "Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praise-worthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind." Thus there is an objective standard by which things can be determined, and assertions about the regularities of nature can be tested. Assertions about Biodynamic agricultural techniques come in two varieties: those that address regualrities in nature such as imporvements in crop yield, crop quality, nutritional value, long-term productivity, soil biological activity, or other measurable things; the other varitiety are a priori unmeasurable matters of belief, such as the difference between tap water and tap water that has been blessed by a Catholic priest and has become Holy Water. Where testable assertions are made such as the assertion that calcium and potassium can be converted into nitrogen by the addition of yarrow, camomile and stinging nettle to a compost heap, those assertions should be subject to verification and scrutiny. Other statments, having to do with the ethical, or spiritual aspects of biodynamics are matters of beleif and should be treated as such. Further, concerns about the environment and management of farms for sustainability or efficient use of renewable resources should not be conflated with specific assertions about the efficacy of biodynamic techniques. It does not follow that because a particular farm is successful that all of the biodynamic techniques are efficacious and contribute to the production of this success. In the past there were villages (cited in Fraser's "The Golden Bough") that suspended horizontal logs at their entrance so that evil spirits would bump their heads and be detered. Pointing out the long term agricultural success of such a village does not demonstrate the effectiveness of the log. Preferences for different computer operating systems have been cited as an analogy to the current debate. Certainly different people prefer different opperating systems, but there are also very specific and testable statements that can be made about opperating systems (i.e. benchmarking, the 640K limit, etc.) So testable statements and personal preference are separable. Because I like MSDOS doesn't mean I can assign filenames of 127 characters. If Microsoft announces that Windows 95 will be able to interface with Novell software, this is a testable question, as is the ability to make elemental conversions under ambient conditions. Neither of these are subject to personal preference. Certainly it is important to ask the right questions. The question that I am asking is as follows. Where assertions have been made about the specific benefits of biodynamic techniques have these been tested and what are the results. These questions should be separated from questions of spiritual belief. So let me pose a question. Where is the evidence for elemental transformations using biodynamic methods (i.e. potassium and calcium to nitrogen in a compost heap). Cheers, Jonathan Haskett From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govSat Apr 8 23:17:39 1995 Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 14:11:18 -0400 (EDT) From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov To: David DeCou Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: re. "proving" biodynamic techniques On Fri, 7 Apr 1995, David DeCou wrote: > Jonathan- > Your assertions about many of the details of Biodynamic Agriculture > may be reasonable questions. But do not let the short term narrowly focused > research questions answer questions about a long term operating system such > as a farm. Some of the details are appropriate and some are addressed by > complex mechanisms which we do not yet understand. There has been some > research done on Biodynamics and there has been some positive results, some > not so. One statement which is probably true is that Biodynamic techniques > taken separate from the whole farm probably do not work. The BD method > develops a different kind of thinking in the users of it and sometime this > type of thinking provides approaches which result in improvements. Clearly > openness to this thinking is not for everyone. > > David DeCou QUESTION AUTHORITY 503 > 93780 River Road ACT RESPONSIBLY. 998 2110 > Junction City, OR > 97448 > > david_d@efn.org > > > Citations for the biodynamic research would be very helpful. Why should the biodynamic techniques only work in the context of the whole farm. Does this mean that they are not applicable or loose their efficacy if applied at a smaller, say, garden scale? If so, why should this be? If the technique like designation 502 has a benefit for some portion of a field why shouldn't a viable experimental plot size be determinable? Then setting up a randomized block design that takes into account potential edge effects if relatively easy. What features of the rest of the farm are necessary in this context for designation 502 to work, and why couldn't they be included in the experiment? Cheers, Jonathan Haskett From Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nzSun Apr 9 23:51:56 1995 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 12:51:01 +1200 From: Valerie Cowperthwaite To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Re: re. "proving" biodynamic techniques In article , jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov writes: > Citations for the biodynamic research would be very helpful. > > Why should the biodynamic techniques only work in the context > of the whole farm. Does this mean that they are not applicable > or loose their efficacy if applied at a smaller, say, garden > scale? If so, why should this be? If the technique like designation > 502 has a benefit for some portion of a field why shouldn't a > viable experimental plot size be determinable? Then setting up > a randomized block design that takes into account potential > edge effects if relatively easy. What features of the rest of > the farm are necessary in this context for designation 502 to > work, and why couldn't they be included in the experiment? > > Cheers, > Jonathan Haskett > > Jonathan, You're doing a really great job of keeping us focussed on BD - not easy in these discussions. The point about the whole farm is that the preps will work to a certain extent but it is the 'whole picture' approach that probably defines or distinguishes bd in the wider context of sustainable or organic farming. Pfeiffer published Three Introductory Articles which detailed the bacterial activity in each of the preparations starting with the unprepared plant or mineral material and comparing it with the end product and eventually I believe with treated composts - still looking for the reference! But like many environmentalists/ecologists and even health professionals the BD farmer emphasises the farm as a whole comprising innumerable individual components. Over emphasise or neglect one link and the trickle down effect can be very deleterious. As other correspondents have pointed out - people more qualified than I - this is where the need for longterm research lies, but that very time frame is often one of the off-putting factors. Day to day living and market requirements call for quick fix solutions. It's not to say the preps for instance don't work in a limited condition, but that any one aspect is not the criterion of bd. The healthy and nutritionally balanced soil grows unstressed nutritional plants that in turn provide unstressed healthy animals, including human beings. Unstressed and nutritionally balanced plants and animals are more able to withstand pests and disease. This is a recognised factor in animal and human health. Pfeiffer's research, early thought it was, showed that the preparations brought in microbial activity directly related to particular 'nutrients' (my word for lack of a better one) along with a very wide range of trace elements. Don't forget that at this stage - late 40s/early 50s ? - zinc and selenium deficiencies in livestock, for instance, had not been identified. There is some research being conducted here at Massey University comparing dairy farms conventionally managed with bd dairy farms. I'm not sure of the exact parameters and whether they would meet your definitions. Regards, Valerie From rrich@moose.uvm.eduMon Apr 10 21:21:40 1995 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 16:46:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "Ryan M. Rich" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Cc: "Ryan M. Rich" Subject: research validity Friends, To continue the discussion that Ray has been talking so clearly on, we must look at the scientific method and its objectivity. The method is supposed to be objectively based but, as Ray pointed out pesticide leaching is a reality after a previous study concluded it wasn't. Bio-dynamic farming has one thing going for it that conventional research does not. It looks at the spiritual side of farming and sees the whole farm as an organism. It doesn't break the farm up into study plots answering one question. It takes everything into account. According to most cultures, religions, pychologists, etc. there is more than one reality that people dwell in. Scientists with their objective material mentality see the brain as a computer made of meat strictly. They deny conscioussness. The Huna religion of Hawaii ( for an example) have four realities in their world. Objective, subjective, symbolic, and holistic. Maybe scientists need to look beyond their tunnel vision discipline and take other factirs into account when conducting research. Although I am a student, I know many scientists. They are all subjective beings with opinions in every realm of life, but they think they can block that part of their minds out while conducting experiments. I have stood alongside some while they collect data. They do not seem completely objective to me. And to conclude my comments, I think objectivism is one realm in the many we must acknowledge and learn to live with. Because as Robert Anton Wilson once said, "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves." ############################################################################### Ryan M Rich Plant and Soil Science Department 467 Colchester Ave.#2 Burlington Vt. 05401 802-864-0347 Homesteader and organic farmer waiting to destroy industialism in a violent dual of hoes rrich@moose.uvm.edu