Re:Testing preps?
The activities, energies or forces that are accumulated in the Agricultural Remediesare the same as those that build organs in higher animals an humans. Steiner perceived that these activities, energies or forces were being pushed back by the agricultural practices current at the time. The process for each remedy should beable to be followed logically. I'm a bit slow and it took me the best part of forty years, and a bit of help from Glen, to get it sorted. I'm sure others can get it faster. Cheers, Peter. > Manfred Palmer in Richmond Hill Ontario writes: > > > The preps carry the focalized aural conditions for organizationally > increased life-forms to expedite their purpose in and for the whole. > ...same could be said for us as individuals, i guess. What are our > "preps"?.
Re:Testing preps?
Manfred Palmer in Richmond Hill Ontario writes: The preps carry the focalized aural conditions for organizationally increased life-forms to expedite their purpose in and for the whole. ...same could be said for us as individuals, i guess. What are our "preps"?. Dear Manfred, I have to give the credit to Glen Atkinson, the kiwi genius. But Steiner developed his agricultural remedies out of his understanding of our human need for remedy. This comes out in many aspects of the agricultural course. So the agricultural remedies are really human remedies. We should learn to apply these to ourselves for our own health and well-being and not just get them in our food. True, if we get them in our food future generations will benefit far more than we ourselves. But we can get some help from Steiner's agricultural remedies. I've been trying this idea (of Glen's) out and I'm impressed. I recommend we all give this some thought. Best, Hugh
Re:Testing preps?
- Original Message - From: "Rural Center for Responsible Living" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > that the house is not dirty because it has flies in it; the flies are there > because the house is dirty. So the preps dirty up the house a bit, and then > the bacteria come. > Christy Christy: ... thanks for your diligence in highlighting the essential nature of our intending biodynamic collusion. Another way of saying this could be? : The preps carry the focalized aural conditions for organizationally increased life-forms to expedite their purpose in and for the whole. ...same could be said for us as individuals, i guess. What are our "preps"?. Of course, i think it would be beneficial in yet-unseen ways to inquire into the "bacteriological processes".All is Life. Inspiration is often triggered by the simplest observations. Are any here really seeking "worldly" acknowledgement/credibility? If so, that's fine too. If the earth-wide spread of the healing gift is to be a fact, then i surely need to engage the predominant premises and thinking in a more proficient way than i have done. I admit to a certain reticence in this, and admire the abilities of others on the list who seem to grasp these things so easily. To me, considerations like the foregoing seem relevant, substantive , and i would also appreciate increased experience of this in the detailed understanding which everyone here shares freely for the ensuing and ultimate benefit of "my" surround. .manfred
Re:Testing preps?
Testing of Pfieffer field spray and compost starter would be significant because of the potential scale for munincipal, or large scale use. Pfeiffer products are much more relative to bacterial innoculation. Meaning they are bred to be bacterial. But the preps we are not as concerned with the bacteria, but with the more subtle life force processes, increased bacteria is just a side effect of the working of the preps. Steiner used the analogy in the agriculture lectures that the house is not dirty because it has flies in it; the flies are there because the house is dirty. So the preps dirty up the house a bit, and then the bacteria come. Barrel Compost and Podolonsky 500 could be interesting to test. I am interested in how these results are interpreted, given we take these preps, and then apply them in such minut quantities. As opposed to testing actual compost or soil. Christy - Original Message - From: Allan Balliett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:20 AM Subject: Re:Testing preps? > Pfeiffer Field Spray was formulated by Pfeiffer as an easy way of > doing what compost tea is doing, among other things, was it not? Not > only does it contain the preps, it also has strains of bacteria added > that Pfeiffer personally had concluded were particularly helpful in > promoting biological activity across acreage. > > Since it is so easy to use, I think it would be very worthwhile to > know what Elaine thinks of it as an innoculant and 'what makes it > tick' on the biological level. > > -Allan >
Re:Testing preps?
Pfeiffer Field Spray was formulated by Pfeiffer as an easy way of doing what compost tea is doing, among other things, was it not? Not only does it contain the preps, it also has strains of bacteria added that Pfeiffer personally had concluded were particularly helpful in promoting biological activity across acreage. Since it is so easy to use, I think it would be very worthwhile to know what Elaine thinks of it as an innoculant and 'what makes it tick' on the biological level. -Allan
Re:Testing preps?
