Thank you all for keeping the discussion so civil. It is appreciated!
Jeff the moderator
Plant A Row For The Hungry...and read "TEAMING WITH MICROBES: THE ORGANIC G=
ARDENER'S GUIDE TO THE SOIL FOOD WEB."
On Oct 10, 2011, at 8:20 AM, "evanfolds" <evan_at_progressearth.com> wrote:
> Tad, I agree with most of what you said. Let me say first that BioDynamic=
farming is not a panacea. In fact, to me as well, it relates a lot to reli=
gion. You can take some good from it, but don't dare take it all. If you re=
ad what Steiner said he never intended the methods he brought forward to be=
turned into gospel. He described what he offered as the beginning, not the=
end. He was far more humble in his approach than most realize. It is the d=
ogma created afterwords that muddy's the water and dilutes the message.
>
> Not to get religious, the same thing happened to Jesus if you consider it=
objectively. He never taught to create a church, the people who desired po=
wer did this as a means of control, in my humble view. I say this having gr=
own up being fed views by well meaning people who knew far less about what =
they say than they know.
>
> The same was true with Steiner. You should read some of his lectures. Sta=
rt with The Agriculture Course and read his lectures on Bee's as well. He p=
redicted Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) almost 100 years ago. He gave over =
4000 lectures in his life toughing on almost every facet of human society. =
If anything, they are fascinating. He didn't really write books, he gave le=
ctures. To read the things he said are inspiring and broaden the scope of w=
hat we call "science" into a form of spiritual science.
>
> This, as I see it, is the point. By no means am I suggesting we anandon m=
odern materialistic science. Simply that we view it through a perspective t=
hat allows for subjective experience and results. Too many of us throw the =
baby out with the bathwater by discounting what cannot be "proven".
>
> The references to conducting excersizes at specific times of year are act=
ually crucial. We know this from sowing by the moon. The moon's affects are=
not gravity. If it was, plants would be growing down. If the moon has supe=
rsensible affects on plants, why not other celestial bodies?
>
> Think about it. There is no two snowflakes or people that are the same. T=
his is because there are no two places in time on Earth that are exactly th=
e same. Even identical twins are not identical. We tend to think materialis=
tically about DNA because we can make images and ponder its structure. But =
we don't know it. The same way we don't know water molecules, or atoms, or =
magnetism, or electricity. We know how to use them. The energies associated=
with the birth of a snowflake, or your own birth, define who you are. This=
is the relevance behind astrology and how it can be so uncanny.
>
> The time and place you are conceived and born affect you, in the same way=
it does to the farming activites you perform during certain times of the c=
elestial year. The Earth breathes in and out during the seasons. It has tel=
luric energies, evidenced by dowsing, lay lines, or the aurora borealis. On=
e can grow plants without considering these realities, but I would suggest =
one can grow better plants by paying attention to them.
>
> We also know this through the idea of holidays, though many have been hij=
acked by religion in an objective view. Take the idea of the Mayan Calendar=
. I like to call it the ancient calendar, as civilizations have used it sin=
ce time immemorial. It is not ironic that the Mayan's used the Gregorian ca=
lendar we use only to collect taxes. Especially considering the revolt we a=
re seeing towards these econopmic impulses right now with the occupy moveme=
nt. A group just started in my town. It is spreading and in my view a precu=
rsor to a great change in how our society is organized and interacts with i=
tself.
>
> Consider that the Gregorian calendar that follows the sun materialistical=
ly through the sky was adopted by the Catholic Church at Constantinople whe=
n they canonized the Bible. After this point, greater society did not have =
access ot the impulses that guided society up to that point. Back then, whe=
n they burned 100 books that was all that was left of the evidence. When th=
e powers that be replaced this with dogma, this was an almost unknoweably p=
owerful phenoemenon. Read the book The Alphabet Versus the Goddeess, by Leo=
nard Shlain for further confirmation of this regarding the transformative p=
ower of the written word. Again, the powers that be may have been well mean=
ing but misguided at best, but this is a form of control and conditioning t=
hat we collectively do not allow ourselves to recognize. We get diluted by =
Hollywood movies and teh repetition of December 21st, 2012. You may be inte=
rested to know that the people who have studied the ancient calendars most =
closely use the date October 28, 2011 as teh end of the calendar. This is n=
ot to suggest the world will end, this is merely what allows people to disc=
ount it, what it does mean is that teh Earth is passing through a energetic=
reality it has not experienced in 26,000 years. This may not be the place =
to extrapolate on the evidence here, but it's worth a look.
>
> The ancient calendar has been snakeoiled by people who wish to sit back a=
nd watch the world like its a movie. They miss the point. Read Carl Callema=
ns' work on the calendars. He associates major transitions in history to th=
e impulse of energy associated with ancient calendars. Things one would not=
notice simply following the sun through the sky. I see this relativing dir=
ectly to the thread of conversation here, as it is a variable kept complete=
ly seperate from reductionist science.
