From mmerrill@leo.vsla.eduWed Apr 5 11:38:36 1995 Date: Tue, 4 Apr 95 18:46:09 EDT From: Margaret Merrill To: SANET-MG Subject: Re: BioDynamic Farming 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 mmerrill@leo.vsla.eduWed Apr 5 11:39:40 1995 Date: Tue, 4 Apr 95 18:46:09 EDT From: Margaret Merrill To: SANET-MG Subject: Re: BioDynamic Farming 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 Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nzSun Feb 26 21:03:27 1995 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 20:05:37 +1200 From: Valerie Cowperthwaite To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Soil microbes Coming late to this discussion I'd just like to point out that the biodynamic preparations have shown to be an effective microbial input. The 500 prep, made from cow dung and sprayed on pasture in spring and autumn is the best for large, general areas. The others can be incorporated into any composting process and used on the soil or as foliar feeds. John Reganold led a study in New Zealand comparing biodynamic and conventional neighbouring farms with identical soil profiles. Microbial activity was one of the signficiant differences. The study was published in Science April 17 (?) 1993. From stuart@choice.southern.co.nzFri Apr 19 00:00:39 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 21:17:00 +12 From: stuart@choice.southern.co.nz To: sustag-public@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: BD-organic pairs PAR>> are researchers at Washington State University, doing several types PAR>> of studies concerning the biodynamic (BD) preparations, and we have PAR>> run into a jam. PAR>> It is very difficult in the academic world to investigate PAR>> something as complex as a farming system over more than one or two PAR>> growing seasons. Thus, the long-term effects of potentially PAR>> beneficial methods often go unresearched and unseen. This is where PAR>> you can help. We would like to do side-by-side comparisons of PAR>> established biodynamic and organic fields, but have had trouble PAR>> locating suitable field pairs. To be appropriate for our study, PAR>> neighboring fields must have been under their respective management PAR>> system, either biodynamic or organic, for at least 5 years. The PAR>> native soil, landscape position, and cropping history must be PAR>> very similar. PAR>> If you know of a field pair that might fit our needs, PAR>> PLEASE contact us. We will need to ask the farmers some questions, PAR>> get background information, etc., and if we do come out to sample PAR>> soil in the fields, we promise to keep the number of holes to a PAR>> minimum. PAR>> Thanks very much. PAR>> PAR>> -John P. Reganold and Lynne Carpenter-Boggs PAR>> PAR>> YOUR CHOICE OF COMMUNICATION MEDIA: PAR>> PAR>> address:201 Johnson Hall, WSU PAR>> Pullman, WA 99164-6420 PAR>> PAR>> phone: 509-335-8856 (John) 509-335-7817 (Lynne) PAR>> PAR>> FAX: 509-335-8674 (attn: Reganold) PAR>> PAR>> email: reganold@wsunix.wsu.edu (John) PAR>> lcboggs@mail.wsu.edu (Lynne) PAR>You are asking the same question that I have wondered about for a long ti PAR>I would be interested in what you discover if you have time to reply. I PAR>appreciate it. Thanx in advance. The New Zealand BD Society did a study of I think BD and conventional farmers. Did about half a dozen pairs. Try writing to them. regards Stuart NZ --- ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ Is the truth out there or in here? From Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nzMon Feb 27 13:47:07 1995 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 07:10:36 +1200 From: Valerie Cowperthwaite To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Biodynamics/soil microbes Great to have such a positive response to BD. I've replied to posters separately but for others who may have the same queries - first I'm a journalist/researcher closely involved with one of the farms in the Reganold study. I'm no farmer but I'm pretty close to the action with plenty of mud and cows--t on my boots, not to mention hundreds if not thousands of planted trees to my credit. More to the point - how do we know the BD preps make the difference. In pure scientific terms of course we don't and as one poster pointed out it would make an excellent subject for a research programme. Some work was done by Pfeiffer in the US who worked with composts identical in every way except for use or non-use of individual BD preps. The ones with the preps were shown to enhance presence and activity of particular organisms. I can find the exact reference for anyone who is interested. Also forgive my lack of precise scientific terminology! In the Reganold study, which I don't have to hand at the moment, farms included dairy, cropping, mixed (livestock & crops) and some vegetable growing. Taking a pasture situation - with which I'm most familiar - the inputs from rotation/legumes/raw animal manure would have been common to both BD and chemical farms. We don't spread composted manure on our pastures. The differing inputs were the NPK fertilisers on the chemical farm as opposed to the herbal preps and fish fertiliser foliar feed (made with preps) on the BD farm. It would seem reasonable that all other things being more or less equal a starting point for research into soil microbe indicators would be the preparations. One poster, Woody, made the point that he 'would expect microbial respiration to be a product of the whole management program in general and the high organic matter in particular'. Good point and the whole management program is vital. But in our case in particular the sandy soils on which the pasture is based do not naturally contain or receive a high rate of organic matter. With From igg@intrepid.netSat Oct 21 23:11:00 1995 Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 07:55:19 -0500 From: Intergalactic Garage To: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." Subject: Re: THE SOIL AND THE SEED - BF&G Association 1995 National Conference Lawrence- Thanks for forwarding this press release. I neglected to include that the complete schedule of speakers and workshops is maintained at the WWW site: www.his.com/~claymont/bdcnf.html and that the home page for the BD Association is www.his.com/~claymont/bda.html. I'm doing the WWW pages. The BD Assoc. currently does not have email. -Allan From prose@mail.rain.orgWed Mar 27 09:53:08 1996 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 20:10:23 PDT From: Patti Ann Rose To: sustag-public@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BD-organic pairs In Article, write: > Path: news.rain.org!news.sprintlink.net!realtime.net!news.mindspring.com!uunet!in2.uu net!news1.digital.com!decwrl!news-server.ncren.net!concert!newz.oit.unc.edu!oi t-mail2news-gateway > From: lcboggs@mail.wsu.edu (Carpenter-Boggs) > Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture > Subject: BD-organic pairs > Date: 19 Mar 1996 15:44:43 -0500 > Organization: sustag-public mailing list > Lines: 37 > Sender: daemon@newz.oit.unc.edu > Distribution: world > Message-ID: > NNTP-Posting-Host: fddinewz.oit.unc.edu > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > Dear SANET-ers: > We are hoping that you can help us in a special search. We > are researchers at Washington State University, doing several types > of studies concerning the biodynamic (BD) preparations, and we have > run into a jam. > It is very difficult in the academic world to investigate > something as complex as a farming system over more than one or two > growing seasons. Thus, the long-term effects of potentially > beneficial methods often go unresearched and unseen. This is where > you can help. We would like to do side-by-side comparisons of > established biodynamic and organic fields, but have had trouble > locating suitable field pairs. To be appropriate for our study, > neighboring fields must have been under their respective management > system, either biodynamic or organic, for at least 5 years. The > native soil, landscape position, and cropping history must be > very similar. > If you know of a field pair that might fit our needs, > PLEASE contact us. We will need to ask the farmers some questions, > get background information, etc., and if we do come out to sample > soil in the fields, we promise to keep the number of holes to a > minimum. > Thanks very much. > > -John P. Reganold and Lynne Carpenter-Boggs > > YOUR CHOICE OF COMMUNICATION MEDIA: > > address:201 Johnson Hall, WSU > Pullman, WA 99164-6420 > > phone: 509-335-8856 (John) 509-335-7817 (Lynne) > > FAX: 509-335-8674 (attn: Reganold) > > email: reganold@wsunix.wsu.edu (John) > lcboggs@mail.wsu.edu (Lynne) You are asking the same question that I have wondered about for a long time. I would be interested in what you discover if you have time to reply. I would appreciate it. Thanx in advance. From london@calypso-2.oit.unc.eduFri Oct 20 22:51:34 1995 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 22:50:34 -0400 From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: permaculture-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, sustag-public@ces.ncsu.edu, sust_ag-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Bcc: london@sunsite.unc.edu, cfsa@sunsite.unc.edu Newsgroups: sci.agriculture, alt.agriculture.misc, alt.agriculture.fruit, bionet.plants, sci.bio.botany, misc.rural, rec.gardens Subject: THE SOIL AND THE SEED - BF&G Association 1995 National Conference ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 18:51:50 -0500 From: Intergalactic Garage THE SOIL AND THE SEED The 1995 Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Assoc. 1995 National Conference ========================================================================= WHEN: November 17-19, 1995 EVENT: The Soil And The Seed: An Agenda for the Future The Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association 1995 National Conference WHERE: La Fonda Hotel, Santa Fe, New Mexico Contact: Charles Beedy, Director The Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association Post Office Box 550 Kimberton, PA, U.S.A 19442 1-800-516-7797 FAX: 610.983.3196 THEME STATEMENT: How Can We Nourish the Kingdoms of Nature and Foster Healthy Evolution in Soil, Plant, Animal and Human? It is likely that the theme for this conference has chosen us. Increasing corporate and technological control in the seed industry raises alarming questions about future (and present) access to the most fundamental gentic pool of plant breeding and seed stock. Not only access to, but the right to freely use, trade, give and grow seed. In many cases the solutions offered us in this situation are vague at best. We need to develop our own coherent strategy on how to ensure the future continuity of Biodynamic Seed -- and Soil. The soil into which our seed is placed is obviously of no less importance to us than the seed itself. The interplay and weaving be tween these two create the plants upon which our nutrition is based. Again, observing the treatment of the soil today as dirt raises serious questions about the future of this living element that forms the basis of agriculture and human development. We will present the importance of the use of Biodynamic Preparations, Biodynamic Compost and Compost Teas. In Biodynamics, the questions of seed and soil do not arise without an even greater context. Biodynamics rests upon working with more than good organic practices and the renewal of agriculture depends upon our in creasing our understanding of true dynamic causative forces and in our successful applications of this understanding. Join us in Santa Fe as we explore what spiritual insight can bring to good husbandry. -- Charles Beedy ======================================================================== The B-D Association is not on-line presently. If you have any questions (or suggestions!) and feel you must use email, please route them through me at igg@his.com. Thanks! -Allan Balliett From london@calypso-2.oit.unc.eduMon Jan 1 00:15:18 1996 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 00:04:12 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: permaculture-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, sust_ag-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Biodyn Farm (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:48:25 -0500 (EST) From: pmillner@asrr.arsusda.gov To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Biodyn Farm For those interested in a comprehensive, english-language compendium of the practices used in Bio-Dynamic Farming, consult the well written (english translation of: BIO-DYNAMIC FARMING PRACTICE written by agriculturalist Fritz Sattler and Eckard von Wistinghausen, Ph.D. Sci. Agr. Originally published in 1989 by Eugen Ulmer GmbH & Co., Stuttgart, Germany Re-published in English by Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association Goethean House, Woodman Lane, Clent, Stourbridge, West Midlands, DY9 9PX, UK Translated by A.R. Meuss 1992 From WEINTRAUB@zodiac.rutgers.eduSun Feb 26 20:45:28 1995 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 12:25:25 -0500 (EST) From: Irwin Weintraub To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Biodynamic farming Regarding the question from the person who wanted to know how he can find out about visiting bodynamic farms: I referred him to the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute in East Troy, Wisconsin There is another organization that can also provide that information The Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association Inc. Post Office Box 550, Kimberton, Pennsylvania 19442 Telephone: 1-800-516-7797 Fax: 610-983-3196. A nice group of people who are dedicated to promoting biodynamic practices. Irwin Weintraub Agriculture Resource Librarian Rutgers University weintraub@zodiac.rutgers.edu From mhoward@plainfield.bypass.comTue Jan 16 16:59:51 1996 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 14:58:37 GMT From: Mark Howard To: london@sunSITE.unc.edu Subject: BD Ass link The link for the Biodynamic assc. should be : http://www.his.com/~claymont/bda.html . This link is now working.