- Original Message - Allan Balliett Subject: Re:Testing preps? Gday Allan 2 bobs worth from down under . I've followed this thread for a while as I am pretty impressed with Elaine's work ( and the lady herself ) Seems you guys need to decide WHY it is that you want to test the preps is it ? 1. So that you have a scientific basis for making THE BEST compost teas ever ? if so then the choice of what to test should be focussed on that ( barrel compost and 508 ???) if its 2. to prove to the world at large just how good these preps are then hey Elaine's lab can not measure the energetic bit . In either case I believe a full analysis on a couple of samples would be more value than a cheap test on the lot FWIW I have heard Arden Andersen say that radionically the biodynamic preps are "Very Nice Materials" a term he does not seem to use lightly. Lloyd Charles > Just my opinion, but I think if we accept Elaine as an authority on > soil foodweb lab work, we have an obligation to support the level of > testing that she has requested rather than deciding among ourselves > which tests are 'enough,' etc. > > -Allan > >
Re:Testing preps?
>I'll be meeting in early May with Elaine Ingham, Scott Crandall, Paul >Feiber, etc. out in Oregon on a vineyard research project. It might help >this project if we have one of Elaine's biological assay of each of the BD >remedies from the horn manure all the way up to fresh brewed and also >fermented horsetail decoction. I haven't sent in samples as I don't knopw >what Elaine might think of analysing so many samples without some money up >front. If we can get the funding for this I can come up with the samples. >Heck I make these things. Hugh - Elaine has been very clear that she'd like us to pay for testing the preps. I don't recall her offering any time payments, etc. I realize that it sounds funny when she says she wishes someone would pay for testing the preps so that she can find out what's in them, but she's always been very clear how expensive it is to do her research and how she doesn't have enough funds, etc. BD is not her area of research, but for a popular person outside of biodynamics, she certainly is open to biodynamics. Anyway, it costs her money to run tests because it takes lab time and technician time. She's spent a lot of pro bono time answering questions on this list. the least we can do is honor her by paying the reasonable costs of doing these tests. Of course, we should also be prepared to face up to the possibility that this group is not interested enough in the physical realities of the preps to meet the expense of the testing and we'll just have to let this go by. These are the tests that Elaine requested: >The tests I'd want to see are total and active bacteria, total and >active fungi, protozoa, and nematodes. If the material was added in >fields with plants, running mycorrhizal colonization would be good >too! Just my opinion, but I think if we accept Elaine as an authority on soil foodweb lab work, we have an obligation to support the level of testing that she has requested rather than deciding among ourselves which tests are 'enough,' etc. -Allan
Re:Testing preps?
Does anyone have time, energy and expertise to write a SARE producer grant ( due March 29th )? (http://www.sare.org/ncrsare/02producercfp.PDF) Steve Diver may be able to give advice... I'd think Elaine would help too... Sure sounds like there is a lot of producer interest in this research. SARE is divided up into regions, so that will be an issue to think about. There is also OFRF in California (http://www.ofrf.org/research/application.html)... July 15 is this deadline if a week is too short of a notice. This would be for next year. I would able to help with this one. Perry - Original Message - From: "Hugh Lovel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 8:03 PM Subject: Re:Testing preps? > Dears, > > I think you'll find the BC, 500 and Pfeiffer sprays have quite different > properties. I think if we test these every way we can think of we will know > a lot more about the whole picture. We should also test prepotentized 500 > and Courtney's version of Podolinsky's prepared 500 and so forth. > > I'll be meeting in early May with Elaine Ingham, Scott Crandall, Paul > Feiber, etc. out in Oregon on a vineyard research project. It might help > this project if we have one of Elaine's biological assay of each of the BD > remedies from the horn manure all the way up to fresh brewed and also > fermented horsetail decoction. I haven't sent in samples as I don't knopw > what Elaine might think of analysing so many samples without some money up > front. If we can get the funding for this I can come up with the samples. > Heck I make these things.
Re:Testing preps?
