Hi David I have posted below from Kolisko's - kind of a summing up of the experiments and also an interesting snip from Alex Podolinsky's book and my response to some of your questions re the wizards workshop From: D & S Chamberlain > > At the wizards workshop it was stressed by some speakers that homeopathic > applications of lime had to be backed up by actually physically spreading > lime, I pushed this line BUT I only advocate fertiliser quantities of physical lime to be spread. Thats say 10 to 20 percent of the normal recommended rate - in most cases you would be told a ton + per acre - I think 200 to 500 kg per Ha is workable. there are several reasons for this , first is cost, next is without good microbial activity and organic carbon calcium will drop through the soil system like a stone in a pond and in a few years we will find it accumulated way down the soil profile out of the root zone - Hugh Lovel spoke of this on list recently and I have seen it in many parts of inland NSW - low calcium soils with limestone "nobbys" or layers of sugar lime anywhere from two feet to twenty five deep depending on soil type and rainfall pattern. third I believe in coming at a problem from as many different angles as possible - a little bit of physical for a base - chemical (B12/sugar) and microbial catalysts - energetics (BDpreps and potentised materials) > in view of the recent discussion on "rich father poor son' effect of > spreading lime, is the homeopathic application only a short term measure? > For example will homeopathic lime change the readings of an Albrecht soil > test. Good question - if the homeopathic application can catalyse some physical substance or improve microbial activity then probably yes - more likely to show on a reams test which measures plant available nutrients though. > Would I be correct in assuming that homeopathic applications of other > elements such as phosphorus and potassium would similar to calcium in their > effect. I posted a bit of Kolisko re superphosphate yesterday and their summing up below may help on this - I think yes >Sorry if sounds confused but I am. > > The Kolisko experiment mentions only the sprouting of seeds. No long term > effects, perhaps it is expanded on further in the book. > David C
They did write up one experiment of BD 500 on sunflower through to maturity with height of plants and diameter of the flower head and there is one growing out hyacinth using silver nitrate as the potentised material - thats the series that Alex P used in his book (I think) - another was done with gladioli - but most of the tests written up were done with wheat grown to about the three leaf stage - I guess its easy to work with! > > From the book "If we therefore study the influence of smallest entities on plant growth, we find a very interesting law. According to the substance we are using, we can find that the 1st, 2nd and sometimes even the 3rd potencies are unfavourable for plant growth; then with increasing dilutions (we can also say with decreasing concentration) the process of germination starts. At a certain dilution it reaches the same point as the water control; then it surpasses the water control, even to a considerable extent. Many substances reach a first maximum at the 7th potency (1 part of the substance diluted in 10,000,000 parts of water). Then again we find that the plants decrease in growth gradually. We nearly always get very tiny and sometimes even distorted plants, between the llth and 18th potencies (according to the substance; silver, for instance, has an early minimum between the llth and 13th potency; gold salts show rather a late minimum about the 18th potency). After the first minimum is reached, the plants show increasing growth again. That means we are using much smaller entities, or much higher dilutions, whichever expression you like; so matter can be entirely neglected. The chemical tests come to an end, but the living plant organism shows us quite clearly there is something influencing its growth favourably or unfavourably. The plants reach a maximum, they are much bigger than the water control plants, at about the 21st to 24th potencies. After having reached the maximum, the plants again decrease gradually. We reach another minimum at about the 28th potency and so on. A rhythmical process, producing maxima and minima reveals itself through these experiments. Thousands of experiments have been carried out since 1920, with many varieties of plants, and about 300 different mineral salts and plant juices. The result is beyond any doubt". 58 >From Alex Podolinsky book 1 "CONVERTING A FARM we have to take measures to increase the biological activity. That alone may provide sufficient elements to grow the plants, but not always. Then it is a question of how we add the elements. Ideally we would do that by obtaining rock dust containing these elements. Often the farmer must have an immediate return. He wants to transform his farm, and he undertakes biological measures, but he wants an immediate return and this means that soluble elements are needed immediately. In this case artificial fertilizers will be used, but then really truly as a medicine, because the elements are not there in the soil. We might use 20 Ib of superphosphate, 30 Ib of rock phosphate, and perhaps another 30 Ib of blood and bone. We have superphosphate making phosphate available for breakfast, lunch and supper, then it is gone. Then the rock phosphate takes over, and it provides a meal for the next year. When we add more rock phosphate, we would never have to add soluble phosphate again. The cycle has started. That is just one way of explaining how we would go about it. But overall, and that is the important factor, we must watch that in feeding elements we do not go beyond the time factor of the biological development of the soil, or that we do not feed insufficient elements either, so that although the biological activity is stimulated, the soil does not grow anything. The feeding of elements and the stimulation of biological activity must be attuned to each other. " 25 This is interesting - the master advocating supplying deficient minerals - maybe all the critics have read this man wrong! Cheers all Lloyd Charles