- Mark From pmillner@asrr.arsusda.govThu Nov 23 00:02:03 1995 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:48:25 -0500 (EST) From: pmillner@asrr.arsusda.gov To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Biodyn Farm For those interested in a comprehensive, english-language compendium of the practices used in Bio-Dynamic Farming, consult the well written (english translation of: BIO-DYNAMIC FARMING PRACTICE written by agriculturalist Fritz Sattler and Eckard von Wistinghausen, Ph.D. Sci. Agr. Originally published in 1989 by Eugen Ulmer GmbH & Co., Stuttgart, Germany Re-published in English by Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association Goethean House, Woodman Lane, Clent, Stourbridge, West Midlands, DY9 9PX, UK Translated by A.R. Meuss 1992 From ng13@cornell.eduSat Jan 13 18:28:32 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 11:08:08 +0000 From: Nancy Grudens Schuck Reply to: SAED-SHARE-L@cornell.edu To: SAEd-Share-L@cornell.edu Subject: Bio-Dyn Assn Home Page Georgann, Elisheva and other SAED-Share-L subscribers: a forward from SANET that seems relevant to our recent discussion: Nancy Grudens Schuck, list manager >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 02:04:43 -0500 >To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu >From: igg@intrepid.net (Intergalactic Garage) >Subject: Bio-Dynamic Association Home Page > >The Bio-Dynamic Association of America's Home Page is now available at: >www.his.com/~claymont/bda.html > >In the very near future the BD Association's book list will be added to >this page as will a link to the Josephine Porter Institute of Applied >Bio-Dynamics Home Page which will contain a list of quality biodynamic >preparations made in accordance to Rudolph Steiner's recommendations and >available by mail order to the growing public. > >Your suggestions and contributions to the these pages are actively sought. > >Contact me, Allan Balliett, at igg@his.com. > >Thank You, > > >-Allan Balliett *************************** Nancy Grudens Schuck Kennedy Hall Dept. Education Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 ng13@cornell.edu *************************** From igg@intrepid.netSat Jan 13 18:29:38 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 02:04:43 -0500 From: Intergalactic Garage To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Bio-Dynamic Association Home Page The Bio-Dynamic Association of America's Home Page is now available at: www.his.com/~claymont/bda.html In the very near future the BD Association's book list will be added to this page as will a link to the Josephine Porter Institute of Applied Bio-Dynamics Home Page which will contain a list of quality biodynamic preparations made in accordance to Rudolph Steiner's recommendations and available by mail order to the growing public. Your suggestions and contributions to the these pages are actively sought. Contact me, Allan Balliett, at igg@his.com. Thank You, -Allan Balliett From cmb@chalex.demon.co.ukTue Apr 2 21:50:19 1996 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:31:15 +0100 From: cmb To: sustag-public@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: English version of 'Bio-dynamic Farming Practice'? does anyone know where i can get english version of 'bio-dynamic farming practice' by Friedlich & Eckhard von Wistinghausen. it was advertised last year by Bio-Dynamic Supplies Ltd in Stourbridge, West Midlands,but seems they have moved/closed down? cmb From igg@intrepid.netSat Jan 13 18:29:10 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 02:04:43 -0500 From: Intergalactic Garage To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Bio-Dynamic Association Home Page The Bio-Dynamic Association of America's Home Page is now available at: www.his.com/~claymont/bda.html In the very near future the BD Association's book list will be added to this page as will a link to the Josephine Porter Institute of Applied Bio-Dynamics Home Page which will contain a list of quality biodynamic preparations made in accordance to Rudolph Steiner's recommendations and available by mail order to the growing public. Your suggestions and contributions to the these pages are actively sought. Contact me, Allan Balliett, at igg@his.com. Thank You, -Allan Balliett From jhendrik@vms2.macc.wisc.eduMon Sep 18 22:40:37 1995 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:49:42 -0400 From: jhendrik@vms2.macc.wisc.edu To: mooreprods@aol.com Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Information on subscription farming I would agree with the recent response cautioning against a rigid distinction between subscription farming and community supported agriculture (CSA). Having been involved in the CSA movement for the past few years, I see a continumm of farms that range from a very utilitarian, market-based subsription approach to a very community-oriented, risk-sharing approach. In between are all sorts of options and configurations that make sharp distinctions difficult. I am involved in the Madison-Area CSA Coalition (MACSAC), a group of CSA farms in southern Wisconsin that exists to promote cooperation among farms as well as collective outreach ("marketing" and education) to consumers. There are 17 farms involved in MACSAC and, while they all call themselves community supported farms, there is great diversity among them in terms of philospohy, goals, and organizational structure, etc. In regard to numbers, the Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association keeps a database of "CSA" farms accross the country. At last count there were 435 farms in the database but I think this number is substantially lower than what actually exists. Call the Bio-Dynamic Association at 1-800-516-7797. Here in the midwest, where CSA/subscription farming has been growing in leaps and bounds, the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute recently published a Regional Directory of CSA farms. There are 60 farms listed. Contact Michael Fields at (414) 642-3303. Address: W2493 County Road ES, East Troy, Wisconsin, 53120. And, to add to the conference announcements: The second annual Upper Midwest CSA Conference will be held December 1-3, in Madison, Wisconsin. Watch for a more detailed announcement coming soon! -John John Hendrickson Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems University of Wisconsin-Madison 1450 Linden Drive, Room 146 Madison, WI 53706 jhendrik@macc.wisc.edu From bsandle@southern.co.nz Sun Aug 27 00:16:54 EDT 1995 Article: 1 of alt.support.food-allergies Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!in1.uu.net!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!southern.co.nz!equinox.gen.nz!not-for-mail From: bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) Newsgroups: sci.bio.technology,alt.support.food-allergies Subject: Re: EPA Proposed Regulation of Transgenic Plants Date: 26 Aug 1995 19:46:55 GMT Organization: Southern InterNet Services Lines: 180 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <41ntnf$8s0@southern.co.nz> References: <41lqcf$so_003@jetsioux_ppp.clark.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: southern.co.nz X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950621BETA PL0] Xref: bigblue.oit.unc.edu sci.bio.technology:4114 alt.support.food-allergies:1 James E. Thornton (jetsioux@clark.net) wrote: :EPA, late in 1994, proposed that any and all transgenic :plants containing genes that either confer pest or :disease resistance be classified as "plant pesticides" :and therefore be subject to FIFRA regulation--which, :plants containing similar genes obtained through :traditional breeding methods, would not be, nor never :have been, subject to. Jim is writing from "Demeter". Interestingly in Christchurch, New Zealand, "Demeter" is not a biotech company. "Demeter" produce is that produced by biodynamic agriculture, a further enhanced step from "organic" and would obviously have no transgenic plants in cultivation. All plants do of course have natural pesticides. I presume that in biodynamic agriculture that the plants are more able to respond with a natural toxin to a pest. That would be because of better nutrition and environment. Some five or more years ago I handed to the organic farming section at the local agricultural university a question as to whether having more natural toxicants in our food plants might pose a hazard to some of us. Organic agriculture hopes for natural resistance in plants. I am crossposting this article to the new newsgroup alt.support.food-allergies as well as sci.bio.technology. Perhaps it could stay in both newsgroups initially. An article in "Science" had pointed out that plants under stress produce natural antioxidants which insects may use to fight stress themselves. Do humans benefit from eating stressed plants? That is a further direction for brainstorming in this thinking. Also, any inclusion of such :transgenic plants under EPA/FIFRA regulation would almost :automatically mean that all 50 states would require :similar regulation at their level as well. Therefore, any :company pursuing such transformations, which is planning :eventually to market such new cultivars, would be faced :with obtaining the approval of upwards to 52 individual :government regulator agencies. I would think that there is some merit in this for the consumer. Note that euthanasia legislation is proceeding at different rates in different areas in Australia. It is interesting to think about the societal causes for this. Also if one wishes to feel safe in an old people's home then one might surely wish to live in a state not supporting euthanasia. I note that listening to talk back radio it is often young people supporting euthanasia. The New Zealand parliament has just rejected a private members bill on euthanasia. Speakers in the house spoke of the situation in Holland where doctors may not be prosecuted in many circumstances for euthanasia and how this has become the thin edge of the wedge whereby many people are euthanased non voluntarily. Canada has also rejected voluntary euthanasia and I feel that having one world law for anything would be terrible if it were a mistake. In some ways I parallel this to one transgenics plant law for the whole USA, or the whole world for that matter. Perhaps it might regulate back the too adventurous. I am still thinking of that. If you are a Monsanto or :similar large biotech or ag/chemical company who already :has a large in-place regulatory staff, you probably :couldn't care less--especially if you thought such new :regulation might stop a lot of smaller companies from :competing with you (or force them to sell or license :their technology to you, since they could not afford such :high regulatory costs). : I would imagine that a small company might have success in one adventurous state where it wouldn't in an across the board situation. I am almost thinking I shouldn't be posting this. :EPA will submit their final recommendations to its :Science Advisory Committee probably in December, followed :shortly thereafter by submission of their proposed rule :to OMB for final approval. : :Congress, in meantime, will likely debate the matter :shortly following the Labor Day recess when they take up :EPA's appropriation as a part of the VA-HUD, Independent :Agency Appropriation bill for next fiscal year. : :USDA has taken strong exception to EPA's proposed rule :making in this case and hopefully will continue to do so. : :I suggest any of you who share concern about this absurd :intrusion by EPA into this regulatory area contact their :Congressional delegation and the White House very soon. I :suggest you ask them to support the House passed "Walsh" :amendment to the VA-HUD Independent Agency Appropriation :Bill, which if adopted by the Senate, and/or in :Conference, would prohibit EPA from using any of its :funds to implement such a regulation. That seems pretty silly to me: have proud legislation which cannot be enforced. Is it going to be consumer organisations doing any prosecution then? Current :governmental regulations and procedures now in place are :generally more than adequate to protect the public :regarding such matters. I note that transgenic "flavr savr" tomatoes (I am not quite sure what has been done to the names or the genes and their expression regulation) do not legally have to be labelled as transgenic. It is said that all suppliers do label them, but how do we know? And how would we eventually know if we were eating a food with higher function human genes in it? If there are problems of :particular concern which differ substantially from those :now applicable to plants transformed by traditional :methods, then lets address those as such and not bring :the whole plant world into EPA's regulatory web, thereby :adding tremendous cost, time and loss of technological :advantage to this nation. : This is a very interesting point. Knowledge of natural plant toxicants is not very good. The function of the EPA should be to protect people in areas where their senses are insufficient to, or for other reasons they cannot, protect themselves. New Zealand studies have shown that feeding sheep on the estrogenic red clover pasture causes genital deformity and birth troubles. I feel that understanding of natural plant toxicants has to progress much before certainty of safety in the transgenic field can even begin to be contemplated. :This amendment, in my judgement, is an extremely serious :threat to the future of plant biotechnology--and as I :stated earlier--lethal to small biotech companies who are :in that business. : You are not obviously speaking of the last amendment you spoke of, the "Walsh" amendment, which you support. Though if the object of that "Independent Agency Appropriation Bill" happens, wouldn't it mean that EPA is freed from doing police work which now goes to independent contractors contracting work to an independent agency authority in the same way as a Crown Health Enterprise contracts to a Regional Health Authority in New Zealand? The EPA would in the parallel argument become more like the New Zealand Core Services Committee which works out policy for the purchasers of health. There seems to be a lot of confusion here, Jim, and I hope that such confusion can be avoided when it comes to human safety. You speak of transgenic plants and natural plants containing "similar" genes, but it is the regulation of the expression of the genes which is the dominant factor, not their presence. Much more knowledge is needed before incorporating rotenones into food plants which may over express them under certain conditions of stress for example, causing havoc with dermatitis prone people. Once a crop was widely established it would be an economic disaster if a threshold level of ultraviolet light which has perhaps been exceeded in past millennia on the evolutionary paths of plants and humans, were again to prove fatal and turn back the clock millennia evolution wise. What studies are being done with psoralen dermatitis in celery workers? A worker I spoke to had not even known it was the combination of ultra violet light with the celery toxin which caused the problem. :Jim Thornton :Vice President :Demeter BioTechnologies Ltd :jetsioux@clark.net Brian Sandle bsandle@southern.co.nz, formerly Brian_Sandle@equinox.gen.nz Followers may be led astray. From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.eduTue Apr 11 21:05:22 1995 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 11:03:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: Re: Community Supported Agriculture (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 10:06:21 -0400 From: Bob Engelman To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Subject: Re: Community Supported Agriculture (fwd) Jeff Lakey writes: >I've recently become exposed to the idea of Community Supported >Agriculture. I'm interested in its potential to help with the problem of >agriculture