From rmcdonald@HRR1.HORT.CRI.NZSun Apr 2 21:29:13 1995 Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 10:48:30 +1200 From: Rod McDonald To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Biodynamic Farming Info? Valerie Cowperthwaite wrote: > > jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov writes: [re biodynamics and Steiner] > > > > many of his statements are not provable simply because > scientifically > > clear hypotheses cannot be made as his descriptions were unclear and > > > not stringent. Those predictions that can be tested scientifically > have > > been found to be incorrect. > What a pity the author of this article did not do some up-to-date > research. Here in New Zealand many farmers are farming > biodynamically. [etc etc] I have no difficulty accepting that biodynamic farms work well, but I suspect that the success stems from the attitudes of the farmers rather than from the peculiar biodynamic prescriptions they use. I greatly admire the way that anthroposophists think, at least the ones I know. Their blend of caring and pragmatism is very effective. The real question is not whether biodynamic farms work, but whether they work better than other organic systems. Is there any evidence about this? By evidence, I mean a controlled trial. If biodynamic farms are really better than standard organic ones, it could be important to sort out whether it is the Cows Horns or the Caring that is important. Otherwise there is a risk of discreditation due to other people following the form rather than the substance of the method. ************************ Rod McDonald Engineer/scientist Horticulture and Food Research Institute, Hamilton, New Zealand Phone +64-7-8385675 work, +64-7-8552019 home, Fax +64-7-8385655 ************************ From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govWed Apr 5 11:30:07 1995 Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 11:02:34 -0400 (EDT) From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov To: Margaret Merrill Cc: SANET-MG Subject: Re: BioDynamic Farming A vibration of what? Measurable how? In what sense do mean that the soil is a living organism? The whole soil or only the organic portion? That someone can farm a large area and apply biodynamic techniques does not prove that they help production, it only demonstrates that they are not ruinously determental. To prove that they are beneficial it would be necessary to do controlled trials in which all management factors were the same except the biodynamic applications. Then there would need to be some measureable improvement. Cheers, Jonathan Haskett On Tue, 4 Apr 1995, Margaret Merrill wrote: > Hello SANET, > I have enjoyed the interchange on Biodynamic Farming and have > forwarded some of it on to several friends. One of them sent > me back the following which I thought some of you might find of > interest. Have a good day. Margaret > > > > > Regarding the strange ways of biodynamic agriculture. The most logical > > explanation I've ever heard about the why of BD techniques called it > > "homeopathy of the soil." If you understand homeopathy and how it functions > > so splendidly in human and veterinary medicine, you will immediately see the > > connects to BD preps, their mixing, their application. > > > > In essence, it is vibrational healing; sending the vibrational fingerprint > > from these organic substances out into the soil, itself a living organism. > > > > As for the proof, one only has to visit Alex Podilinsky in Australia -- who > > has some 2,000,000 acres under his consult, all using biodynamic methods. > > > > We've published a book "A Biodynamic Farm" by Hugh Lovel that details how to > > make the various preps and explains the energy natures of silica, etc. For > > info e-mail to acresusa@aol.com or fax (504) 889-2777 or phone (504) > > 889-2100. > > > -- > Margaret Merrill > Jefferson Madison Regional Library > 201 E. Market St. > Charlottesville, VA 22902-5287 > mmerrill@leo.vsla.edu > From ULCAK@pok0.vszbr.czWed Apr 5 23:19:48 1995 Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 19:12:35 MET-2DST From: "Ing.Ulcak Ustav krajinne ekologie" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BioDynamic Farming Jonathan Haskett wrote: A vibration of what? Measurable how? In what sense do mean that the soil is a living organism? The whole soil or only the organic portion? that they are not ruinously determental. To prove that they are beneficial it would be necessary to do controlled trials in which all management factors were the same except the biodynamic applications. Then there would need to be some measureable improvement. My comment: I spent almost two years living and working on a bio-dynamic farm and garden in England and I met a lot of people who believe in biodynamics. As you can see I speak of biodynamics as it was a religion - one should believe in it, there are some things one cannot prove. I would like to put stress on the fact that I DO NOT believe in it - I am a scientist myself. I had seen many things which really did not convince me about this way of farming as something unsual, on the other hand I saw that this