Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Dieter Brand <diebrand@yahoo.com>]

David,

 

Thanks for putting that right! You are correct about the significance

of the respective dates; 1924 and 1945. I guess, I simplified things

a little for the sake of presenting my argument. Nice to know someone

pays attention.

 

As I said, I don't know much about biodynamics. My father in-law

used to practice it in his garden, and there have always been numerous

gardeners and farmers in central Europe who did not see themselves

as part of the biodynamic tradition, but who still use traditional practices

like herbal brews or who consider moon phases or other cosmic

influences to be of importance. I think, a movement like that cannot

be reduced to a single person or a series of lectures. The more

esoteric elements are not everybody's cup of tee, but I do believe

that there are many gardeners and farmers following the

biodynamic tradition who make a great contribution to healing

the soil and growing healthy food. And if there is something in

biodynamics that can make my carrots grow better, I'll be dammed

if I don't use it.

 

Dieter Brand

Portugal

David Inglis <mhcsa@verizon.net> wrote:

> >They
> >did, however, start by giving Steiner a write off to establish Howard
> >as the father of all organics. It doesn't really matter either way,
> >but if people make this sort statement they at least ought to 
> >present the facts. Steiner gave his lectures in 1924, which picked
> >up on traditional methods still in practice at the time. And even
> >though I don't practice
>  biodynamics, I recognize his merit for
> >presenting an organic alternative to farmers at a time when 
> >agro-chemistry was considered the only way to go and anybody 
> >who did not use synthetic fertilizers was considered a backward 
> >peasant. Howard, who published his Testament in the US in 1945, 
> >is a great guy. And there were probably many, contemporary or 
> >since, who deserve equal praise.
>
> Dieter,
> You make a good point about Steiner and Howard but there is more to say I
> think.
> While I agree with you that the 'who came first?' question is not important
> compared to other issues, as you say, the facts should be right. Also the
> comparison of how the two men worked is illuminating. It used to be far more
> common for the two 'camps' to deride each other but as the best practices of
> both have been absorbed by the other it has become less of an issue. While
> the original mild hostility was mutual it is unfortunate
>  that Howard chose
> to question, in print, the long term prospects of BD. However this
> questioning, I think, would have been welcomed by Steiner but was not by his
> followers. Ah well.
>
> Steiner gave his lectures in '24 but they were a closely guarded secret for
> many years until the 'indications' had been worked out in practice. They
> were only published later because inaccurate renderings were circulating but
> by then there were numerous examples of working farms in operation. There
> were only a few numbered copies that were in private circulation up until
> then.
> The '45 publication of Howard's seminal book was the end process of a
> lifetime of public research, experimentation and practical application and
> the bulk of his work was done prior to the BD lectures being given.
> Howard was a botanist and Agriculturalist that worked his whole lifetime on
> these issues from within the mainstream Agricultural research structure.
> Steiner's
>  considerable contribution to Agriculture was only a small part of
> his activities and were derived from an entirely different source[ his
> knowledge of peasant wisdom combined with his 'spiritual' insight ie more
> like a Shamen {a very middle European one}than a boff ].
> While much of what became BioDynamics has been proven to be effective, at
> the time it was not proven and it is not surprising to me that it was
> greeted with some skepticism. BD makes for some mighty strange study at
> times, especially when not backed by examples, and I say that as someone
> with a BioDynamic training.
> My own sense is that the potential of neither Steiner's or Howard's approach
> has been fully realized and that they will again become more relevant as the
> resource infrastructure becomes unstable.
> Good luck to you Dieter, I like your inclusive thinking.
> Dave
> Mahaiwe Harvest
>  CSA
> Mass.
> Z5
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Livingontheland mailing list
> Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.