around metropolitan areas serving as a temporary land use >(awaiting retirement of the farmer and endless suburbanization). > >I presume it is recent, and don't expect to find much in the library >literature about it, but will be checking there as well. Anyone have a >reference starting point to find out more? May I recommend a book called Farms of Tomorrow: Community Supported Farms, Farm Supported Communities, by Trauger Groh and Steven S.H. McFadden, published in 1990 by the Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association, P.O. Box 550, Kimberton, PA 19442, 610-935-7797, 1-800-516-7797. The cost is $12.00 plus $2.75 for shipping. There is also an association called something like the North American Association of Community Supported Agriculture. They have a few minimalist publications which might be of service. I may be getting the name a bit wrong and will try to return with more detailed information. The idea of community supported agriculture has its roots largely in the German-speaking countries of Europe, with considerable influence as well from Japan. Its philosophical roots lie in the agricultural ideas of Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philospher and scientist who lived from 1861 to 1925. Two key convictions guide the CSA movement, which is growing rapidly in the United States and elsewhere: 1) that urban dwellers and other people who do not personally grow food can buy shares in the annual output of a local farmer, thus reducing her/his risk and providing her/him the capital to 2) restore the soil and other agricultural resources so that the entire community is enhanced by what the farm becomes and the activity that goes on there. Good CSAs also involve shareholders in work, fun and community activities on the farm, helping to teach children, for example, that food does not come from the grocery store but from soil, water, sweat and love. I'm too busy at the moment to do so right now, but I hope to post soon a document concerning the CSA of which I am a member, the Chesapeake (Maryland) CSA near Washington, D.C.. The entire concept is one of the most exciting I have encountered in the field of "sustainably-oriented" agriculture, and I believe its future could be exceedingly bright. Best, Bob Engelman Takoma Park, MD This document (GUIDE) is the April 21, 1995 update of: ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/agriculture/sustainable_agriculture/GUIDE For more information contact Lawrence London, london@sunSITE.unc.edu. ____________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Accessing FAQs and Selected Information Resources at sunSITE.unc.edu ____________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- World Wide Web (lynx available via telnet for vt100 users) WWW URL info: http://sunsite.unc.edu/london/Gateway_to_Archives.html http://sunsite.unc.edu/london/Rec.Gardens-FAQs.html http://sunsite.unc.edu/london/Herb_Archives.html GOPHER URL info: URL for sustainable agriculture is: gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/.pub/academic/agriculture/sustainable_agriculture / [add gardening/gardening-faqs/ to the path for the rec.gardens FAQs] URL for rural skills is: gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/.pub/academic/agriculture/rural-skills/ URL for energy resources is: gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/.pub/academic/environment/alternative-energy/ener gy-resources/ URL for alternative healthcare is: gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/.pub/academic/medicine/alternative-healthcare/ URL for pesticide education is: gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/.pub/academic/environment/pesticide-education/ FTP URL info: file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/agriculture/sustainable_agriculture/ [add gardening/gardening-faqs/ to the path for the rec.gardens FAQs] file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/agriculture/rural-skills/ file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/medicine/alternative-healthcare/ [the herb archives are here] file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/environment/alternative-energy/energy-res ources/ file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/environment/pesticide-education/ Anonymous FTP: ftp sunSITE.unc.edu Login: anonymous Password: (enter your Internet e-mail ID) cd pub/academic cd agriculture/sustainable_agriculture cd gardening/gardening-faqs cd pub/academic/agriculture/rural-skills cd pub/academic/medicine/alternative-healthcare cd herbs cd pub/academic/environment/alternative-energy/energy-resources cd pub/academic/environment/pesticide-education WAIS (available via telnet, follow login instructions) Ftpmail (Send e-mail to ftpmail@sunsite.unc.edu for help file on ftpmail usage) Gopher: (gopher sunSITE.unc.edu) The Worlds of sunSITE Sustainable Agriculture Information gardening gardening-faqs links to: Rural Skills: etc. Alternative Energy Alternative Healthcare Pesticide Education - other Gopher sites with ag/gardening information The Worlds of SunSITE browse sunSITE archives academic agriculture sustainable_agriculture gardening gardening-faqs rural-skills The Worlds of sunSITE browse sunSITE archives academic environment alternative energy energy-resources pesticide-education The Worlds of sunSITE browse sunSITE archives academic medicine alternative healthcare herbs __________________ ------------------ About the Archives __________________ ------------------ Newsgroup, mailing-list, newsletter archives/documents/FAQs on sustainable agriculture, permaculture, IPM, landscaping, gardening, farming, rural skills, horticulture, metalworking, woodworking, weather, housebuilding, food, cooking, nutrition, ecology, environment, pesticide education, health-safety-welfare, beekeeping, food preservation, alternative: healthcare, energy, architecture, housing, communities and many other related topics. Partial list of topics ---------------------- historic food food preserving health-safety-welfare sourdough bread-yoghurt-kraut-fermented foods vegetarian cooking alternative architecture alternative/co-housing, sustainable/intentional communities - co-operatives alternative healthcare health and safety faqs sustainable agriculture gardening-farming-rural life gardening faqs landscaping-landscape architecture permaculture integrated pest management hydrology meteorology beekeeping hydroponics biological pest control mycology botany vermiculture wildlife hydroponics aquaponics bioremediation aquaculture guides to Internet agriculture/healthcare/environment/biology resources homeopathy ayurveda nutrition meditation FAQ archives [partial list - see all directories labeled /faqs for others] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- rec.gardens (/agriculture/sustainable_agriculture/gardening/gardening-faqs) misc.rural (/agriculture/rural-skills/faqs) rec.food.sourdough (/agriculture/rural-skills/food/sourdough/faqs) rec.food.veg (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs) rec.crafts.metalworking (/agriculture/rural-skills/metalworking/faqs) rec.woodworking (/agriculture/rural-skills/woodworking/faqs) alternative energy (/environment/alternative-energy/miscellaneous) sci.energy.hydrogen (/environment/alternative-energy/miscellaneous) alt.meditation (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs) alt.co-ops (/environment/energy-resources/faqs alt.housing.nontrad (/environment/energy-resources/faqs alt.folklore.herbs (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/herbs/faqs) sci.life-extension (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs) vegetarian (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs) sci.agriculture.beekeeping (/agriculture/sustainable_agriculture/beekeeping/faq s rec.food.preserving (/agriculture/rural-skills/food/food-preserving/faqs) alt.backrubs (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs) alt.med.allergy (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs) alt.support.asthma (medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs) Mail Archives: -------------- Mailing lists of interest: List name: sustag-public (sustainable agriculture) Server: almanac@ces.ncsu.edu Post articles to: sustag-public@ces.ncsu.edu List name: sanet-mg (Sustainable Agriculture Network mail group) Server: almanac@ces.ncsu.edu Post articles to: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu List name: forage-mg (forage crops) Server: almanac@oes.orst.edu Post articles to: forage-mg@oes.orst.edu List name: forage-quality-mg (forage crop quality) Server: almanac@oes.orst.edu Post articles to: forage-quality-mg@oes.orst.edu List name: ipm-mg (integrated pest management) Server: almanac@ces.ncsu.edu Post articles to: ipm-mg@ces.ncsu.edu List name: permaculture-mg (permaculture) Server: almanac@ces.ncsu.edu Post articles to: permaculture-mg@ces.ncsu.edu List name: agmetnet (meteorology) Server: almanac@awis.auburn.edu Post articles to: agmetnet@awis.auburn.edu Also available from almanac@ces.ncsu.edu: renew-energy (Renewable Energy), renew-energy@ces.ncsu.edu nc-solar (North Carolina Solar Energy Resources), nc-solar@ces.ncsu.edu Additional mailing lists of interest: [/net-resources will contain more information on many of these lists] wetnet soils-l agmodels-l agric-l envst-l grasses bee-l dairy-l hydro-l devel-l indknow-l aqua-l maxlife marine-l gardens-l cohousing-l pot-mod-l trickle-l mgarden-l lakes-l sustag-l Newsletters (partial list): American Garden Newsletter ipmnet-news aanews aosa.news ben panups safefood-news susag-news vita-news altag-news apis attranews-digest cgiar-news csas-news food-safety-week handsnet-news leopold-center-news wsaa-news ....and many others Newsgroup archives: sci.agriculture sci.agriculture.beekeeping alt.sustainable.agriculture alt.agriculture.misc alt.agriculture.fruit rec.ponds sci.bio.entomology.lepidoptera alt.landscape.architecture rec.gardens misc.rural rec.food.preservation sci.bio sci.bio.ecology sci.geo.geology sci.geo.meteorology sci.geo.hydrology sci.aquaria rec.aquaria bionet plants bionet mycology bionet.biology.grasses bionet photosynthesis bionet cellbiology bionet general bionet.agroforestry bionet.n2-fixation bionet.biology.tropical alt.architecture.alternative alt.housing.nontrad sci.energy sci.energy.hydrogen alt.energy.renewable alt.solar.thermal sci.engr.lighting misc.health.alternative alt.aromatherapy sci.life-extension alt.health.ayurveda alt.folklore.gemstones alt.folklore.herbs alt.co-evolution alt.meditation alt.consciousness.mysticism rec.food.veg rec.food.veg.cooking sci.med.nutrition alt.food.fat-free alt.support.asthma alt.med.allergy From newmark@eskimo.comWed Mar 22 15:04:13 1995 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 11:05:33 -0800 From: Mark Newell To: london@calypso-2.oit.unc.edu Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture Subject: Re: Biodynamic Farming Info? (fwd) Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Cc: Bcc: In article you write: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 19:23:38 -0800 (PST) >>From: Georgann K. Cunney >To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu >Subject: Biodynamic Farming Info? > > > >Howdy, > >I'm new to this newsgroup. I'm interested in learning about Rudolf Steiner's, >Biodynamic Farming. Can any one tell me what it is about and its basic >principles? Who is practicing it, in what ways and where? > >I would like to know web sites for any information about this, and also >sustainable agriculture. > >Thanks > >(eagerly waiting) > >Georgann curious@aimnet.com > BIODYNAQMICS,IN A FEW WORDS, IS ABOUT UTALIZING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DYNAMIC LIFE FORCE ENERGY, IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE MOON, THE STARS, AND ELEMENTS INTRINSIC TO EARTH: WATER, SOIL, AIR AND ALL LIFE FORMS. AN EXCELLENT RESOURCE WOULD BE THE FOLKS AT MOTHER FLIGHT FARM NEAR MT.VERNON, WHO PRACTICE BIODYNAMIC AGRICULTURE ON THEIR 11 ACRE ORGANIC FARM, AS WELL AS PREPARE A COMPOSTED SOIL PREPARATION,WHICH FEEDS THE SOIL BACTERIUM, ET AL, CALLED "MIGHTY MICROBE" CAN CALL GLEN OR CHARLOTTE JOHNSON FOR INFORMATION @ (360) 445-5006. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH!? From sals@rain.orgThu Feb 23 19:45:50 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 09:20:37 -0800 (PST) From: Sal Schettino To: jmayerna@nmsu.edu Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: (Reply) Hot Sandy Soil I get my microbes from Petrik Laboratories 916-666-1157 fax 916-661-0489 and its been organic on CCOF cal.certified organic farmers list for years. I have put it out every year for over 8 years. A lot in the beginning to bring my land back to life and smaller amounts now. It has speeded up the natural process and made living soil a lot faster than nature could. A lot of farmer have killed off there lands life because they wanted only good production for today so adding microbes in my mind really helped me out. tHE problem some have is that there are no Microbes . You need them for substaniable ag. Essential plant nutrients are converted and released to crops,microbes are actively fixing nitrogen from air,they are active in decomposing cellulose,they are decomposing and mineralizing humates, they are mineralizing organic compounds of phosphorus and nitrifying microbes are active in promoting mineralization of humus. All crop residues should be recycled to the soil and microbes help decompose them. The thing I can see it and feel is that Microbes improves tilth . People have been using Microbes as compost starter I use it as a biofertillizer for imporveing the soil structure and assuring a balance in soil metabolism,with the production of stable humus. I feel the biological functions occuring in the soil are critical to maintaining a health,fertle soil. I wounder if there is much work going on researching Microbes. They use to laugh about it now I think they are taking a second look at it. I heard of EM in Japan and Cuba is doing some work there. In the olden days I heard they use to have to plant peaches they brought out west to Cal. with the soil from back home and those that didn't they lost their trees because there were not the microorganisms need for growth. You can add microbes just by take soil from a healthy tree and moving some to a place that has none. I love that rhizospheric microbial population. My understanding is that they take soil from a healthy place and take out the microbes from that soil and give them a life that leads them to grow fast and then they put back with a high Aerobic count and Anaerobic count,yeast count and etc. Its living so you are using a living thing so I guess they have to get just the right Microbe combo. I don't know how it works but It works for me. They need mosture. So I feel if you have water you can make Hot sandy soil good live soil with time. Microbes I feel will help to brake up compacted soil also. I have see my ground turn from something so hard I thought I needed a jackhammer now its like you springs on your feet. On Thu, 23 Feb 1995 jmayerna@NMSU.Edu wrote: > > ******************** YOUR MESSAGE: ******************** > >From sals@rain.org Wed Feb 22 20:56:16 1995 > To: Marc Safley > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: Hot Sandy Soil > In-Reply-To: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > In reply to getting a poor or questionable soil jump started, I'd like to know > where do you get the microorganisums to add? I know where to get the rock P > and K and buy or make compost, which brings/stimulates some microorganisums to > the soil system, but am I missing a valuable point? Can you obtain a bottle of > microorganisums and inoculate a soil to reestablish the soil biology? If this > is possible and available what are we waiting for and why isn't everybody using > it? > > > > > ***************************************************** > * From: J. Mayernak, jmayerna@nmsu.edu > * > * Agricultural Science Center -N.M.S.U.