>
> In regards to your diffuser/air lift analysis, I wouldn't disagree with y=
our assesment of diffusers increasing DO. I am not aware of the science you=
refer too, but I have personally witnessed a vortex enhancing DO amounts m=
any times relative to the same pump and volume of air using a diffuser.
>
> I digress in regards to DO, you may be right about enhancing a stream wit=
h DO. I would suggest that there are other ways to consider what a vortex d=
oes to water as opposed to increasing DO. There is a balance to what Nature=
does that is beyond my ability to articulate in proof here. The structures=
of water that manifest when we allow water to circulate, as opposed to bei=
ng contained and forced to do the things we want it to needs to be consider=
ed. What happens to a river when it is straightened? All sorts of things do=
mino - decrease DO, erosion, and general degredation. Research the Danube a=
nd Rhine in Europe after they were straightened.
>
> In other words, it very well could be that supersaturating water with air=
via diffusion and the increase in surface area could be counterproductive =
to biological growth. I agree that DO is an adequate way of relating availa=
ble air to microbes, but consider the concept of brix. High brix can indica=
te plant health, but it can also be misleading. The same is true with "orga=
nic" agriculture, I agree with you there.
>
> Further, we forget that air is much more than DO. In fact, almost 80% of =
air is nitrogen. In the same way humans supplement their health with pharma=
ceuticals, we supplement our plants with nitrates. We all know that this is=
not necessary with a properly balanced and living soil. It would be intere=
sting to test differnet concentrations of air on biological growth, like is=
done with CO2 in grow rooms. Read Hauschka's book called The Nature of Mat=
ter for a more in depth analysis of the componeents of air and the secret o=
f nitrogen in living systems.
>
> I use the worm casting analogy as well. In regards to the chicken and cal=
cium, eating calcium does not define a chickens ability to produce an egg. =
Read Kevran's book called Biological Transmutation for more specific info. =
Here's some info:
http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch5.htm
>
> It is the same with osteoporosis. Poor women out there are told to eat mo=
re calcium when the forms of calcium ingested are not necessarily bioavaila=
ble. It has been shown in many instances that eating more calcium makes the=
problem worse. Nature does not work as directly as we would like it to. Th=
is doesn't make our direct investigations irrelevant, but in my view it doe=
sn't make the entire story.
>
> Evan
> www.VortexBrewer.com/microbe
>
> --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, Tad Hussey <tadhussey_at_...> wrote:
> >
> > Evan,
> >
> > To me the main benefits of biodynamic farming are not mysterious at all=
, though many of the concepts are not currently supported by science. Ã=
‚ The biodynamic farmer puts in dramatically more time and energy into th=
eir land, and all of the biodynamic preps are basically good microbial food=
s. Â They pay attention to their land, and I think this is the main be=
nefit.
> >
> > Sure, there's no air diffusers or air lifts in a stream, it's a man-mad=
e invention but I don't think this proves a point. Â If you were to pu=
t one in with an air pump, the stream would have higher DO. Â Vortexes=
exist in Nature. They raise DO levels. Â Do they do it as efficiently=
as an air lift? Â Not according to science.
> >
> > I don't necessarily feel that biodynamics is better than organics as a =
concept, though in practice this is probably the case. Â Many of the c=
ommercial organic farms are hardly better than their conventional counterpa=
rts. Â I believe that sustainability and buying local are the more imp=
ortant steps towards fixing our food system. Â I do think there are so=
me wonderful sustainable organic farms that would rival any biodymanic farm=
s, like Joel Salatin's farm in Omnivore's Dilemma for example, which he ref=
ers to as "beyond organic."
> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-04-21-polyface-far=
ms_N.htm
> >
> >
> > I struggle a bit with biodynamics from a rational point of view in the =
same way I struggle with religion to a certain extent. Â Steiner says =
to do these mysterious preps at special times of the year and claims that t=
hey have certain potency and energy. Â As a gardener/farmer, you're as=
ked to accept these things at face value because science can't measure ever=
ything. Â Why aren't there more studies relating to biodynamics or pro=
perties of water? Â Now are the plants happy due to some magical prope=
rties, or the fact that for the most part there's good organic practices go=
ing on (compost, mulching, minerals, etc...)? Â I don't see anything s=
pecial under the microscope when I look at a tea from a vortex brewer vs a =
more conventional design, and typically a vortex will have a lower DO unles=
s an airlift or diffuser is incorporated. Â But I'm supposed to accept=
that a vortex is better because it changes the properties of the water and=
imparts energy that we
> > have no way of measuring? Â All of the word of Steiner? Â I d=
o love the look of a vortex brewer though, it is much more aesthetically pl=
easing.
