Dear Glen, Roger, Lloyd, Liz and anyone else who has been contributing to
this thread,
The genesis and development of ideas is impossible to accredit to any one
person as to who owns a particular idea. Does Greg Willis own the idea of
the development of horn clay or does Rudolf Steiner. Steiner may have
thought of it, but did not get to do anything about it. To me the idea
should be credited to Greg as he had the ingenuity to see the potential and
find out how to make it work. Once Greg had developed the idea he put it
into the public domain, at this point it was no longer his idea, but
something which he gifted to humanity. If horn clay should happen to be
accepted into traditional farming practice , I bet that the people who use
it would not know that it was Greg's idea.
Some time ago I forwarded to the list the results of research that was done
by the use of peppers and 501 to control thistles. To that there was deathly
silence as there usually is as soon as you mention homeopathic potentisation
as being part of the process. To most people it is hard enough to wrap their
mind around the use of the full suite of BD preps. To go further and find
applications that are outside the normal cookbook type applications can
stretch people far outside the levels of their comprehension.If you include
such methods as preparing horn Clay, horn Zinc, horn Manganese or any other
trace element and then homeopathically potentising them to high potency
(anywhere from 30c to cm) and then spraying them out, no wonder that to a
lot of the posts there is no reply. Research without knowing what is going
to happen can be the most satisfying can be the most fascinating creative
activity. some people paint, some do other things to me the search for
knowledge and understanding is my reason for being on this planet, at this
time.You dont know about something until it is tried out and if it works
then we try and fit it into some sort of theory.
The problem is that Roger and I are idealists who are prepared to follow
our intuition. Mostly the ideas do work, but we realise that it is from
learning what does not work that true knowledge comes.
This is the same sort of thing that happens at Dalgetty, Roger picked up
intuitively that he should try the method which has had only two trials as
far as I know, firstly on the thistles and then on the tussock and love
grass.
The genesis of the concept that high potency peppers were able to destroy
viability of weed seeds should be able to be found in the archives when I
reported on the results of the years research work. This work is in the
third year of testing and shows promise as a tool in weed control. There are
many other posts in the archives regarding the development of the use of
high potency remedies in Agriculture.
What is important is to teach people to gather together disparate ideas and
then fit them into a new concept. To Roger must go full credit for being
open enough to step right outside the normal and put time and effort into
trialling something that was up to this time just an idea that had been
tried once.
I think that Glen needs to be complimented for his dedication to research on
the weed control problem. Glen, will you please give Roger and I the URL of
the research work on your Web Page, or if it is not on it could we please
have a copy of it, or is it commercially confidential.
Lloyd mentions the potential in a fallow situation of this technique however
there is another plus from the use of 501. Silica is a great remedy in any
case of faulty assimilation of nutrients. Silica will unlock locked up
nutrients in the soil. That's another one that flew over the heads of most
people.
Imagine the implications for the environment of being able to unlock some of
that huge amount of Phosphorus that has been applied worldwide. That is
without the economic benefits.
Roger may claim ownership of the Love grass technique but he cannot claim
ownership of my title of "the little wizard". Good evening to all.
Regards
James
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garuda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: BD501 as a Weed Control was Re: BD501 as Herbicide
> Roger
> Please forgive my lack of attention on this.
> I have looked thru the archive and can not find the post that you outlined
> what you have done and what you achieved.
> As a researcher in this field, we have done several trials of 501 as a
weed
> control as early as 1990.
> I would be most interested in the details of what you are claiming to ''
> own'.
> regards
> Glen A
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:57 AM
> Subject: BD501 as a Weed Control was Re: BD501 as Herbicide
>
>
> > Sorry Allan but it is NOT a herbicide in any shape or form and although
> > I've used the term 'Weed Control' above, in reality I think what I have
> > here is a growth management tool with wide-ranging uses.
> >
> > First I want to say that 'the little wizard' in this case is myself. I
> > came up with this procedure over a year ago but the opportunity to test
> > it did not arise until December last. Though the results have been
> > spectacular I would not describe the test as particularly scientific. My
> > reason for putting it on the list was to see what reactions it would
> > draw and given the argy-bargy that goes on here a lot I was not
> > surprised when it hardly aroused a flicker of interest.
