From Raymond=Meyer%BHR.OFDA.SA14%AIDW@usaid.govThu Apr 6 23:08:09 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 11:12:57 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 11:15:52 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 Raymond=Meyer%BHR.OFDA.SA14%AIDW@usaid.govFri Apr 7 22:03:03 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 12:09:45 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 23:16:38 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 Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nzSun Apr 9 23:52:10 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 12:26:16 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 21:21:54 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