- > * > * Phone:(505)461-1620V; (505)461-1631F > ***************************************************** > > Distribution via One Button Mail: > (UNIX) TO: sals@rain.org sals@rain.org > (UNIX) CC: sanet sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > OBM: 159 > > Sal Schettino,Organic Farmer,don't panic eat organic,sals@rain.org or check out my homepage: http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.eduWed Apr 12 12:45:13 1995 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 07:17:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: Joel Grossman's Excellent Post (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 07:03:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Hodges To: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" Subject: Joel Grossman's Excellent Post (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 00:11:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Charles Benbrook To: sanet Cc: benbrook@hillnet.com Subject: Joel Grossman's Excellent Post Geez, SANET has had some really good posts lately. Joel -- thanks for adding some important details to discussion of disease suppressive soils. I too have looked long and hard through the literature in about 20 disciplines, talked to many experts, spent lots of time with farmers who know the difference between a disease suppressive soil and one which just does not seem able to slow down nematodes and pathogens. My research/contacts lead me to a plausible explanation of why the unfumigated trees catch up with the fumigated ones. Scientists have now documented at several levels, in many crops, a phenomenon called systemic acquired resistance. This is the mechanism whereby a plant attains a strong, or high degree of capacity to express its inherent potential immune response, its ability to withstand or overcome pest or stress attacks. Systemic acquired resistance (SAR) is sort of like a mammals response to allergy shots; to "work", or to happen, a plant must be exposed to some level of a pathogen early in its growth, when its immune system is, in effect, being turned on and stretching to accomodate, as best it can, the threats it thinks it will encounter in its environment. A plant or tree's immune response is, in effect, fully formed after it goes through early maturation. If the plant/tree is not subjected to a pathogen when its immune system is "growing", or gaining the capacity to "kick in" in response to particular pathogen pressure, it will never be fully able. It is a "need it early and use it early, or lose the capacity to develop it" phenomenon. This much we know. So, my guess is that plants/trees growing up in fumigated soils are not exposed to the low levels of pathogen attack needed to stimulate SAR. Hence such plants may grow well early on in the abscence of pest pressure, but later on when they SHOULD NATURALLY BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND a degree of pressure, they are immunological weaklings, having lacked the chance to "grow up with" the pathogens that are a normal part of their environment. I have some other more cmplex ideas/theories about mechanisms through which SAR is triggered, and how different management systems affect it, but this is not the time or place. Anybody encountered such an explanation before? Bob Goodman at Univ. Wisconsin plant path. dept, Joseph Kuc at Kentucky are two of the brightest, most broadly knowledgeful people on SAR and farming systems. Several excellent papers have been published in Science and elsewhere describing the mechanism. It is fascinating science, and lies at the heart of disease suppressive soils. My guess is that the capacity of a soil to suppress disease has as much to do with how soil microorganisms trigger plant physiological processes, especially SAR, as it does about microbial biocontrol of plant pathogens. From sustag@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDUFri Nov 25 00:27:37 1994 Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 14:24:44 -0800 From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L Subject: SOMNET - A Global network of soil organic matter models and long term experiments (fwd) [I have invited SOMNET, centered at Rothamsted Experiment Station to use sustag-l, at least to get started. Soil organic matter is a basic component of sustainable agriculture. Anyway we will see how things go. Let me know if this seems appropriate or not. TH, moderator] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 11:19:05 +0000 From: JOSMITH To: Non Receipt Notification Requested Subject: SOMNET - A Global network of soil organic matter models and long term experiments SOMNET: A GLOBAL NETWORK OF SOIL ORGANIC MATTER MODELS AND LONG-TERM EXPERIMENT DATASETS SOMNET is a global network of soil organic matter models and long-term experiments and will be established during 1995. Soil organic matter (SOM) represents a major pool of carbon within the biosphere, acting as both a source and sink. When organic material decomposes, CO2 is released, but a fraction may become stable, withdrawing it from the active carbon cycle. Changes in climate are likely to influence the rates of accumulation and decomposition of SOM through changes in temperature, moisture and the rate of return of plant residues to the soil. Other changes, especially in land use and management, may have even greater effects. The ability to predict the effects of climate, atmospheric composition and land use change on SOM dynamics is essential in formulating environmental, agricultural and social/economic policies. Mathematical models of SOM dynamics are needed to predict the effects of environmental change, to test specific scenarios and to develop strategies to manage the effects of environmental change. Most models have been developed using data from a single land use type. The ability of models developed for use in one system (e.g. arable agriculture) to simulate SOM changes in another (e.g. grassland) is a major limitation when simulating the impact of land use change. There is a pressing need to systematically evaluate the suitability of SOM models in predicting the effects of environmental change. SOMNET will establish a network of researchers investigating the impacts of environmental change on SOM with particular relevance to the validation of mathematical models that can be used to evaluate management and policy options. Questionnaires will be sent to holders of datasets to establish nature of sites, type of measurements, quality control measures and the availability of data. Similarly, questionnaires will be sent to developers of models to establish type of models, nature of model inputs and outputs, quality control measures and the availability of the model. The collated information will be published as a directory and electronic database to provide information about the source and nature of experimental datasets and SOM models. A NATO Advanced Research Workshop will initate a comparison of model performance to evaluate representative SOM models using representative long-term experimental data sets. Holders of representative experimental datasets and developers of representative models will be invited to participate in the workshop to be held May 22-26, 1995, at Rothamsted, UK. This will establish robustness of simulations over a wide range of environments and expose deficiencies in understanding and/or available experimental data. Questionnaires will be sent out before the end of 1994. If you would like to participate in SOMNET, please contact... Pete Smith, Soil Science Department, IACR Rothamsted, Harpenden, Herts, AL5 2JQ UK. Telephone: (+44) 582 763133 Fax: (+44) 582 760981 Email: PESMITH@BBSRC.AC.UK To be considered for invitation to the NATO Workshop to be held May 22-26, 1995 on "Evaluation of Soil Organic Matter Models using Long Term Experimental Datasets", questionnaires must be returned by 1 February, 1995. For information about experimental datasets or models to be included in a directory to be compiled at the end of 1995, questionnaires must be returned by 1 September 1995. For information about experimental datasets or models to be included in SOMNET, questionnaires can be returned at any time. NEW EDITION A Guide to Ecological Soil Management by Grace Gershuny & Joseph Smillie Third Edition, 1995 This handbook provides a practical introduction to managing soils for long-term productivity. It offers useful guidelines to help make sound management decisions based on ecological principles. "This one belongs in the library of anyone who wants a quick reference manual on practical solutions to practical problems." --Charles Walters, editor of Acres, U.S.A. In an era of escalating costs, The Soul of Soil is a welcome tool, with many sensible ways to save money and use less chemicals. The reference shows you how to observe and evaluate your soil's texture, moisture, structure, drainage, compaction, organic content, and biological health. It explains how to interpret your own and laboratory soil tests, then design the best program to improve your soil, correcting its deficiencies to produce superlative crops. Some of the techniques for building fertile soil included in this reference: * Organic Matter Management * Building & Maintaining Humus * On-Farm Composting * Green Manures & Crop Rotations * Cultivation & Weed Control * Nutrient Balances & Soil Testing * Using Mineral Fertilizers * Storing and Applying Animal Manures * Drainage, Irrigation & Tillage * Erosion Prevention IMPROVE YOUR SOIL WHILE REDUCING COSTS AND USING FEWER CHEMICALS. The Soul of Soil explains how soil organisms supply plants with the necessary nutrients at the right time, in the right form and in the right amount. The goal of ecological soil management is to enhance conditions for the billions of microbes found in every gram of healthy soil, without reliance on purchased inputs. For those who have already implemented organic certification or are considering doing so, the discussions of recordkeeping, materials evaluation, and federal regulations will aid in planning. The Soul of Soil includes many tables, a glossary, lists of resource groups & organizations, and a bibliography. "The best basic work on fertility and sensible food production we've seen." --Necessary Trading Company, New Castle, VA. ABOUT THE AUTHORS: The authors are experienced farmers, farm advisors and writers. Joe Smillie has worked widely as a consultant in ecological agriculture since 1976. He is co-author of The Orchard Almanac. Grace Gershuny edited Organic Farmer: The Digest of Sustainable Agriculture from 1990 to 1994, and recently joined the staff of the USDA's National Organic Program to implement its accreditation program for organic certification. Softcover: 6' X 9" 192 pages. Retail Price $16.95 ISBN 0-932857-16-7 |agAccess Home | Request More Information | Book and Video Catalog | Email agAccess | _________________________________________________________________ © Copyright agAccess 1995. All rights reserved. From agaccess@pa.mother.comThu Jul 20 12:29:03 1995 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:16:11 -0700 From: David Katz To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: New book - Soil of Soil ****************************************************** NEW BOOK EXPLAINS ECOLOGICAL SOIL MANAGEMENT ****************************************************** "The Soul of Soil: A Guide to Ecological Soil Management," by Grace Gershuny and Joe Smillie, is now available in a new, extensively revised third edition. A practical introduction to managing soil for long-term productivity, this reference provides useful guidelines for making management decisions based on ecological principles, with minimal reliance on "off-farm" fertilizers. Sustainable agriculture aims to protect the soil's ability to regenerate nutrients lost when crops are harvested. This regenerative capacity depends on the diversity, health and vitality of the organisms that live, grow, reproduce, and die in the soil. The goal of ecological soil management is to enhance conditions for the billions of microbes found in every gram of healthy soil. These microscopic organisms supply plants with the necessary nutrients at the right time, and in the right form and amount. The authors describe good management of soil organic matter and humus to achieve long-lasting soil fertility. These methods include the use of green manures, crop rotations, on-farm composting, and mineral fertilizers. Detailed information is given to help the farmer with everything from collecting soil samples to using practical, on-farm tests that measure soil structure, water-holding capacity, and fertility. This guide also tells farmers how to improve their skills of observation, evaluation and management, as they must when reliance on purchased inputs is reduced. Specific "how-to" information is given for monitoring and analysis of many practices, such as application of composts and manures, interpreting soil test results, and crop responses to different fertility programs. In addition to soilbuilding techniques, "The Soul of Soil" discusses recordkeeping, cultivation, weed control, maintaining nutrient balances, and soil testing. For those who are considering or have already implemented organic certification, this book will aid in planning farm operations. The authors are experienced farmers, farm advisors and writers. Joe Smillie has worked worldwide as a consultant in ecological agriculture since 1976. He is co-author of "The Orchard Almanac." Grace Gershuny edited "Organic Farmer: The Digest of Sustainable Agriculture" from 1990 to 1994, and recently joined the staff of the USDA's National Organic Program to implement its accreditation program for organic certification. "The Soul of Soil" includes many tables, a glossary, lists of resources, and a bibliography. Published by agAccess, the 158 page book sells for $16.95, softcover. To order, send a check for the cover price plus $4.00 shipping & handling (Californians please add 7.25% sales tax) to agAccess, P.O. Box 2008, Davis, CA 95616. MasterCard, Visa