Dear Lloyd, This mail was not personally aimed at you. It derived from a sense of frustration that sometimes the most trite of subjects can keep the list going for weeks, yet when you mail on your techniques, which I think are part of the cutting edge of farming you are scratching to get an answer. somewhere along the line the farming of the future will take the best of all the technologies and synthesise them into a sustainable system. It is interesting that MacDonald's has quite a large war chest to find a sustainable system that is able to gain public confidence in their products, yet still allow for the supply of consistent quality and quantity. How do we as sustainable farmers develop systems that are able to supply enough quantity for even McDonalds, without supplying enough quality food for the general consumer. I suppose it depends where you sit when you view what is going on in farming. My aim is to develop systems that are able to produce quality food with the minimum of input. I personally have gone down the path of putting a lot of faith in development of technology based on agricultural radionics, as you have. A quick back of the hand check on the statistics of compostable materials world wide will show that if we were to rely on conventional organic methods, the world would starve, if it was the only method used. Biodynamics is one of many tools for soil fertility, not the only answer. Steiner supported the work of Eugen and Lili Kolisko on the use of homeopathy in Agriculture, yet when it comes to a discussion ofthe merits or otherwise of this research wer got bogged down in the protocol of how we were to discuss this. End result was that we did not get anywhere. It is not necessary for Agriculture of Tomorrow to be republished when there are many people on this list who have taken the work out of the realm of research and into a practical system that could revolutionise the way that we look at inputs into farming. Where was the replies to the posts about our work with 501 to reinforce the action of peppers? Where are the replies to Greg Willis's comments on the use of homeopathic doses in the Agri-Synthesis system. What about discussion of the implications of the claims by Steve Storch of the different bacteria which develop in compost teas in different moon signs. what are the implications, and what dos it indicate. Let us look at the bigger picture of what we can do together with the knowledge that we have as a group. As long as we consider ourselves weird that is how people will see us. Maybe we can gain some lessons from George Bush, he does not apologise for what he does, he just does it. We don't need to apologise for what we do neither. Regards James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lloyd Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 11:23 PM Subject: Re: Personal Security / Insecurity
> > > because I do not contribute in > > the same amount as say Steve Storch or Lloyd Charles or whoever makes me a > > lurker and not as worthwhile a contributor as someone else?. Is Hugh Lovel > > regared as a lurker because he conducts a watching brief on what is going > on > > through the list. Would you classify Greg Willis as a lurker? > Hey James - dont know what others think but for me postings from yourself , > Hugh, Greg Willis, Glen Atkinson, are some of the cream we get on the list - > certainly dont think you guys are lurkers and I agree wholeheartedly eith > your next sentence > > To categorise a list member on the basis of how much they contribute and > > what they say demeans the value of any contribution to the list. > > It seems that Lloyd keeps on with the > > same message on his weed control methods without very much comment or > > discussion of the pro's and con's of his methods. > Do you mean here that I am on the wrong track with this or that it should be > drawing more discussion from the list? > Cheers > Lloyd Charles > > >