way can work - I think there are some interesting ideas in biodynamics which everyone can take advantage of trying to look at the agriculture not only as a pure science or bussiness - maybe I'm wrong but to me agriculture contains a bit of art. Talking of proving biodynamics - there are some experiments, unfortunatelly done by biodynamic people, so I wouldn't be really convinced. But as far as I know in 1992 Dr. Howard Lee of Wye College, England was supervising a PhD. student from Brasil who did exact experiments with biodynamic preparations - methods of these experiments were quite sophisticated and I think the results should be available by now. On the other hand those experiments were carried out on the farm of the Wye College so only the plots were treated as biodynamic - and this is a real disadvantage - any experiments on biodynamics ands organics should be carried out as on-farm research. Zbynek Ulcak ulcak@pok0.vszbr.cz Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry Brno Czech Republic From ddale@cce.cornell.eduThu Apr 6 11:38:07 1995 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 05:26:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Dick Dale To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Cc: Dick Dale Subject: Soil quality and Biodynamics To watch this discussion evolve from what is involved in soil quality to whether or not Biodynamics is a sustainable and beneficial system of agriculture has truly been fascinating. The truth is, the things we measure when we talk about soil quality are only the tip of an enormous iceberg. And the same may be said when we go about designing experiments to demonstrate the effects of Biodynamics. I have been acquainted with Biodynamics for over twenty years. There is ample research to demonstrate that Biodynamics does work in some sense. Although most of the research has been done by thos within the B.D. movement, that is not sufficient reason to dismiss it. After all, they are the ones who have some understanding of it, plus, other researchers have not been quick to examine it. However, remember what I said about the subtlety of the effects we are talking about, too. Since Biodynamics is a system of farming, it should be examined holistically, by comparing a B.D. farm with a conventional or organic farm in the same region. Western Germany before the unification studied B.D. farms in this manner and found real differences in productivity, use of farm labor, farm income, etc. Ther have aslo been shown to be real differences in in the quality of produce grown using Biodynamic methods. Using the B.D. preparations or Pfeiffer's compost starter has been shown to have reproducible effects on compost. I could go on, but I would suggest that anyone who is interested should consult either Bio-Dynamic Agriculture by H.H. Koepf, B.D. Pettersson and W. Schaumann, or Culture and Horticulture by Wolf Storl. Which brings me back to the original question, is there a demonstrable effect on soil quality with the use of composted manure vs. raw manure, something that Ann Clark talked about. She said that it should be better to compost organic materials before applying them to the soil. You can try this out in your home garden, and I don't think there is any question, a compost pile can work a lot better than sheet composting. My point is, however, that it was a Biodynamic idea to compost farm manure in the first place (at least in recent Western circles). The reasoning was that where you have a limited amount of animal manure and other organic wastes available to provide nutrients to a farm, you should be applying them in a manner that conserves and makes the best use of these materials. What a good compost does is stabilize the organic matter and make it into long-lasting humus. You may lose some nitrogen and some of the gross yield-increasing effects, but the soil will benefit more from an application of compost than one of fresh manure. There are other benfits of composting as well. To B.D. farmers, that question was important, because they were not importing feeds and fertilizers from off the farm. They were interested in the farm as a functioning organism - sustainable, in other words, living and viable. Dick Dale Crop Consultant, Central NY Crop Management Association From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govThu Apr 6 11:54:27 1995 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 11:00:26 -0400 (EDT) From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov To: Dick Dale Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, Dick Dale Subject: Re: Soil quality and Biodynamics I forgot to add the Kirchmann citation to the previous posting. Although I have posted it before here it is for completeness: Kirchmann, H. 1994. Biological Dynamic Farming - An Occult Form of Alternative Agriculture? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 7(2):173-187. Jonathan Haskett From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govThu Apr 6 11:57:13 1995 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 10:57:31 -0400 (EDT) From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov To: Dick Dale Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, Dick Dale Subject: Re: Soil quality and Biodynamics On Thu, 6 Apr 1995, Dick Dale wrote: [Stuff deleted] > > Since Biodynamics is a system of farming, it should be examined > holistically, by comparing a B.D. farm with a conventional or organic farm > in the same region. That is one way of study ing them, but it will not tell anything about whether certain specific B.D. preparations are efficatious. [More stuff deleted] > Ther have aslo been shown to be real > differences in in the quality of produce grown using Biodynamic methods. > Using the B.D. preparations or Pfeiffer's compost starter has been shown > to have reproducible effects on compost. I could go on, but I would > suggest that anyone who is interested should consult either Bio-Dynamic > Agriculture by H.H. Koepf, B.D. Pettersson and W. Schaumann, or Culture > and Horticulture by Wolf Storl. Cites please, from peer-reviewed journals. [More stuff deleted] > however, that it was a Biodynamic idea to compost farm manure in the first > place (at least in recent Western circles). The reasoning was that where > you have a limited amount of animal manure and other organic wastes > available to provide nutrients to a farm, you should be applying them in a > manner that conserves and makes the best use of these materials. What a > good compost does is stabilize the organic matter and make it into > long-lasting humus. You may lose some nitrogen and some of the gross > yield-increasing effects, but the soil will benefit more from an > application of compost than one of fresh manure. There are other benfits > of composting as well. To B.D. farmers, that question was important, > because they were not importing feeds and fertilizers from off the farm. > They were interested in the farm as a functioning organism - sustainable, > in other words, living and viable. > > Dick Dale > Crop Consultant, Central NY Crop Management Association > I find it hard to believe that composting in the West orginiated with Rudolf Steiner between June 7-16 1924, however if it can be correberated that composting was unknown and unpracticed prior to that in Europe and America, I am very willing to be corrected. With regard to the purpose of composting, as I understand it the purpose was to beneficially influence the "terrestrial and cosmic forces" in order to "vitalize the soil" (Steiner cited in Kirchmann, 1994). It seems contraditory to state that composting conserves nutrients, and then state that it doesn't matter that nutrients such as nitrogen "and some of the gross yield increasing effects" are lost. Maybe these yield increasing effects are also nutrients. In terms of compost compound experiments the following experiments would be important (if similar experiments have been tried citations would be appreciated): The application in randomized blocks of four treatments: a) application of finely-ground quartz powder; b) application of silica compound (designation 501); c) application of silica compound prepared in a manner similar to designation 501 but either buryed in a cow horn in winter rather than summer or agitated without changing the water's circualtion direction; d) a control. The application in randomized blocks of a) small pieces of Oak bark that have been embedded in peat, stuffed into the skull of domestic animal and buried in autumn at a place where large amounts of rain water run past (designation 505); b) small pieces of Oak bark that have been embedded in peat stuffed into a plastic model of a skull and buried in the spring at a place where ponding but not overland flow ususally occur; c) aged oak bark; d) a control. The application in radomized blocks of a) yarrow flowers that have been pressed in the urine bladder of a red stag placed in the sun during the sumer, in the soil during the winter and dug up in the spring (designation 502); b) yarrow flowers that have been placed in the urine bladder of a moose placed in the sun during the fall buried for a week in november and dug up; c) yarrow flowers; d) control. An experiment (I'm not sure how to set it up) to determine whether compounds of yarrow, camomile, and stinging nettle acting together in compost heaps can convert potassium and calcium to nitrogen. Cheers, Jonathan Haskett From Raymond=Meyer%BHR.OFDA.SA14%AIDW@usaid.govThu Apr 6 23:06:59 1995 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 95 13:01:26 EDT From: Senior Program Manager -- PMP To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: re. "proving" biodynamic techniques I have found the discussion on biodynamic farming interesting. I think it again shows the problem of not really communicating between groups or the -- what you think you heard me say is not what I really said --. Microsoft sells millions of copies of MSDOS. To say that unless they have shown in a statistical study that the system is "better" it really is not successful (ala jhaskett) begs the question - I believe they will laugh all the way to the Bank. I think they have a very successful system but it doesn't say that it is more efficient, more user friendly, or cheaper. Those questions