and purchase orders are accepted. Telephone Monday through Friday 9am to 5:30pm PST and Saturdays 10am to 4pm PST (916) 756-7177. Email to agaccess @davis.com or fax to (916) 756-7188. Free review copies are available to editors or journalists wishing to review the book for publication. Please send mail (snail or E) to agAccess for review information and a copy of the book if you are interested. From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.eduFri Sep 15 22:20:19 1995 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:35:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: Re: New book - "The Soul of Soil" (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 03:53:09 -0500 From: Ibrahim Ortas To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: New book - "The Soul of Soil" On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, David Katz wrote: > ****************************************************** > NEW BOOK EXPLAINS > ECOLOGICAL SOIL MANAGEMENT > ****************************************************** > > "The Soul of Soil: A Guide to Ecological Soil Management," by Grace > Gershuny and Joe Smillie, is now available in a new, extensively revised > third edition. A practical introduction to managing soil for long-term > productivity, this reference provides useful guidelines for making > management decisions based on ecological principles, with minimal reliance > on "off-farm" fertilizers. > > Sustainable agriculture aims to protect the soil's ability to > regenerate nutrients lost when crops are harvested. This regenerative > capacity depends on the diversity, health and vitality of the organisms > that live, grow, reproduce, and die in the soil. > > The goal of ecological soil management is to enhance conditions for > the billions of microbes found in every gram of healthy soil. These > microscopic organisms supply plants with the necessary nutrients at the > right time, and in the right form and amount. > > The authors describe good management of soil organic matter and > humus to achieve long-lasting soil fertility. These methods include the use > of green manures, crop rotations, on-farm composting, and mineral > fertilizers. Detailed information is given to help the farmer with > everything from collecting soil samples to using practical, on-farm tests > that measure soil structure, water-holding capacity, and fertility. > > This guide also tells farmers how to improve their skills of > observation, evaluation and management, as they must when reliance on > purchased inputs is reduced. Specific "how-to" information is given for > monitoring and analysis of many practices, such as application of composts > and manures, interpreting soil test results, and crop responses to > different fertility programs. > > In addition to soilbuilding techniques, "The Soul of Soil" > discusses recordkeeping, cultivation, weed control, maintaining nutrient > balances, and soil testing. For those who are considering or have already > implemented organic certification, this book will aid in planning farm > operations. > > The authors are experienced farmers, farm advisors and writers. Joe > Smillie has worked worldwide as a consultant in ecological agriculture > since 1976. He is co-author of "The Orchard Almanac." Grace Gershuny edited > "Organic Farmer: The Digest of Sustainable Agriculture" from 1990 to 1994, > and recently joined the staff of the USDA's National Organic Program to > implement its accreditation program for organic certification. > > "The Soul of Soil" includes many tables, a glossary, lists of > resources, and a bibliography. Published by agAccess, the 158 page book > sells for $16.95, softcover. To order, send a check for the cover price > plus $4.00 shipping & handling (Californians please add 7.25% sales tax) > to: > > agAccess > P.O. Box 2008 > Davis, CA 95616. > > MasterCard, Visa and purchase orders are accepted. Telephone Monday > through Friday 9am to 5:30pm PST and Saturdays 10am to 4pm PST (916) > 756-7177. Email to agaccess@davis.com or fax to (916) 756-7188. > > Free review copies are available to editors or journalists wishing > to review the book for publication. Please send mail (snail or E) to > agAccess for review information and a copy of the book if you are > interested. > > ****************************************************** > PLEASE DISTRIBUTE > ****************************************************** > > > Sun 4 Apr 93 9:35 By: Allan Balliett To: ALL B-D COMPOSTING TECHNIQUES (X-posters, please keep my name on this!) General instructions for Bio-Dynamic compost making reprinted from PRACTICAL GUIDE to the use of the BIO-DYNAMIC PREPARATIONS by Ehrenfried Pfeiffer (NY 84) pp 18-26 This book (and many other B-D related titles) is available from the Bio-Dynamic Farming Association POB 550 Kimberton, PA 19442. (The book contains detailed instructions for making composts for special purposes, also.) As already stated, whatever is capable of decay or decompostion can be turned into compost. The only exceptions to be made are human excrement, coal ashes, and newspapers - the latter because printed type contains chemical ingredients which are inimical to the bacterial life of the soil. (transcribers note: check with your local paper - there is a very good chance they are using non-toxic soy-based inks now days) The following method should be used to obtain compost: A trench or ditch should be dug out evenly to a spade's depth. The bottom should be covered with straw or with athin layer of prepared manure or compost. Better still, if practicable, would be a thin layer of lime superimposed upon one of sand. The size of the heap to be placed upon this should be governed by the same proportions as the manure heap referred to on page I 2 . But the heap must not be too long: about 25 feet in length to I2 feet wide is a suitable proportion But this size is not absolutely requisite: smaller heaps can be made. The heap should be built up generously to allow for shrinkage. The different ingredients such as vegetable refuse, leaves, weeds should be placed upon it in layers. Coarse pieces and small twigs should first be broken into smaller bits. A layer of vegetable refuse about IO to I2 inches deep,(Thinner layers 3-inch organic matter and .5-inch soil give the quickest decomposition (three to four months). Lawn cuttings should never be more than 2 to 3 inches thick.) then a sprinkling of unslaked or quick- lime, then a layer of 1 to 3 inches of earth, then again a layer of vegetable matter, and so on, until a height of from 4 to 6 feet is reached, when the heap should be covered with earth.The earth dug out from the trench can be used both for the layers of earth and for thecovering. Where unpaved or untarred country roads are at hand the sweepings of these make excellent material for the earth layers and the covering. Or waste turf or peat may be used for the covering, but care must be taken that the peat does not get into the compost and so on to the soil. It should be lifted off before the compost is touched and kept for re-use. If the soil is sandy the sides of the heap should be sloped more, so that the sand does not shift. If strong winds are prevalentan extra covering of straw, rushes, or branches will be necessary. The top of the heap should be flattened in the middle to form a trough into which water or thin liquid manure can be poured to moisten the heap. The heap may be built up by degrees. This is useful in a small menage, where house and kitchen refuse form part of the heap. Care must be taken, however, to cover each addition completely with straw or reeds. In a large estate one of the workers should be specially instructed and made responsible for the oversight of compost-making. It is very important that the compost should not get too dry. The heap should be built in a shady spot if possible, and if none is available one should be planted. Results have shown that decomposition takes place more rapidly in shade than in sun. It is a wise precaution to plant a hedge round the site or at least to fence it with reeds or straw matting. A few more hints may usefully be given. The processes of fermentation which produce humus cease their activity in frosty weather and work very slowly in dry substances. So there is little sense in building a compost- heap in winter, when the material for it is cold or frozen. And in a hot, sunny August the material is too dry to decompose much, though watering it as it is built up may help a little. Care should in any case be taken to keep the heap moist in dry weather. The writer once saw a compost heap of leaves and foliage which had stood for a year without decay. What was the reason? The dead foliage of the previous winter had been heaped together in the height of summer, when quite dry and with the foliage closely packed in thick layers. Air and moisture could not penetrate. The outer layers had decayed, but within lay an unchanged mass. It is important therefore that dead foliage should be piled up immediately, i.e. in autumn; that the leaves should be thoroughly loosened and the layers not too thick; and above all that sufficient moisture should be ensured. On another occasion there was a perfectly made compost heap, which yet had not rotted. The earth used for the inner layers was taken from a vineyard, the soil of which had been treated intensively with copper preparations. The soil was sterilised and the bacteria necessary to decomposition were dead. Care is thus required in the choice of earth. It must be healthy and not soaked with chemical mixtures (copper, lead, arsenic, nicotine). Even the smallest quantity of these chemicals is deadly to bacteria. For instance, wild flowers in a vase will last some days longer if a small piece of copper is put into the water. After the compost heaps are built up and covered over, they are treated in precisely the same way and with the same preparations as the manure heap, the treatment of which has already been described (See Details on the Use of B-D Preparations below). Nothing need be added here. The heaps are left standing for from two to four months after treatment and are then turned over. Upon their condition when so turned depends whether or no further doses of the preparations are needed. Usually decomposition is so far advanced that the layers have broken down and intermingled. In the turn-over no further layering is required, and owing to the diminished size of the heaps two can be joined into one. If the original heaps contain weeds or leaves infected by mildew or fungus or other pests, care should be taken to put these into the centre of the new heaps, so that what was outside in the old is inside in the new one, and vice versa. Seeds and pests die in the airless conditions which exist in the inside of the heap and thus there is no danger that the weeds may propagate themselves when the compost is spread on the land. Speaking generally, from eight to twelve months are required before the compost is ready for use. With proper treatment this period will suflice even for foliage and other components which are slow to decay. At the end of this time the compost is ready for application to the soil. All unpleasant smell has gone, and in its stead is a humus-like aroma reminiscent of woodland soil. And a lively accretion of earthworms is a sign that the desired transformation is complete. The following will be found useful as a means of keeping the heap sufficiently damp. When building it up, moisten it with liquid manure, which has been treated with the bio- dynamic preparations and made into a solution by the addition of rain-water. It is also important to continue with the moistening after the heap has been built and treated with the six preparations. To this end a small trough should be made at the top; or if the top cover is of peat, this should be taken off at every watering. Two kinds of liquid manure may be used. One is stable drainage, duly treated before use. The other is a liquid made from pure cow manure, which has been treated with the six preparations, 502-507, and stirred in water for a short time before use. For this a tub may be kept ready. It should be noted that this moistening process must not be carried out with excessive quantities, but with smaller quantities at regular intervals, and the stable drainage and cowmanure liquids should be used alternatively. In preparing both the stable drainage and the cow manure for use on the heaps, one part of manure to twelve to fifteen parts water is recommendedrain-water if possible. It is best to give the moistening once a week at a given time. On a farm it might be done every fortnight or three weeks, but here too the intervals should not vary, so that the moistening takes place regularly. DETAILS ON THE USE OF B-D PREPARATIONS (FROM PAGE 14) The preparations should then be inserted one portion of one preparation in each hole. A portion is.5 to I gramme. The Preps. 502-507 should be used in rotation, one portion in each successive hole, the series beginning again when six holes have been so filled. In a small heap three pre- parations may be used on one side and three on another. When the holes have been filled, their openings should be firmly closed with earth. Prep. 507, which is liquid, should be mixed before application with lukewarm water: 8 litres (approximately 2 gallons) of water to sufficient drops of the fluid to colour the water and make it smell of valerian. If possible, rain-water should be used, but it must be warmed only, and not first boiled and then allowed to cool. The mixture should be well stirred for ten to fifteen minutes, and then poured into the hole or holes awaiting it in the series, and the remainder should be sprinkled finely over the heap itself. Exclusive use of any one kind of animal manure, other than cattle manure, should be avoided as the Preps. 502-507 cannot attain their full effect with pig and sheep manures, etc. They work most effectually when used with cattle manure, and for this reason every farm should seek to have cattle manure available for use with other kinds. * Origin: Origin: The Twilight Clone (1:109/70.0@fidonet) From thodges@beta.tricity.wsu.eduFri Apr 7 15:33:35 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 Raymond=Meyer%BHR.OFDA.SA14%AIDW@usaid.govFri Apr 7 22:03:23 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 Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nzFri Mar 31 21:20:12 1995 Date: Sat, 01 Apr 95 07:33:27 +1200 From: Valerie Cowperthwaite To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Re: Biodynamic Farming Info? In article , jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov writes: > > > I concur with the earlier posting that suggested the article > "Biological Dynamic Farming - An Occult Form of Alternative Agriculture." > H. Kirchmann, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1994, 7(2) > 17 3-187. The abstract states in part: > > "...