Conservation agriculture

[Janic]

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:
Izy discovers the benefits of biodynamics.

I may have posted a little fast, I hadn't seen that it was organic, because in fact he didn't have much choice of method.

you hadn't seen that it was organic, otherwise you would have shot it down as a principle of opposition.

The study seems scientifically valid with the control without treatment ... we need to know more, because scientists had already looked into the method without finding any real effectiveness https://www.jardiner-autrement.fr/wp-co ... tie-bd.pdf

done between 20 and 30 years ago, it's brand new and the conclusion is crappy with the real objective of denigrating as for all those who know nothing about it. It's gloubiboulga!

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

I love Izy: I give you a "confirmed" info that I find interesting and clean, but then I temper when I realize that the guy is in Bio, aaaaaarghhhh ....
What a dwarf ...

[Moindreffor]

It's confirmed, plant macerations help protect crops

Izy discovers the benefits of biodynamics. It's extra, I would almost cry!

we are not on biodynamics, but on maceration 100Kg of nettles for 1000L of water is far from Steiner's recipes, he simply applies on a large scale, which gardeners have been applying for a long time in their little ones vegetable gardens

nothing new in the end, discovering that nettle is a foliar booster, in supermarkets as in small ones, is it really revolutionary?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Yes, all these maceration and infusion / herbal tea practices are part of biodynamic practices. Afterwards, if it makes you happy to continue shooting (softly this time) Steiner, do not deprive yourself.

summary-gp.pdf

(172.16 KB) Downloaded times 291

[Moindreffor]

Yes, all these maceration and infusion / herbal tea practices are part of biodynamic practices. Afterwards, if it makes you happy to continue shooting (softly this time) Steiner, do not deprive yourself.
summary-gp.pdf

for me it is not biodynamics, because they are practices with a much broader spectrum, or so many people do biodynamics without knowing it or biodynamics casts a wide net

Steiner edited a few recipes, I did not know that nettle manure could be part of it, is he the inventor? or can biodynamic enthusiasts claim to be the inventors of this type of liquid manure? whether we use this type of decoction or manure in biodynamics, I don't mind, as in organic, or non-organic for that matter, but that does not make it a basis of biodynamics

So there, attributing the positive effects of liquid manure to a biodynamic practice is a bit abusive, let's say that it is a natural practice of common sense, which goes in the right direction, which works and whose operation is validated by the science, we are therefore in addition, not in a belief

[Janic]

my reflection

for me it is not biodynamic, because they are practices with a much broader spectrum, or so many people do biodynamics without knowing it or biodynamics casts a wide net

Precisely, for you, who know nothing about it, you mix everything up because of your blatant ignorance of the subject, like the other joker of Abcon. Before telling all your bullshit, start by studying the subject and not be content with a superficiality on it, spread by other ignoramuses who do not know more !.

Steiner edited a few recipes, I did not know that nettle manure could be part of it, is he the inventor? or can biodynamic enthusiasts claim to be the inventors of this type of liquid manure? whether we use this type of decoction or manure in biodynamics, I don't mind, as in organic, or non-organic for that matter, but that does not make it a basis of biodynamics

Another manifestation of ignardiousness. Steiner is a visionary of an open path by others and that he resumes, applied to his perception of what can be another way of perceiving the world, and agricultural in particular. He does not give ready-made recipes NPK style, but where each one experiments in his own way with the experience coming from the practice of his indications. Only fools believe otherwise.

So there, attributing the positive effects of liquid manure to a biodynamic practice is a bit abusive, let's say that it is a natural practice of common sense, which goes in the right direction, which works and whose operation is validated by the science, WE ARE THEREFORE MORE, NOT IN A BELIEF

Effectively is MORE and not NOT. The science in question does not invent anything, it notes facts, analyzes them, and reproduces them or rather, in agriculture, allows everyone to produce them with knowledge confirming what is already known and applied, not invented in labs.
So study what biodynamics is, it will prevent you from talking about anything, like organic, real organic!

[Moindreffor]

my reflection

for me it is not biodynamic, because they are practices with a much broader spectrum, or so many people do biodynamics without knowing it or biodynamics casts a wide net

Precisely, for you, who know nothing about it, you mix everything up because of your blatant ignorance of the subject, like the other joker of Abcon. Before telling all your bullshit, start by studying the subject and not be content with a superficiality on it, spread by other ignoramuses who do not know more !.