are still in discussion by many people including those with preference for Apple. I use MSDos because I can go between my home and my office and my wife can do the same and it will do everything that is of most importance to me, regardless of whether it is the "better". Or if, as in a recent study, people living in houses with pesticide strips seem to have more cases of cancer - we don't do a statistical study and purposely expose people to strips and some not to find out the "real" answer. More importantly, the person who doesn't use pesticide strips because s/he has "vibrations" that s/he shouldn't; probably isn't that interested in the "real" answer to the question. S/he is satisfied that s/he doesn't have cancer. The answer obtained, whether research or not, depends on what the question is, how it is asked, the perception of what is asked, and the basis for determining an answer. In research, it is further modified by the funds available to determine an answer. I remember reading a long-term study about rotations etc. on cotton, I believe in Louisiana. It was shown that the effect of rotations could be mimicked by addition of fertilizer for the first 10 years, but after 10 years the rotation treatment improved and continued to improve over the fertilizer treatment. I think that it demonstrated very well the principal problem with many research studies comparing organic/biodynamic etc. type studies - most are less than 10 years and would not show the "real" effects. How many long- term research trials are there? Biologically-based soil changes are slow, possibly cumulative, and do not lend themselves very well to the traditional ag research methodology. Financial or economic return isn't necessarily the only question or livelihood issue to be addressed. Quality, ethical, or spiritual issues are as important and maybe more important to many people - they should have the right to NOT see everything in "financial" terms. Sometimes we confuse requirement with purpose. Profit is a requirement but not a purpose. While we must eat to live -- to live to eat is probably a distortion or aberration. Yours for a move diverse and tolerant society. - Ray Forgive me but I just saw an additional submission by jhaskett raising the "peer review" issue. Peer review adds nothing if the right question hasn't been asked. Just because a research proposal has been peer reviewed, the results have been peer reviewed, and the resulting publication appears in a peer-reviewed journal says nothing about whether the right research question was asked. I believe that over-dependence on "peer" review is one reason that research is in financial difficulties and USDA/ARS is looking at staff and budget cuts. I think that some of the people footing the bill are saying that the researchers are answering their "researchable" questions rather than addressing the questions of interest to the "people". Twenty and more years ago a lot of research was conducted on pesticide movement in soils with "answers" that movement was slow or negligible. There are a lot of people in a number of states that are buying bottled water for household use that probably wish that different research questions had been asked. Just because the "peers" weren't aware of by-pass flow in soils at that time doesn't mean that they should be absolved of responsibility for contaminated ground water. I would think that there are enough examples to indicate that research is frequently based on overwhelming ignorance and doesn't address the "right" questions. Please don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of peer review - it has served us well. I also believe, however, there are different ways of obtaining valid and useful information of interest to people not always, at the time, mainstream. Just because something has always been done a certain way does not mean it is the "best" way. Peace - Ray From Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nzFri Apr 7 11:12:43 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 11:16:03 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 thodges@beta.tricity.wsu.eduFri Apr 7 15:33:04 1995 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 10:17:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Hodges To: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: re. "proving" biodynamic techniques Certainly "long term" studies are extremely important to understanding soil biological processes. I am not sure that less long term research is now being funded. It has always been pretty rare. If governments are really funding less long term research lately, it would be partly because they are funding less ag research of all types. It has become much tougher to get public funds for ag research in many countries in recent years. I have heard this from scientists in USA, England, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, France, etc. This month the US Congress is considering large cuts in federal funding for ag research, perhaps closing the Federal ag research agency. Maybe people interested in sustainable and environmentally friendly food and fiber production systems need to become