Bryant RedHawk wrote:hau Xisca,
For a person who is aware of the things you talk about, this thread would simply show another method of achieving the end products (the preparations and use of them).
For a person who doesn't have such a good understanding, this thread may help them have that lightbulb click on and that could be good for them.
It is very true that most of the scientific world does not choose to recognize the other parts of the human inner trinity.
Angelika Maier wrote:Awesome thread! Back to the biodynamics: Bryant, you say the effects of biodynamics is similar to Ingham's methods - increasing the life in the soil. But istn't there a huge difference in the quantities used? I once bought a preparation 501 and there is about a heaped teaspoon use in a bucket of water for the whole garden, doesn't compost tea use much more? So there should be much more bacteria added than with the preparations?? In the very beginning of the thread you mention a teaspoon of silica for a whole area isn't silica a common element? Why would that work?
And the other question is did you test the 'pure' Steiner preparation against your version of it growing something or did you only try you version at once? And did you compare Inghams's 'preparations' vs Stiener preparations in the garden?
My opinion is that Steiner was not using mystical justification, but was using a certain language when he lacked the scientific explanation for his feelings and intuitions.
I was also asking if non-ruminants manure gives the same result.
Also I can add that I do not know if I can bury my guinea pig manure - also dead animals - and down to what max depth, to help microorganism to thrive.
Angelika Maier wrote: Why a whole animal anaerobic? We buried a whole dead chicken and it went very quickly.
Bryant RedHawk wrote:Rudolf did not ever organize a school where his methods were taught, so any reference to a Steiner School is not accurate, they should be called Steiner Method Schools or something similar to that.
In the early 1920s, a group of practicing farmers, concerned with the decline in the health of soils, plants and animals, sought the advice of Rudolf Steiner, founder of anthroposophy, who had spent all his life researching and investigating the subtle forces within nature. From a series of lectures and conversations held at Koberwitz, Germany (now in Poland) in June 1924, there emerged the fundamental principles of biodynamic farming and gardening, a unified approach to agriculture that relates the ecology of the farm-organism to that of the entire cosmos. This approach has been under development in many parts of the world ever since. Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, who worked with Dr. Steiner during the formative period, brought biodynamic concepts to the United States in the 1930s. It was during this period that the Biodynamic Association was founded in 1938.
Lee Kochel wrote:I am extremely interested in this forum entry. I have some additional questions. Would any source of manure work or does it have to come from a herbivore? Are you suggesting that spraying a dilute aqueous solution of DE on the garden would give a lot of the advantages of using these horn preparations? Also, you reference the similarity of your concepts with Elaine Ingham's; yet you seem to imply that the effect of these horn preparations is to significantly increase the bacteria in the soil, whereas, Elaine constantly references having a significant quantity (often about =) of fungi AND an adequate supply of predators of these microorganisms. So, did you mean bacteria or were you using bacteria as shorthand for the other critters as well? If you meant to say just bacteria, how do you explain the significantly increased plant results? Do you think that you could get the same results by adding garden soil to the mixture and then just burying the combined mixture in a cardboard container in a slow compost pile? Thanks.
One more question. You suggest that one of the preparations produces a lot of humus. Another prominent agriculturist, John Kempf, strongly asserts that humus is the result of the repeated digestion of fats by fungi until it cannot be digested any more. Do you see any evidence for this or would you posit another mechanism? Thanks again.
Dita Vizoso wrote:Deep thanks to Redhawk for getting some data on this and taking the time to shed some light onto Steiner's work and context.
I haven't been so bothered about the spiritual side of biodynamics--if the farmer is happy / enlightened / atuned / whatever while doing their stuff it certainly won't harm the plants, and growing is also about the fun, at least in my permaworld. What bothers me is that, as with many teachings that end up going in the direction of a religion or philosophy, we lose the ecological context. What works for the soils in the Rhein basin, continental Europe or the Alps--or wherever Steiner actually came up with the preparations--of the early 1900s could very likely be quite different from whatever works in a different place and time. Understanding the processes behind the myths liberates the wisdom, making it accessible to other ecologies.
The use of animal parts worked great in those farms of central Europe, where dead cattle was a given, and, at a time when de-horning was a general practice, these recipes made good use of a resource that would otherwise become a waste. But, to me, importing cow horns just to be "true" to the original sounds like not the best ecological practice, no matter how biodynamically grown those cows were.
Funnily enough, one of the principles of biodynamic agriculture is flexibility: every farm being unique and different, requiring a lot of observation and individually designed amendments. So, I find it rather puzzling that the preparations have been so inflexible. I guess that comes from that lack of understanding of the processes, and perhaps a certain lazyness from the users and the original teachers... something like "just do it like this, and stop asking all those questions".
I look forward to that book!