(Steiner's) instructions were based on insights and inner visions > from spiritualistic exercises and not on agricultural experiments... > 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. It was concluded (in the article) that > Steiner's instructions are occult and dogmatic and cannot contribute > to the development of alternative or sustainable agriculture." > > Jonathan Haskett > 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. They are successful and sustainable. The farm I am involved with of 1,000 acres supports sheep, beef cattle and is involved in building up a sizeable dairy herd as a source for its planned milk products programme. They also run small scale pig and poultry operations, plus grazing for race and show horses. Commerical vegetable growing and an extensive tree raising and planting programme are also included. Other farmers are contributing in the areas of dairying particularly and biodynamic growers are successfully holding their own in citrus and avocado growing to name just the higher profile areas. One of our leading winemakers who consistently wins international gold medals also grows his grapes biodynamically. Pfeiffer's early work on microbes and composts gives the lie to the statement that there is no scientific basis for biodynamics as does the paper in Science April 1993 by Reganold et al showing the sustainability of biodynamics especially with regard to soil conservation. Our farm has also been the site of various other scientific investigations including work on the dung beetle, blow flies and fish farming - we have a unique mullet farm. I would not point anyone to Steiner's works as an introduction. The Biodynamic Farm by H.H. Koepf and the Coming Revolution in Agriculture by Dr Harold Willis offer more practical perspectives on biodynamic farming - there is some controversy in bd circles over Willis' view. Soper's book on gardening is also, as I remember, relatively free of the mystic elements. Kirchmann's conclusion reminds of a MAF scientist critical of biodynamics who featured in a TV programme on this topic - "Yes, well we see that it DOES work, but we don't see why it SHOULD work." So therefore it is dismissed! From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govThu Apr 6 11:55:07 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 CFWALKER@alex.stkate.eduMon Mar 20 23:17:04 1995 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 18:56:58 -0600 (CST) From: CFWALKER@alex.stkate.edu To: CURIOUS@aimnet.com Cc: SANET-MG@CES.NCSU.EDU, CFWALKER@alex.stkate.edu Subject: Biodynamic Info? re your message Sun, Mar 15th... Howdy, I'm new to this newsgroup. I'm interested in learning about Rudolf Steiner's principles. Who is practicing it, in what ways and where?...... Try this: Try this contact Bio-Dynamic Farming & Gardening Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 550, Kimberton PA 19442, Tel:(610)935-7797, Fax:(610)983-3196. Also The Demeter Assoc., Inc., Britt Rd., Aurora, NY 13026, Tel/Fax (315)-364-5224. Good luck. Carol Walker From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.eduTue Apr 11 21:04:22 1995 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 11:03:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: Re: Community Supported Agriculture (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 10:06:21 -0400 From: Bob Engelman To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Subject: Re: Community Supported Agriculture (fwd) Jeff Lakey writes: >I've recently become exposed to the idea of Community Supported >Agriculture. I'm interested in its potential to help with the problem of >agriculture around metropolitan areas serving as a temporary land use >(awaiting retirement of the farmer and endless suburbanization). > >I presume it is recent, and don't expect to find much in the library >literature about it, but will be checking there as well. Anyone have a >reference starting point to find out more? May I recommend a book called Farms of Tomorrow: Community Supported Farms, Farm Supported Communities, by Trauger Groh and Steven S.H. McFadden, published in 1990 by the Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association, P.O. Box 550, Kimberton, PA 19442, 610-935-7797, 1-800-516-7797. The cost is $12.00 plus $2.75 for shipping. There is also an association called something like the North American Association of Community Supported Agriculture. They have a few minimalist publications which might be of service. I may be getting the name a bit wrong and will try to return with more detailed information. The idea of community supported agriculture has its roots largely in the German-speaking countries of Europe, with considerable influence as well from Japan. Its philosophical roots lie in the agricultural ideas of Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philospher and scientist who lived from 1861 to 1925. Two key convictions guide the CSA movement, which is growing rapidly in the United States and elsewhere: 1) that urban dwellers and other people who do not personally grow food can buy shares in the annual output of a local farmer, thus reducing her/his risk and providing her/him the capital to 2) restore the soil and other agricultural resources so that the entire community is enhanced by what the farm becomes and the activity that goes on there. Good CSAs also involve shareholders in work, fun and community activities on the farm, helping to teach children, for example, that food does not come from the grocery store but from soil, water, sweat and love. I'm too busy at the moment to do so right now, but I hope to post soon a document concerning the CSA of which I am a member, the Chesapeake (Maryland) CSA near Washington, D.C.. The entire concept is one of the most exciting I have encountered in the field of "sustainably-oriented" agriculture, and I believe its future could be exceedingly bright. Best, Bob Engelman Takoma Park, MD 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 From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CAThu Mar 23 10:33:32 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 09:57:06 EDT From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Humus -- rural -> urban -> rural Responding to Dick R. on the issue of composting. Just curious about the comment that it is better if composting occurs in the soil. Just finished an M.Sc. student doing a study on composting and we didn't come across this idea in the lit. I'd be interested in learning what it is that is more beneficial about composting in-situ - in the soil - as against ahead of time. Evidence from the literature? Conventional organic wisdom hereabouts sees placement of raw manure directly into the soil as a net negative, because of a) rapid release of N which destabilizes cycling, b) VFA's which can be caustic, and c) potential for anaerobic decomposition when high moisture substrate (whether animal manure or direct cut red clover) is plowed into the soil. As an example, they recommend cutting and wilting red clover plowdown before plowing it in, to avoid this problem. Good points on "waste" management at landfills! 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 Article 692 of alt.sustainable.agriculture: Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture Path: samba!concert!rock!stanford.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!cns!raven From: raven@cscns.com (Gail Black) Subject: Sustainable Agriculture Message-ID: Keywords: organic Sender: news@cscns.com (News) Nntp-Posting-Host: cns Organization: Community_News_Service X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8] Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 21:18:10 GMT Lines: 7 The Demeter Associaiton, Inc., a certification organization for Bio-Dynamic Farmers and Gardeners is moving to Colorado Springs, CO. The office will be fully operational on April 8, 1993. You may discuss subjects of interest here or my Email address raven@cscns.com From raven@usa.netMon Feb 13 23:24:43 1995 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 09:44:20 -0700 (MST) From: Gail Black/Demeter Associates To: ANNE L WOLARY Cc: Allan Balliett , Brian Baker , Howard Pautz , Jean Yeager , Larry London , Lisa Bunin , Peter Alspach , Ronald Foglietti Subject: change of address I am discontinuing this internet address. Any future Email can reach me at raven44777@aol.com I look forward to hearing from you. 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 FUNGI AND MYCORRHIZAE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Dr. James Traquair 1. What are fungi and how do they differ from bacteria ? 2. What is the ecological role of fungi in soil and on plant surfaces ? 3. How do agricultural practices affect the fungi in soil ? 4. What are mycorrhizae and what is their role in agriculture ? 5. What is biological control in the context of plant disease management ? Special Topics Key Words Selected References Other Related WEB Links Special Topics: * Microbiology of Composting * Rhizosphere Microbiology * Nutrient Cycling * Non-target Effects of Pesticides * Allelochemistry * Crop Residue Management Return to Top of Document Return to FAQ Table of Contents Return to PMRC HomePage _________________________________________________________________ 1. eukaryote, filamentous, yeast, chitinous walls, glucans, conidia, spores, sclerotia 2. saprophyte, parasite, pathogen, biotroph, necrotroph, mildew, root rot, damping off ,antibiosis, mutualism, symbiosis, Rhizoctonia solani, Cylindrocarpon destructans, Pythium spp., Thielaviopsis elegans, nutrient cycling 3. crop rotation, selection pressure, amendment, enrichment, anaerobic, tillage, pesticide residue, drainage,host specificity, propagule survival, dispersal 4. Glomus spp.. Gigaspora spp., vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae, endomycorrhizae, ectomycorrhizae, growth promotion, mutualism, nutrient absorption, fertility, phosphorus azygospore, chlamydospore, disease suppression, drought tolerance,carrier, agarose beads, pelletization, peat-based potting medium, obligate symbiont, colonized root fragments 5. rhizosphere, mycorrhizosphere, rhizosphere competence, competitive saprophytic ability, actinomycete, antibiotic, toxic fungal metabolites, Sporothrix spp., Tilletiopsis spp., hyperparasites, antagonists, competition, allelopathy, chelation Brief Responses to FAQs: 1. The Fungi Several diverse microorganisms are classified within the broad group of protists called the fungi. However, they do share some typical features that distinguish them as fungi different from other microbes. These distinguishing features are based on the physiology and morphology of cells. The fungal cell is distinguished from the bacterial cell by its size (generally greater than 1-2 um in diameter) and its eukaryotic structure similar to that of plant and animal cells (cells having distinct membrane-bound organelles such as nuclei, mitochondria). Bacterial cells which lack these organelles are termed prokaryotic. Fungal cells divide by mitosis (asexual reproduction) and by meiosis (sexual reproduction); bacterial cells divide by binary fission. Like animals, the fungi are heterotrophic organisms that cannot manufacture their own food by photosynthesis as plants and algae can. They require oxygen for growth (aerobic) and generally prefer an acidic environment (below pH of 7) unlike the bacteria which are anaerobic and aerobic and generally grow in basic environments ( at or above pH of 7). Fungi utilize preformed organic material from other organisms as sources of energy and building blocks for their cellular sysnthesis. Soluble nutrients are absorbed from the growth substrate following the breakdown of complex polymers by extracellular enzymes (proteinases, cellulases, pectinases etc.) secreted by fungal cells. The fungi have diverse morphologies especially in spore production which is the basis for identification. But, they are commonly recognized as the yeasts (single-celled thallus), the molds (filamentous thallus called a mycelium consisting of tubular cells in long, branched, thread-like structures called hyphae) and the mushrooms (macroscopic fungi with considerable differentiation of tissues and hyphae in the mushroom, the sporulating portion of the thallus, which is fed by a massive underground mycelium). The fungi like bacteria, are very susceptible to drying and, therefore, are generally found in very most, if not aquatic habitats. They can resist desiccation by producing thick, melanized walls which are often seen in aerial spores, in hyphal strands, and in sclerotia that enable the fungus to survive suboptimal growing conditions in the soil for several years. The fungal wall usually consists of layers of chitin, a linear polysaccharide polymer of N-acetylglucosamine, embedded in and often cove ed by glucans, branched polymers of glucose and other sugars. Some species of fungi in the Class Oomycetes such as Phytophthora and Pythium have cellulose walls rather than chitin. The melanin components consist of branched polymers of phenolic material similar to the lignins of plant cell walls. Return to Top of Document 2. Ecological role of the fungi The fungi are ubiquitous in nature andconstitute about 85-90 % of a typical organic soil biomass. Saprophytic fungi are the decomposers and live on dead organic material. They play a major role in the re-cycling of nutrients. Decay by fungi is usually considered in a negative context as the rotting of wood products and textiles or the mold or mildew on paint or bathroom tiles. But, fungal decomposition is benefial as can be seen in the thermophilic composting process in the backyard or the barnyard. Think of the incredible build-up of organic leaf litter in the forest without the saprophytic activity of the fungi. Fungi as parasites cause serious diseases (pathogenic) to animals, plants and other fungi. As obligate or biotrophic parasites such as wheat rust, they must obtain nutrients from living cells. They are very host specific and do not kill their hosts right away. As faculative or necrotrophic parasites they kill the host by toxins prior to or at the time of invasion and then continue to live as saprophytes on the decaying tissues. Some fungi such as the rusts attack weed species and are fine candidates for biological control of unwanted plants. Still other fungi attack insect pests and other pathogenic fungi in the soil or on plant surfaces. They are important sources of biological control for insect problems and plant disease in forestry, agricultural and horticultural crops. We are well aware of the mutualistc association between fungi and algae or fungi and cyanobacteria in the lichen thallus on rocks, trees and the forest floor. Fungi can be beneficial also to the growth of plants by forming mutualistic symbiotic associations with roots called mycorrhizae. There are numerous kinds of mycorrhizal associations. Mycorrhizae of different types are ubiquitous on most herbaceous plants and tree species in a wide variety of habitats including agricultural systems. Return to Top of Document 3. Agricultural impact on fungi Because fungi are everywhere, agricultural practices have profound effects on their growth, distribution and survival. The impact may be positive or negative. The amendment of soil with organic material will enhance the activity of decomposer fungi in the soil. Some of these fungi may also be antagonistic to fungal pathogens of plants and lead to suppression of disease. In any event, the community structure of fungi will be changed through this enrichment process. However, excessive deep plowing may separate the organic material from the fungal decomposers which occur in the top few centimeters of the soil. This tillage will lead to a general decline in fungal biomass. The addition of pesticides to the soil will also affect the survival of selected fungi. Specific fungicides used to destroy specific pathogens may also destroy close relatives of these fungi that may be beneficial as saprophytes. This non-target effect is a particular concern in the use of broad-spectrum biocides such as the fumigant, methyl bromide, which destroys all biological activity. So, using this fumigant to kill plant pathogenic nematodes in greenhouse soil will also kill pathogenic fungi and kill the mycorrhizal fungi that are beneficial to plants. Use of a specific nematicide on the other hand, will kill nematodes but not the mycorrhizal fungi. Non-target effects on fungi in the soil are now being identified for herbicides used to kill weeds in conservation tillage practices. Crop rotation can also influence the distribution of fungi in soil because of the known host specificity of certain species of fungi. Rotation of susceptible and non-susceptible crops is a well-established means of managing disease in crop plants. This technique fails, however, for the control of fungi that produce sclerotial structures or spores that survive for long periods in the soil as portentially infective propagules. Moisture manipulation through irrigation and drainage, or compaction of the soil can affect the activity of fungi. Poor drainage can encourage the growth of soil-borne water molds that cause root rot of some crops. Similarly, dense plantings create humid environments that encourage the growth of foliar fungi that cause leaf disease and mildews. 