>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:25:38 -0800
>From: Greg Willis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Accept-Language: en
>To: Allan Balliett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Radionics (Drought update)
>
>Hugh Lovel said:
>
>Somehow rotational grazing and compost tea has slipped past all the
>censors
>I'm aware of but I'm not so sure about paramagnetics, water
>restructuring,
>cloudbusting, weather patterning, etc.
>
>What I'm saying is we can't use the term BD or biodynamic to indicate a
>complete system way of thinking because the "owners" of these terms
>aren't
>all-embracing enough to let such a thing happen. We may use these terms
>as
>all-embracing on our own behalf, but somewhere along the line we will
>run
>into flak for it. This gives an appearance to outsiders that, yes, BD is
>a
>somewhat narrow cult, and how many are willing to submit to passing the
>litmus tests for BD certification when these tests are to say the very
>least arcane? Do you pass the tests in NZ? I don't pass the tests here
>in
>the states, I assure you. Shucks. BD has ended up with some
>all-embracing
>folks involved in it, I think because one has to be pretty all-embracing
>to
>get to BD. But as it stands I think the die-hard BD organizations will
>never be all-embracing.
>
>Dear Hugh,
>
>You make strong points. If I may, let me give my take on this issue of
>what is and isn't "biodynamic". In my view, after having read and
>reread the Ag. Course for so many years, I think it is clear that when
>all is distilled out of it, the remedies are the essence of "biodynamic"
>agriculture.
>
>Consider that one can do all the other practices that are ascribed to
>"biodynamic", one can do all the other practices that biodynamics
>organizations claim is "biodynamic" but without the remedies, there
>simply is no "biodynamic" agriculture.
>
>Everything else is "organic" or "conventional", in both the narrowest
>and broadest sense of the terms.
>
>I find it annoying when some "biodynamic" guy claims that, for example,
>companion planting is "biodynamic". That's nonsense. Companion
>planting existed long before 1932 when the term "biodynamic" was
>created. You can go through the entire list of what is and isn't
>"biodynamic" and NONE of it is in the Ag. Course.
>
>So I would say that the one and only criterion to be "biodynamic" is to
>use the nine Steiner remedies. Everything else is bells and whistles
>added on. So if you do that, and you want to call yourself
>"biodynamic", you would be absolutely correct. Of course, "biodynamic"
>is trademarked so you can't call yourself that anyway without the
>approval of Demeter and everybody knows where I stand on them. Oh well.
>
>Greg
