[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
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