4. Mycorrhizae and their significance Mycorrhizae are mutualistc associations between plant roots and fungi. These beneficial symbioses are ubiquitous in nature and almost all plant species have some form of mycorrhizal association with fungi. Herbaceous and tree species, both deciduous and coniferous, are receptive to infection by mycorrhizal fungi. A few crop plants in the cabbage family (Brassicae) and goose-foot families (Chenopodiaceae) are less likely to be mycorrhizal except in very stressful environments low in soil fertility. The types of mycorrhizal fungi and the associations they form with roots are varied. These associations are classified as endotrophic (fungus inside roots) or ectotrophic (fungus outside the root forming a sheath of mycelium over the root surface). Still other associations in some forest trees are ectendotrophic or combinations of these types. Other forms exist such as the unique mycorrhizal association with Rhizoctonia-like fungi inside the roots of orchids. The endomycorrhizal fungi generally associated with the roots of agricultural crops are in the Class Zygomycetes to which the common black bread mold belongs. However, these fungi are obligate symbionts and cannot be cultivated outside the living roots of plants. Their colonization is internal to the root and cannot be seen without staining and microscopy. The common genera are Glomus and Gigaspora producing large, distinctive azygospores that can be wet sieved from the soil. These spore germinate in the presence on plant roots and infect the outer cortical cells. However, the cell is not killed and although the plant cell wall is penetrated the cell membrane is not disrupted. The endomycorrhizal fungus produces a highly branched hyphal structure called an arbuscule within the plant cell by invaginating its cell membrane. This infection creates an absorptive structure with a very high surface area of transfer for nutrients between the plant and the fungus. The plant usually has few root hairs in this area and the fungus provides the intimate contact with the soil through fine extraradical hyphae which extend several millimeters beyond the root. This extensive hyphal network enhances absorption of water and nutrients, particularly phosphorus, and promotes growth of the plant. In exchange for the phosphorus which is transferred to the plant, the fungus obtains sugars and other organics vital to its growth and reproduction. These exchanges have been verified by various histochemical studies and the use of nutrients labelled with radioisotopes. As the association begins to senesce, the fungus produces vesiculate storage bodies on and within the root cells and produces the distinctive asexual spores. Sexual reproduction has rarely been observed for these fungi. The ectomycorrhizal fungi are in the Class Basidiomycetes and Class Ascomycetes, the fungi that we usually identify as wild mushrooms in various forest environments. Genera such as Russula, Lactarius, Laccaria, Amanita, Boletus, and Tuber (truffle) or Cenococcum (false truffle) to name a few, are all ectomycorrhizal. They are facultative symbionts of the roots of forest trees and their colonization can seen with the naked eye. These fungi can be cultivated in the laboratory on special nutrient media. They have limited saprophytic abilities and prefer to grow in association with plant roots. The mutual benefits are similar to those described for the endomycorrhizae. The ectomycorrhizal fungus froms a sheath or mantle of densely packed hyphae on the surface of tree roots. This mantle is often black or brightly colored. The mantle is connected to highly branched hyphae that penetrate the root and grow between but not into the bost cells. This network of hyphae (hartig net) forms the absorptive structur that is the site of nutrient exchange. The sheath is connected to extraradical hyphae that permeate the soil and absorb water and nutrients for the ectomycorrhizal root. Other benefits of mycorrhizal associations that are of interest to plant pathologists include biological control and the various growth promotion effects that enhance establishment of plants in the field. Mycorrhizal roots are generally more drought tolerant. The general vigour of mycorrhizal plants makes them more tolerant of limited root loss due to diseases. Another mechanism of biocontrol by mycorrhizal fungi is the competiton for nutrients and space on the root against the pathogenic soilborne fungi. The ectomycorrhizal fungi have the added advantage of being able to produce antibiotic substances that inhibit the fungal pathogens. Prior colonization by mycorrhizal fungi may also stimulate the root to produce natural defensive wall structures and chemicals (chitinases and phytoalexins) that protect the root from attack by pathogens. The mycorrhizosphere (or area on and around the root of mycorrhizal roots) also contains communities of helpful microorganisms including fungi and bacteria that are anta onistic to pathogens and that solubilize nutrients such as rock phosphate. There is a great potential for the use of mycorrhizal fungi and associated microorganisms as inoculants especially in the production and protection of high-value greenhouse-grown crops or transplanted vegetable crops such as tomatoes and other bedding plants. The challenge is to produce the inoculum of endomycorrhizal fungi that cannot as yet be grown in artificial culture. Various stabilization and embedding or pelleting methods are being developed for coating seeds or inoculating potting media with root fragments and spores. These have been adapted from the technology used to develop Rhizobium inoculum for leguminous crops. Peat-based potting media with mycorrhizal inoculum are being developed in Canada by companies such as Premier Peat Moss (Riviere-du-Loupe, Quebec). The production of ectomycorrhizal inoculum for forest nurseries based on solid-substrate fermentation and amendment of potting media is well-underway in The United States of America and Australia. 5. Biological control of plant disease Biological control of plant disease is the suppression of disease symtoms and disease incidence by the application of a biological agent, usually a microorganism. It is welcomed as a safe and environmentally acceptable alternative to the use of chemical measures for disease control. Various mechanisms exist including the use of microbial antagonists that produce antibiotics or lytic enzymes, that compete for nutrients with the pathogen, that directly invade and kill the pathogen as hyperparasites, that invade and transmit viral avirulence (hypovirulence) factors, or that are non-pathogenic but trigger or stimulate natural defence mechanisms in the host (induced ressistance and cross protection). Another biological mechanism is the use of microbial agents to modify the chemical environment (allelopathic biocontrol) through the breakdown of organics in the soil to release antimicrobial compounds such as phenolics or to enhance the chelation of essential nutrients for the pathogen such as iron. Selection of previous or companion crops may affect the availability of these allelopathic compounds that bring about biological control. More than one mechanism may function at the same time in any biocontrol system. The desireable approach is to integrate biological controls with other control measure including limited chemical applications, culture practices (crop rotation, tillage, etc) and host resistance. This approach reduces the rate at which disease resistance can develop. In general, resistance to biological agents develops very slowly because of the complex control mechanism involving numerous biochemical systems and associated genes. Return to Top of Document Selected References: Allen, M.F. (Editor). 1992. Mycorrhizal Functioning: An Integrative Plant-Fungal Process. Chapman and Hall, London Altman, J.(Editor) 1993. Pesticide Interactions in Crop Production: Beneficial and Deleterious Effects. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL Carlile, M.J., and Watkinson, S.C. 1994. The Fungi. Academic Press, Inc. New York. Cook, R.J., and Baker, K.F. (2nd edition). 1983. The Nature and Practice of Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. The American Phytopathological Society Press, St Paul MN. Harley, J.L. and Smith, S.E. 1983. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. Academic Press, London. Jones, D.G. (Editor) 1993. Exploitation of Microorganisms. Chapman and Hall, London. Metting, F.B. Jr.(Editor). 1993. Soil Microbial Ecology: Applications in Agricultural and Environmental Management. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. Pfleger, F.L., and Linderman, R.G.(Editors) 1994. Mycorrhizae and Plant Health. American Phytopathological Society Press, St Paul, MN . OTHER RELATED WEB LINKS WFCC World Data Center for Microorganisms (WDCM) provides a comprehensive directory of culture collecions, databases on microbes and cell lines, and the gateway to biodiversity, molecular biology and genome projects. Try the STRAINS - fungi Search Interface California State University Biological Sciences WWW Server. The purpose of this server is to consolidate existing WWW Biological Science teaching and research resources and to create and distribute original multimedia resources for the teaching of biology. Try the FUNGI-related links Symptoms of Disease - Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Root Biology and Mycorrhiza Research Group, Department of Botany, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada Mycological Resources on the Internet - Cornell University
  • WFCC World Data Center for Microorga nisms (WDCM)
  • STRAINS - fung i Search Interface
  • California State University Biolog ical Sciences WWW Server
  • FUNGI-related links
  • Symptoms of Disease
  • Root Biology and Myc orrhiza Research Group
  • Mycological Resou rces on the Internet _________________________________________________________________ Last Revised: Thursday, August 10, 1995 From llengnic@asrr.arsusda.govThu Feb 23 20:14:00 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 17:22:21 -0500 (EST) From: llengnic@asrr.arsusda.gov To: sals@rain.org Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Org. N loss was Re:Soil Quality Attributes Thought I'd respond to your question about organic vs. conventional N sources. I did my PhD on exactly that question. So, while its only one project, in one location (central Pennsylvania), I did do a lit. review on the subject and found *no evidence* for the conventionally held point of view. In fact, there's been little research designed to test this theory. I think it is a reasonable idea that if mineralization occurs after crop harvest the nitrate is at risk for leaching losses, but there is little research out there that supports this argument. My research, in corn cropping systems, no till and till, alfalfa in rotation, dairy manure or ammonium nitrate supplying N, found no evidence that the organic sources of N increased N leaching risks. In fact, the corn following alfalfa treatment had lower fall soil nitrate levels than corn supplied the economic optimum rate of ammonium nitrate (and grain yields in these two treatments were the same and high - 10 Mg/ha on average all three years of the study). Guess I ought to get around to writing that up, huh?! The issue of taking land out of a pasture (ley) is different. Lots of nitrate can be released and lost in this case. But as you say, organic management is more than just *one* practice, and the *system* of covering the land all year helps to prevent N losses that may occur through mineralization of organic N during periods of no crop uptake. Reasons for no N mineralization after crop harvest in systems supplied with organic N? My best guess is that in Central Penn., fall is dry, crops have pulled all the moisture out of the soil, low microbial activity. Once precip. begins in Nov/Dec,soils too cold to support mineralization/nitrification. The project I was working in also directly measured N leaching in these systems with lysimeters at 1 meter depth (ie below corn rooting depth) and corroborate my findings. That work has continued at Penn State. The project is now 6 years old. By the way, the argument that your colleagues present is also strongly argued by British soil scientists....but I could find no studies to support the view in the British literature, either. Curious, isn't it? Laura From perkinsd@elwha.evergreen.eduThu Mar 30 22:49:21 1995 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 15:16:00 -0800 (PST) From: Diane Perkins To: "Georgann K. Cunney" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Biodynamic Farming Info? On Sun, 19 Mar 1995, Georgann K. Cunney wrote: > Howdy, > I'm new to this newsgroup. I'm interested in learning about Rudolf Steiner's, > Biodynamic Farming. Can any one tell me what it is about and its basic > principles? Who is practicing it, in what ways and where? > I would like to know web sites for any information about this, and also > sustainable agriculture. > Thanks > (eagerly waiting) > Georgann curious@aimnet.com ****************************************************************************** I suggest reading Wolf D. Storl's book "Culture and Horticulture" for a basic introduction to Biodynamic agriculture. Reading Rudolf Steiner's text "Agriculture" may be difficult as the first intro., but will be indispensable for a solid understanding. Before reading "Agriculture", you may find it helpful to read Steiner's book "To Know Higher Worlds". From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.govFri Mar 31 12:01:09 1995 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 10:12:43 -0500 (EST) From: jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov To: Diane Perkins Cc: "Georgann K. Cunney" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Biodynamic Farming Info? I concur with the earlier posting that suggested the article "Biological Dynamic Farming - An Occult Form of Alternative Agriculture." H. Kirchmann, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1994, 7(2) 17 3-187. The abstract states in part: "...