Dears, I think you'll find the BC, 500 and Pfeiffer sprays have quite different properties. I think if we test these every way we can think of we will know a lot more about the whole picture. We should also test prepotentized 500 and Courtney's version of Podolinsky's prepared 500 and so forth. I'll be meeting in early May with Elaine Ingham, Scott Crandall, Paul Feiber, etc. out in Oregon on a vineyard research project. It might help this project if we have one of Elaine's biological assay of each of the BD remedies from the horn manure all the way up to fresh brewed and also fermented horsetail decoction. I haven't sent in samples as I don't knopw what Elaine might think of analysing so many samples without some money up front. If we can get the funding for this I can come up with the samples. Heck I make these things. And unlike, as Greg implied a bit ago when he was bragging beyond reason that his preps went six times around Lorraine's determination board and why didn't I, Hugh Lovel, have Lorraine test my preps? As though mine must be inferior? Sheesh! Lorraine lives here at UAI. How could she not have tested my preps? It was revealing to have Greg slap me like that and then to get so pissed at me for responding in the ludicrous extreme that, of course, my preps were way better than his. Well, he couldn't take a joke and has threatened to sue me. The pity is he is serious. So much for Greg's sense of humor. I think what pissed him most is I told him to grow up. I guess he must not know one only treats FRIENDS that kind of boisterous rough. How can I be his friend when he is threatening to take me to court? That's beyond boisterous, seems to me. But, of course, he has had very excellent preps, as have many others. Lorraine has tested Storch's, Courtney's mine, Greg's and, yes, there is some variation--but all have been quite good. Greg's have been amongst the best, I might add. But let's not make this a debate of that kind. Anyway, spring is almost here. I'll be unearthing or making what I think will be the best preps (502, 503, 505, 504, 506, 507, horn clay, ) so far by far. And I'll be sending samples off to England for geomagnetic cards to be made. And I'd like to send samples off to Elaine for the most extensive lab tests she can do. We only have to pay the freight. Can we find out Elaine's economic requirements for testing and raise a fund for testing? I've got an idea we will find out a lot. Remember Dave Robison's post about what an analysis of the Valerian remedy and Horsetail decoction showed. Yes, the horsetail had some silica in it, but it was way up there in the phosphorus and sulfur. Maybe the silica didn't go into the decoction, but anyway the results of Dave's analysis were VERY interesting. We could do a lot, lot more in this direction. And, yeah! Dave. Good work. Time is flying. I'm building a shop to make chicken tractors. Have built a greenhouse and thinking of building another. The gravity water system worked great. Have to build a pole barn for round bales and also a walk-in refrigerator and well house. That should make this farm take off. Getting up to where you're on your power curve, like an engine between shifting gears, is great stuff. I'm busy, so please respect that. But let's raise funds if we need them and do the testing. Best, Hugh >The CSA season has started for me. Bonnie has volunteered to collect >funds and do the 'leg work' to get the JPI BC to the Ingham people. > >BD500 is sacramental to me, so I have no motivation for analyzing it. >Considering how effective BD501 is, I hardly have to think 'foodweb' >to have an explanation of how and why 500 works. > >Neither BC nor Pfeiffer Field Spray are true preps, I'm very happy to >take a look at them. > >For this reason, I'd vote for Pfeiffer Field Spray as item number two to test. > >-Allan > > >>My understanding is both Bonnie and Allan have volunteered to >>spearhead this. But who is? >> >>IMO the logical first candidate is Barrel Compound from JPI. This >>could be followed by BD 500 if the BC tests prove interesting. >> Don't think that most of other preps merit testing since they >>aren't organism rich. >>To save some money only tolal fungi and total bacteria could be >>measured. If enough funds then the active component could also be >>included. SFI offers a 5 & 10% discount for all and off the net per >>their recent flyer. >> >>Dan
Re:Testing preps?
The CSA season has started for me. Bonnie has volunteered to collect funds and do the 'leg work' to get the JPI BC to the Ingham people. BD500 is sacramental to me, so I have no motivation for analyzing it. Considering how effective BD501 is, I hardly have to think 'foodweb' to have an explanation of how and why 500 works. Neither BC nor Pfeiffer Field Spray are true preps, I'm very happy to take a look at them. For this reason, I'd vote for Pfeiffer Field Spray as item number two to test. -Allan >My understanding is both Bonnie and Allan have volunteered to >spearhead this. But who is? > >IMO the logical first candidate is Barrel Compound from JPI. This >could be followed by BD 500 if the BC tests prove interesting. > Don't think that most of other preps merit testing since they >aren't organism rich. >To save some money only tolal fungi and total bacteria could be >measured. If enough funds then the active component could also be >included. SFI offers a 5 & 10% discount for all and off the net per >their recent flyer. > >Dan
Re:Testing preps?
My understanding is both Bonnie and Allan have volunteered to spearhead this. But who is? IMO the logical first candidate is Barrel Compound from JPI. This could be followed by BD 500 if the BC tests prove interesting. Don't think that most of other preps merit testing since they aren't organism rich. To save some money only tolal fungi and total bacteria could be measured. If enough funds then the active component could also be included. SFI offers a 5 & 10% discount for all and off the net per their recent flyer. Dan