> >
> > I don't want you to take this the wrong way. Â I really respect bi=
odynamic farmers, and I think the produce they produce is truly first class=
. Â I just wish there was more evidence to support the more non-conven=
tional ideas that biodynamics promotes. Â I'm not saying it's wrong, I=
'm just saying that some of it makes zero sense to me from a rational point=
of view and I wish I could get an answer that didn't involve me having bli=
nd faith (which is ironic because I do consider myself Christian). Â M=
aybe I need to do more research, or you can point me in the right direction=
.
> >
> > As a compost tea brewing industry though, I do think it's important tha=
t we rely on science as a foundation of our basic practices and beliefs. =
 I think ACT still gets a horrible rap, and we come across as snake o=
il salesmen to many people. Â Consistent brewing using high quality co=
mpost, a good brewer design (vortex or not), proper nutrient inputs (microb=
ial foods), and direct microscopy to evaluate the tea is very important. =
 I think it's the only way we will ever gain legitimacy as an industr=
y, both as applicators and brewer manufacturers. Â There is so much we=
've already learned about aerated compost teas in the last decade, such as =
proper micron size (400), desired brewing lengths (typically 24-36 hours), =
minimum dissolved oxygen levels (6mg/l), optimal temps (68F-70F), how fish =
hydrolysate effects a finished tea, and much much more. Â I hope we ca=
n continue to promote good knowledge and experimentation as we learn more a=
nd more about ACT and the
> > relationship between microbes and plants.
> >
> > Tad
> > www.kisorganics.com
> >
> > PS: Â I have chickens so I was curious about your calcium comment.=
 Wasn't able to find anything online about how chickens produce eggs=
with low levels of calcium. Â Everything I could find supported the l=
atter conclusion. Â I have to feed my chickens a high calcium diet if =
I want good eggs that won't crack or have soft shells. Â You may find =
this link interesting:
> >
> > http://www.afn.org/~poultry/flkman4.htm
> >
> >
> > I have yet to read anything that fully explains how worms convert nutri=
ents, which would be a good analogy to your previous post. Â :)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: evanfolds <evan_at_...>
> > To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 7:39 PM
> > Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Vortex Brewing Question
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Stephen, have you ever buried a cow horn and/or utilized what is create=
d within it on your garden or farm? You should try it.
> >
> > The horn is actually buried using cow manure to create BD500 and quartz=
to make BD501. The plants and herbs (BD502-508) are created using other me=
ans. BD500 is buried during the winter months when the Earth is breathing i=
n, and BD501 is buried during the summer months when the Earth is breathing=
out. If you dig around there is long term research that confirms the benef=
its of this approach. Here's one. It's interesting to note the data on stor=
age losses, which is an indirect association of nutrient density:
http://ww=
w.jdb.se/sbfi/publ/boston/boston7.html
> >
> > Here's another: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/sorec/sites/default/fi=
les/comparison.pdf
> >
> > Not to mention all the vineyards that use these methods. There is no gr=
oup of farmers that pay closer attention to their crops than in viticulture=
. To me, this is a good mainstream indication that it works.
> >
> > I've seen some pretty amazing results in personal gardens as well. The =
direct benefits really depend on the relative deficiencies in the garden. I=
t seems to fill in the blanks. We call this approach BioEnergetic farming.=
> >
> > Healthy soil is physically, minerally, biologically, and energetically =
balanced, like four legs of a chair. If one is left out it cannot stand. "O=
rganics", while better than conventional, is only the materialsitic end of =
natural farming. BioEnergetics addresses all four components.
> >
> > Evan
> > www.VortexBrewer.com/microbe
> >
> > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Steyn" <ssteyn_at_> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Tim;
> > >
> > > What I was asking about was those things not easily researched, but c=
laimed
> > > nevertheless by people selling the idea.
> > >
> > > Like Steiner's concepts, like putting a concoction of weeds in a cows=
horn
> > > and burying it on a full moon evening in a manure pile, muttering str=
ange
> > > words and then diluting it 6000 times and still be left with a concen=
trate.
> > >
> > > You know what I mean?
> > >
> > > The vortex is mean to imbue the water with special properties which s=
cience
> > > cannot measure, yet they confer certain properties on the plants when
> > > watered.
> > >
> > > SS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com=
] On
> > > Behalf Of Tim Wilson
> > > Sent: 08 October 2011 18:26
> > > To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Vortex Brewing Question
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hey Stephen;
> > >
> > > That is why the air pump needs to be matched with the volume of water=
and
> > > pipe diameter.
> > >
> > > I'm not exactly sure what you are asking concerning vortexes. From my
> > > standpoint a vortex is great for creating a thorough mix with no dead=
zones.
> > > There may be some other unknown aspects to what it does to water stru=
cture
> > > but that is not something I know anything about and not something eas=
ily
> > > researched (AFAIK).