(Steiner's) instructions were based on insights and inner visions from spiritualistic exercises and not on agricultural experiments... 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. It was concluded (in the article) that Steiner's instructions are occult and dogmatic and cannot contribute to the development of alternative or sustainable agriculture." Jonathan Haskett *************************************************** *************************************************** On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Diane Perkins wrote: > On Sun, 19 Mar 1995, Georgann K. Cunney wrote: > > Howdy, > > I'm new to this newsgroup. I'm interested in learning about Rudolf Steiner's, > > Biodynamic Farming. Can any one tell me what it is about and its basic > > principles? Who is practicing it, in what ways and where? > > I would like to know web sites for any information about this, and also > > sustainable agriculture. > > Thanks > > (eagerly waiting) > > Georgann curious@aimnet.com > ****************************************************************************** > I suggest reading Wolf D. Storl's book "Culture and Horticulture" for > a basic introduction to Biodynamic agriculture. Reading Rudolf Steiner's > text "Agriculture" may be difficult as the first intro., but will be > indispensable for a solid understanding. Before reading "Agriculture", > you may find it helpful to read Steiner's book "To Know Higher Worlds". > > From Valerie@stuart.ak.planet.co.nzFri Mar 31 21:22:03 1995 Date: Sat, 01 Apr 95 07:33:27 +1200 From: Valerie Cowperthwaite To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Re: Biodynamic Farming Info? In article , jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov writes: > > > I concur with the earlier posting that suggested the article > "Biological Dynamic Farming - An Occult Form of Alternative Agriculture." > H. Kirchmann, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1994, 7(2) > 17 3-187. The abstract states in part: > > "...(Steiner's) instructions were based on insights and inner visions > from spiritualistic exercises and not on agricultural experiments... > 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. It was concluded (in the article) that > Steiner's instructions are occult and dogmatic and cannot contribute > to the development of alternative or sustainable agriculture." > > Jonathan Haskett > 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. They are successful and sustainable. The farm I am involved with of 1,000 acres supports sheep, beef cattle and is involved in building up a sizeable dairy herd as a source for its planned milk products programme. They also run small scale pig and poultry operations, plus grazing for race and show horses. Commerical vegetable growing and an extensive tree raising and planting programme are also included. Other farmers are contributing in the areas of dairying particularly and biodynamic growers are successfully holding their own in citrus and avocado growing to name just the higher profile areas. One of our leading winemakers who consistently wins international gold medals also grows his grapes biodynamically. Pfeiffer's early work on microbes and composts gives the lie to the statement that there is no scientific basis for biodynamics as does the paper in Science April 1993 by Reganold et al showing the sustainability of biodynamics especially with regard to soil conservation. Our farm has also been the site of various other scientific investigations including work on the dung beetle, blow flies and fish farming - we have a unique mullet farm. I would not point anyone to Steiner's works as an introduction. The Biodynamic Farm by H.H. Koepf and the Coming Revolution in Agriculture by Dr Harold Willis offer more practical perspectives on biodynamic farming - there is some controversy in bd circles over Willis' view. Soper's book on gardening is also, as I remember, relatively free of the mystic elements. Kirchmann's conclusion reminds of a MAF scientist critical of biodynamics who featured in a TV programme on this topic - "Yes, well we see that it DOES work, but we don't see why it SHOULD work." So therefore it is dismissed! From wtvorley@iastate.eduMon Mar 20 23:18:01 1995 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 15:19:25 CST From: wtvorley@iastate.edu To: curious@aimnet.com Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Biodynamic Farming Info? One key reference for your investigation will be "Biological Dynamic Farming - An Occult Form of Alternative Agriculture?" by Holger Kirchmann, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1994 7(2) 173-187. Address for reprints: Dept. of Soil Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7014, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden. Best wishes> > > Howdy, > > I'm new to this newsgroup. I'm interested in learning about Rudolf Steiner's, > Biodynamic Farming. Can any one tell me what it is about and its basic > principles? Who is practicing it, in what ways and where? > > I would like to know web sites for any information about this, and also > sustainable agriculture. > > Thanks > > (eagerly waiting) > > Georgann curious@aimnet.com --- Bill Vorley wtvorley@iastate.edu Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 3216 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames IA Tel. (515) 294 7853, Fax. (515) 294 9696 From KDRAEGER@ins.infonet.netThu Feb 23 20:31:12 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 17:32:45 EST From: Kathy Draeger To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: More on microbes... On the subject of where to get soil microbes-- I want to mention one very important bacteria. The legume soil benefit comes from the symbiosis with the soil bacteria rhizobia (general name). I planted a few acres last year and used about 16 different legumes and inoculated all the seed with the very specific rhizobia species. This is not an endorsement but.... I used Nitragin Brand Inoculants and also inoculants that arrived with my legume seeds from a very helpful company called Wildlife Nurseries, Inc. The bacteria advantage is used with a lot of our crops-- soybeans, alfalfa, clovers, etc... Nowadays in the Midwest our soils have been inoculated enough that we don't inoculate soybeans every time we plant them. The "bugs" are in the soil and doing quite well without our help thank you. But for those legumes that haven't been grown in a certain area or at least not for a long time (like the native legumes I was planting) adding rhizobia to the seeds and the soil is really great for plant growth and soil quality in the long run. Kathy Sustainability International Addressing environmental and agricultural issues, techncially and socially (712) 948-3227 2111 200th Street, Bronson, IA 51007 From sals@rain.orgThu Feb 23 19:45:50 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 09:20:37 -0800 (PST) From: Sal Schettino To: jmayerna@nmsu.edu Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: (Reply) Hot Sandy Soil I get my microbes from Petrik Laboratories 916-666-1157 fax 916-661-0489 and its been organic on CCOF cal.certified organic farmers list for years. I have put it out every year for over 8 years. A lot in the beginning to bring my land back to life and smaller amounts now. It has speeded up the natural process and made living soil a lot faster than nature could. A lot of farmer have killed off there lands life because they wanted only good production for today so adding microbes in my mind really helped me out. tHE problem some have is that there are no Microbes . You need them for substaniable ag. Essential plant nutrients are converted and released to crops,microbes are actively fixing nitrogen from air,they are active in decomposing cellulose,they are decomposing and mineralizing humates, they are mineralizing organic compounds of phosphorus and nitrifying microbes are active in promoting mineralization of humus. All crop residues should be recycled to the soil and microbes help decompose them. The thing I can see it and feel is that Microbes improves tilth . People have been using Microbes as compost starter I use it as a biofertillizer for imporveing the soil structure and assuring a balance in soil metabolism,with the production of stable humus. I feel the biological functions occuring in the soil are critical to maintaining a health,fertle soil. I wounder if there is much work going on researching Microbes. They use to laugh about it now I think they are taking a second look at it. I heard of EM in Japan and Cuba is doing some work there. In the olden days I heard they use to have to plant peaches they brought out west to Cal. with the soil from back home and those that didn't they lost their trees because there were not the microorganisms need for growth. You can add microbes just by take soil from a healthy tree and moving some to a place that has none. I love that rhizospheric microbial population. My understanding is that they take soil from a healthy place and take out the microbes from that soil and give them a life that leads them to grow fast and then they put back with a high Aerobic count and Anaerobic count,yeast count and etc. Its living so you are using a living thing so I guess they have to get just the right Microbe combo. I don't know how it works but It works for me. They need mosture. So I feel if you have water you can make Hot sandy soil good live soil with time. Microbes I feel will help to brake up compacted soil also. I have see my ground turn from something so hard I thought I needed a jackhammer now its like you springs on your feet. Sal Schettino,Organic Farmer,don't panic eat organic,sals@rain.org or check out my homepage: http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html From ddale@cce.cornell.eduThu Apr 6 11:38:26 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 gzehnder@acenet.auburn.eduWed Apr 12 12:42:10 1995 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 08:17:58 -0900 (PDT) From: Geoff Zehnder To: Charles Benbrook Cc: sanet , benbrook@hillnet.com Subject: Re: Joel Grossman's Excellent Post Another possible explanation for reduced effectiveness of fumigants/soil pesticides over time is the phenomenon of enhanced pesticide biodegradation. This is the accelerated dissipation of a chemical from soil after repeated exposure of the soil to that chemical. The cause is an increase in the population of microorganisms that use the chemical as a nutrient or carbon source. A good review of this topic was written by A.S. Felsot, 1989. (Enhanced biodegradation of insecticides in soil: implications for agroecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology: 34:453-476) On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Charles Benbrook wrote: > Geez, SANET has had some really good posts lately. Joel -- thanks for > adding some important details to discussion of disease suppressive > soils. I too have looked long and hard through the literature in about > 20 disciplines, talked to many experts, spent lots of time with farmers > who know the difference between a disease suppressive soil and one which > just does not seem able to slow down nematodes and pathogens. > My research/contacts lead me to a plausible explanation of why > the unfumigated trees catch up with the fumigated ones. Scientists have > now documented at several levels, in many crops, a phenomenon called > systemic acquired resistance. This is the mechanism whereby a plant > attains a strong, or high degree of capacity to express its inherent > potential immune response, its ability to withstand or overcome pest or > stress attacks. Systemic acquired resistance (SAR) is sort of like a > mammals response to allergy shots; to "work", or to happen, a plant must > be exposed to some level of a pathogen early in its growth, when its > immune system is, in effect, being turned on and stretching to > accomodate, as best it can, the threats it thinks it will encounter in > its environment. A plant or tree's immune response is, in effect, fully > formed after it goes through early maturation. If the plant/tree is not > subjected to a pathogen when its immune system is "growing", or gaining > the capacity to "kick in" in response to particular pathogen pressure, it > will never be fully able. It is a "need it early and use it early, > or lose the capacity to develop it" phenomenon. This much we know. > So, my guess is that plants/trees growing up in fumigated soils > are not exposed to the low levels of pathogen attack needed to stimulate > SAR. Hence such plants may grow well early on in the abscence of pest > pressure, but later on when they SHOULD NATURALLY BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND a > degree of pressure, they are immunological weaklings, having lacked the > chance to "grow up with" the pathogens that are a normal part of their > environment. > I have some other more cmplex ideas/theories about mechanisms > through which SAR is triggered, and how different management systems > affect it, but this is not the time or place. Anybody encountered such > an explanation before? Bob Goodman at Univ. Wisconsin plant path. dept, > Joseph Kuc at Kentucky are two of the brightest, most broadly > knowledgeful people on SAR and farming systems. Several excellent papers > have been published in Science and elsewhere describing the mechanism. > It is fascinating science, and lies at the heart of disease suppressive > soils. My guess is that the capacity of a soil to suppress disease has > as much to do with how soil microorganisms trigger plant physiological > processes, especially SAR, as it does about microbial biocontrol of plant > pathogens. >