aware of the need for research on how to develop such systems (that must include much basic research), and press their government representatives to support such research. Arguing for redirecting research more toward sustainable and systems investigations might also be a good idea. If funding of ag research is to be left to private entities, researchers will have to write grant proposals that meet the goals of those private entities. The public will get no more than it pays for, and usually less if the paying is left to corrupt or short sighted representatives. Tom Hodges Tom Hodges, Cropping Systems Modeler USDA-ARS email: thodges@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Rt. 2, Box 2953-A voice: 509-786-9207 Prosser, WA 99350 USA Fax: 509-786-9370 == ## Rent this space ## == If this represents anything, it is only my opinion. On Fri, 7 Apr 1995, E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor wrote: > 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 > 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 From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govFri Apr 7 15:35:57 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 Raymond=Meyer%BHR.OFDA.SA14%AIDW@usaid.govFri Apr 7 22:02:42 1995 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 95 14:58:41 EDT From: Senior Program Manager -- PMP To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: re: biodynamics Ann, thanks. I don't know that governmental funding is going for the short- term more than in the past or that the long-term has been cut more and therefore the short-term is proportionately greater. In my opinion, the emphasis on the economy is part of it but also the difficulty of anyone in the media or Congress to spend enough effort to understand the more complex and difficult is the greater. I think looking at our current congressional actions indicates almost the complete inability to consider longer-term aspects whether ag, space, health, welfare, environment, or whatever. For me, it is interesting that the major foundations aren't more interested in the longer-term questions, particularly in ag - or maybe I should say the lower tech stuff involving more "management" and interaction with social systems and societal needs. Jonathan, thanks for your comments. I've probably missed some of the previous discussion as I'm not quite sure what some of the commments have to do with the viability of a biodynamic farm. I was inferring the "farm" success or viability rather than chemical mechanisms. Let me also pose a question. Where is the evidence that ten years (maybe 5 years on some soils) of composting on a field will not increase the availability of potassium and phosphorus, improve the soil nitrogen dynamics for better plant growth, and reduce soil pathogens? Whether composting improves the bioavailability of nutrients from the plant material is an additional question or could be a component of the same question? I believe that some of the work done by Sharon Hornick and others on bioavailability raise some very interesting scientific questions that can be addressed in the more traditional ag research manner or as regularities in nature. Some of the work that Parr, Papendick, and others have done on the organic side also raises unanswered traditional research questions. I'll be out for a week, but thanks for the interest. Ray From david_d@efn.orgSat Apr 8 12:09:33 1995 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 21:03:57 -0800 From: David DeCou To: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: re. "proving" biodynamic techniques 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 From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govSat Apr 8 23:16:25 1995 Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 14:06:04 -0400 (EDT) From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov To: Senior Program Manager -- PMP Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: re: biodynamics On Fri, 7 Apr 1995, Senior Program Manager -- PMP wrote: >[Stuff deleted] > Jonathan, thanks for your comments. I've probably missed some of the > previous discussion as I'm not quite sure what some of the commments have to > do with the viability of a biodynamic farm. I was inferring the "farm" > success or viability rather than chemical mechanisms. > > Let me also pose a question. Where is the evidence that ten years (maybe 5 > years on some soils) of composting on a field will not increase the > availability of potassium and phosphorus, improve the soil nitrogen dynamics > for better plant growth, and reduce soil pathogens? Whether composting > improves the bioavailability of nutrients from the plant material is an > additional question or could be a component of the same question? > > > I believe that some of the work done by Sharon Hornick and others on > bioavailability raise some very interesting scientific questions that can be > addressed in the more traditional ag research manner or as regularities in > nature. Some of the work that Parr, Papendick, and others have done on the > organic side also raises unanswered traditional research questions. > > > I'll be out