> >
> > Insofar as anyone can 'own' a plant growth procedure, I claim ownership
> > of this one. I say this here and now not so much for commercial reasons
> > but because the list's archives are out in the public domain. For the
> > time being, until further tests have been carried out under organised
> > trial conditions (something I am working on now) and the results are
> > apparent, I would prefer not to see anything in print. Or tried out
> > without my knowledge. A reason for this is that should someone on or off
> > the list try using 501 in this way and get negative or unwanted results,
> > it could put them and a lot more people off using BD at all. Another is
> > that the December test result could have been an aberration, something
> > we can only determine by doing it again and again.
> >
> > Yes, Liz, I will take the photos to Albury. I will also make them
> > available on CD to anyone on this list for a reasonable processing
> > charge plus post & packing, along with selected photos of the trial site
> > taken on a continuous basis since November 2001. These include
> > vegetation and terrain, vortex flowforms in operation, spraying
> > operations, and striking images of the phenomenal grass growth happening
> > now (during intense drought) along the groundwater lines and lakes I
> > have dowsed over several months. Please contact me off-list about this.
> >
> > Now to turn to what Liz said:
> >
> > >Why 501? The way Roger explained the affect was that the grass was
> burnt
> > >quickly. Did this draw in more light, creating more heat and
intensity?
> > >Which would also be reasoning for applying it in the heat of the day?
> Would
> > >it work any other time of day? If so would it be as quick as the heat
of
> > >the day? Somehow I don't think it would be as intense, but then again
I
> > >know nothing...
> > >
> > >I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your choice of 501, it can only
> help
> > >me to better understand the preps.
> > >
> > Without going far into what I said and didn't say ('burnt' was not in my
> > message and is now not in my vocabulary at all), what I think happened
> > is that the mixture used, in combination with energy from the sun,
> > accelerated the growth of the plants beyond the point of seed viability.
> > (Which is not the same as killing them; I'll come back to this in a
> > moment.) The how and why of that and whether it could be done at other
> > times of day can only be found out through doing more trials.
> >
> > Why I chose 501? It wasn't exactly choice. Initially it was a third eye
> > experience then I talked to the devas at Dalgety about it, they put the
> > query up 'through channels' and the answer came 'down' that it was
> > feasible and acceptable. This last is important, I feel. Personally I am
> > not in the business of killing; in this house spiders and cockroaches
> > and even large ants get put outside, not trodden on. Kill a plant with
> > herbicide, forget the ads that say there's no residues, when it breaks
> > down and goes into the soil it takes poison with it which can have
> > adverse effects for a long time. Destroy a plant by fire and most of its
> > energy is dissipated to the four winds, only a small proportion becomes
> > re-usable ash.
> >
> > Herbicide is a negative. The intent in using it is a negative. The
> > holistic result after using it is a negative. Zero x zero x zero = zero.
> >
> > Fire is ambivalent. In controlled situations it is a positive.
> > Uncontrolled fire is a negative.
> >
> > 501 is a positive. The intent in using it is a positive. The sun is a
> > positive. The beneficial effects go on and on and on. 2 x 2 x 2 = 8
> >
> > One month after the event, the plants individually treated with 501
> > under this procedure appear to have reached their autumnal stage 3-4
> > months ahead of schedule. That is, the seed-bearing stems are yellowing
> > to the creamy colour usual just before winter. The seeds have an
> > appearance of insubstantiality. (Two independent tests are being
> > conducted on seed germination.) The plants are still whole, however,
> > and if they were to be slashed and incorporated into the soil they would
> > carry with them 501 energy residues which would begin to release
> > nutrients bound up in the soil . . .
> >
> > . . . My God, it stands out like dogs' balls when you begin to think
> > about it!!
> >
> > Ahem - Pardon me
> >
> > roger
> >
> >
> >
> > Allan Balliett wrote:
> >
> > > Do it like this, ok folks? -AB
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Why 501?
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
