>>Mike, >> >>Forgot to mention that Michael Fields Institute is devoted to >>Biodynamic research. >><http://www.michaelfieldsaginst.org/>http://www.michaelfieldsaginst.org/ > >That's funny. I don't remember seeing any mention of biodynamics in >their recent mailings! -Allan
Allan, So right you are! Although there is some biodynamic tradition at Michael Fields Institute and although Walter Goldstein often writes for the Biodynamic journal there is more of an effort made there to identify with mainstream agriculture--not biodynamic, organic, sustainable and particularly not conventional, but the best of agriculture whereever it may be found. Quite frankly I respect this approach, as I respect Walter Goldstein, and I believe we would all do better if we took this page out of the Michael Fields book. I've said it before that we relegate ourselves to the status of a splinter faction and even a cult group by identifying ourselves as biodynamic. There is little in the Demeter certification that distinguishes it as superior to organic. If we need certification for some reason I suspect we're better off going for organic certification, and otherwise, who needs it? I believe we should acknowledge when we use Steiner's remedies in agriculture, just as we might acknowledge the work of Albrecht or Ingham or anyone else either living or dead. But we need very, very much to bring Steiner's contributions into the mainstream rather than quixotically trying to bring the mainstream into Rudolf Steiner. Just how well Michael Fields Institute does this I can't say for sure. But when they run a book table at something like the Upper Midwest Organic Farming Conference in La Crosse, WI there are many books concerning Steiner and his work along with the work of many others. To me this suggests a committment to bring Steiner into the mainstream. I like that. I think it is far seeing. Good for them. Best, Hugh Lovel Visit our website at: www.unionag.org