for a week, but thanks for the interest. > > Ray > Whether the addition of compost has a beneficial effect on the availability of phosphorus, potassium, or nitrogen is an entirely separate question from the question of elemental conversion or the efficacy of designations 501, 502, or 505. Composting in and of itself is not an exclusively biodynamic technique. The question I am posing is the efficacy of the biodynamic techniques themselves not the merits of composting per se. If we are going to discuss composting as a separate activity that is OK, but a different discussion. Again, the success of farm that uses biodynamic techniques doesn't prove their efficacy, the techniques might have little effect and the success might be due to other practices that are common to non-biodynamic organic agriculture. Cheers, Jonathan Haskett P.S. RE: Biodynamic research; citations please. From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govSat Apr 8 23:17:26 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 23:51:38 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 ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CAMon Apr 10 12:25:55 1995 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:40:03 EDT From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: more on biodynamics, linear thinking, and right questions A comment on Valerie's point about stressed plants and susceptibility. I first heard that fertilization practices promote susceptibility to disease, as part of an argument on why organic sources of nutrition were superior to synthetic fertilizers (this was at an IFOAM conference at MIT about 12 years ago). I didn't believe it, and said so publicly. After the session, a distinguished, grey- haired British woman came up and explained to me the error of my thinking, to which I politely acceded but continued (in my arrogance) to disbelieve. She referred to a book written by a French scientist (I don't read French) summarizing his life's work on "human-induced" diseases of plants (and animals?). There was even a name for it, although I've long forgotten it. Not long after I returned to the halls of academe, I received in the mail a hand-translated copy of the Table of Contents of this book, sent of course by my helpful British correspondent still trying to improve my breadth of vision. Just to confirm the rightness of *my* disbelieving position, I trotted the pages around to three pathologists in my department. One (the youngest and most "up" on modern lit) said "utter nonsense". The second thought he might have heard something about it. The third said, "sure, here is my file on it". And sure enough, there was the scientific lit in support of the notion that fertilization practices (most specifically pertaining to N, and particularly forms of N) influence susceptibility to pathogens (most particularly fungi, if memory serves). I use this story in my Crop Ecology class to encourage undergrad students not to disbelieve everything that they hear which might contradict "conventional wisdom". This year, I had an "add-on" in the form of two excellent articles (citations provided, as asked) corroborating the notion that fertilizer applied in recommended amounts can have unexpected side effects on the increased vulnerability of target crop plants to pest attack. (tangential note: These effects were unexpected because those doing the fertility work had not asked the "right" questions - just the usual "linear" question - does it increase yield?; a more holistic approach such as that espoused by BD and other organic (and some conventional) farmers would be to explicitly recognize that changes to a system always invoke a multitude of responses - not just the one you are hoping for; for more on the perils of linear thinking, see Clark and Weise, 1993 in the ASA publication Agricultural Research in the Northeastern United States) The two refs were: J. Prod Agric 7(4)448-454 - D.D. Howard et al. (1994) - Nitrogen and fungicide effects on yield components and disease severity in wheat. Agron. J. 86:581-585 - Funderburk et al. (1994) - Modifying soil nutrient level affects soybean insect predators. So - although cosmic influences and transmutation are outside of my sphere of belief, I know some outstanding and otherwise rational BD farmers (mostly dairy, one veggies) who swear by them. I have seen with my own eyes phenomena which I cannot explain with any scientifically accepted theory - such as systematically killing large tracts of quackgrass with some BD preparation applied in minisculel quantities at a certain stage of the moon. As a result, I am trying to keep an open mind, although references such as those noted above are a real comfort to those of us trained in the conventional way. Perhaps scientific support for the notions of BD - such as that for soil nutrient x pest interactions - will accrue when more scientists are able to believe what they see (and learn how to explore it with rigor), instead of just adhering to what they read. 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 rrich@moose.uvm.eduMon Apr 10 21:21:22 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