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.=
com> ,
> > > "Stephen Steyn" <ssteyn_at_> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tim;
> > > >
> > > > Maybe, depending on the characteristics of the pump, one need not h=
ave the
> > > > diffuser at the bottom of the riser, but partway up the riser. My r=
eason
> > > for
> > > > adding this is that some pumps quickly run out of volume as the
> > > backpressure
> > > > increases - until eventually all you are creating is heat with mini=
mal
> > > flow.
> > > >
> > > > Tim, I still worry about the advantages of the Vortex route. What a=
re your
> > > > gut feelings or findings in this regard?
> > > >
> > > > SS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups=
.com>
> > > [mailto:compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups=
.com> ]
> > > On
> > > > Behalf Of Tim Wilson
> > > > Sent: 08 October 2011 03:05
> > > > To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.c=
om>
> > > > Subject: [compost_tea] Re: Vortex Brewing Question
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm replying to my own post to keep the information under the corre=
ct
> > > > heading. I wish to point out that in Evan's post under wood chunks =
in
> > > > compost he addressed what I said concerning vortexes but seemed to =
have
> > > > missed the point I made stating that a vortex can be created in mor=
e
> > > simple
> > > > fashion using only one riser and return pipe. The water is still al=
lowed
> > > to
> > > > take the vortex path which it yearns to and this can be adjusted as=
to
> > > > direction and intensity by simply twisting the elbows on the PVC pi=
pe.
> > > >
> > > > There may be a possibility even probability that a vortex increases=
the
> > > > dissolved oxygen (DO2) in water negligibly, however in this situati=
on,
> > > > scientifically, applying physics, the DO2 is increased via the use =
of air
> > > > lift(s). Actually up to 10 times.
> > > >
> > > > Concerning the use of diffusers, it has been measured by some scien=
ce guys
> > > > and by me that by using a diffuser at the base of the airlift riser=
pipe
> > > one
> > > > can considerably multiply the DO2, over using no diffusers at all. =
I have
> > > > posted a couple of papers outlining some studies on airlifts in the=
files
> > > > section. One details some of the math employed, the other is not gr=
eat but
> > > > does mention the diffuser issue. They will probably both make your =
eyes
> > > > glaze over but this is part of what I went through determining my a=
ir lift
> > > > diffusion chamber.
> > > >
> > > > I have posted some photos of efforts of some of my students to buil=
d
> > > simple,
> > > > relatively inexpensive airlift [one is super super cheap $10] and v=
ortex
> > > > brewers using only one airlift and riser/return pipe. As you can se=
e there
> > > > is an acceptable vortex created. They have reported outstanding res=
ults to
> > > > me with their gardens but I'm not one to count on testimonials. Who=
knows
> > > > what they are comparing it to?
> > > >
> > > > Just so you know, with my advice, they have all switched the air in=
put to
> > > > the horizontal instead of under the riser pipe.
> > > >
> > > > One needs to fiddle [or do the math] to get the correct diameter pi=
pe for
> > > > the pump. EG. I just ran some trials using 3/4 inch, 1 inch and 1.2=
5 inch
> > > > pipe with the same pump. The 1 inch and 1.25 inch created an identi=
cal
> > > flow
> > > > but the turbulence was greater with 1 inch and the flow was greatly
> > > reduced
> > > > with the 3/4 inch. Go figure.
> > > >
> > > > Salutations,
> > > > Tim
> > > > Get a duck
> > > >
> > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroup=
s.com>
> > > <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > > "Tim Wilson" <thegoodjob_at_> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You can generally follow the instructions to building a vortex br=
ewer
> > > but
> > > > save yourself a lot of extra effort by using only one riser pipe. N=
ot only
> > > > is the vortex pholosophy subjectively questionable but you can obta=
in a
> > > > pretty good vortex with one pipe anyway. Do some research a think a=
bout
> > > it.
> > > > > http://www.microbeorganics.com/#So_You_Wanna_Build_A_Compost_Tea_=
Brewer
> > > > > BTW, sure you can dump the compost right into the water, so long =
as it
> > > > does not have big chunks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Salutations,
> > > > > Tim
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:compost_tea%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > , "somydi" <somydi_at_> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am new to brewing and in my research on making a 5 gallon tea
> > > brewer,
> > > > I am thinking of making a vortex type. The only information I am no=
t sure
> > > > about is if I should contain the compost in a bag or let it cycle t=
hrough
> > > > the brewer. If I let it cycle then I will need to think about pipe =
sizing?
> > > > Having read so much on the benefits of compost tea, I am looking fo=
rward
> > > to
> > > > making my own so any helpful ideas will be welcomed.
> > > > > > -John
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Received on Mon Oct 10 2011 - 16:43:26 EDT