Steiner edited a few recipes, I did not know that nettle manure could be part of it, is he the inventor? or can biodynamic enthusiasts claim to be the inventors of this type of liquid manure? whether we use this type of decoction or manure in biodynamics, I don't mind, as in organic, or non-organic for that matter, but that does not make it a basis of biodynamics

Another manifestation of ignardiousness. Steiner is a visionary ofan open way by others and that'he resumed, applied to his perception of what can be another way of perceiving the world, and agricultural in particular. He does not give ready-made recipes NPK style, but where each one experiments in his own way with the experience coming from the practice of his indications. There are only fools to believe otherwise.

So there, attributing the positive effects of liquid manure to a biodynamic practice is a bit abusive, let's say that it is a natural practice of common sense, which goes in the right direction, which works and whose operation is validated by the science, WE ARE THEREFORE MORE, NOT IN A BELIEF

Effectively is MORE and not NOT. The science in question does not invent anything, it notes facts, analyzes them, and reproduces them or rather, in agriculture, allows everyone to produce them with knowledge confirming what is already known and applied, not invented in labs.
So study what biodynamics is, it will prevent you from talking about anything, like organic, real organic!

well no need to study biodynamics, given the way you describe it, we understand that Steiner did not invent anything but that he took over the work of others and that he just added his mystical side, and that subsequently his disciples did the same

as you write it we understand that biodynamics is just putting a new "logo" on existing knowledge and more mystique for folklore, Steiner visionary in marketing yes

otherwise Steiner gives many ready-made recipes, they even have numbers, so in total contradiction with what you write above

[Janic]

least effort of reflection

well no need to study biodynamics, given the way you describe it, we understand that Steiner did not invent anything but that he took over the work of others and that he just added his mystical side, and that subsequently his disciples did the same

which would then show that mysticism is really effective, much more than a failed pseudo chemical rationalism!

as you write it we understand that biodynamics is just putting a new "logo" on existing knowledge and more mystique for folklore, Steiner visionary in marketing yes

You are the typical example of the asshole who does not know anything about it and who takes refuge behind an obscurantism which would not be better in this case.
Otherwise, except for you who have the innate genius, the inventors only bring together already existing information to adapt them to situations where they allow a concrete use.
No one any longer disputes the visions of Leonardo da Vinci, inapplicable in his time for lack of suitable means and technologies, but in his time he passed also for an enlightened man and it took 500 years for his genius, the real him, to be recognized and applied.
So do as ABCon returns to the doghouse! You may bark and drool your little quenottes do not impress anyone.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

as you write it we understand that biodynamics is just putting a new "logo" on existing knowledge and more mystique for folklore ...

The Demeter label is a very strict specification. It is the most respectful agriculture of the land and what lives there. Steiner did not invent anything, in fact, he compiled empirical knowledge and he was endowed with a rare intuition *. Afterwards, if there are practices that you assimilate to magic, tell yourself that observational studies have shown that by mixing the ingredients strongly (some say "energize"), we make them more active. Could it be by integrating oxygen into the process, by intimate bonding and reducing particle sizes, by influencing the experience? I am sure that rational explanations can be found for observable facts. This is what science has been doing since the dawn of time. But continue to spit on everything that is beyond you (note that it is beyond me too, but "it works") with condescension and contempt, it is so practical and if on top of that it makes you feel good, go for it. heart !

* Describing the why and how of Mad Cow Disease before it was discovered proves that the type was not lacking in intelligence, logic, or intuition.

[Janic]

Moindreffor wrote:

as you write it we understand that biodynamics is just putting a new "logo" on existing knowledge and more mystique for folklore ...

and the crazy bulb that adds more.
He claims to be a defender of farmers, but only if they do petrochemicals on their land and living products, since he believes in its miracles (another form of mysticism) since everything is a question of belief.
Proof, if there is one, that he despises farmers, in organic and biodynamic farming, because he understands nothing in his speech as an obscurantist chemist, whereas on the contrary these agricultural methods are followed and advised by agricultural engineers, no more idiots than his own with their magical initiation formulas which average farmers understand nothing precisely because they are false and untruthful!
on the other hand, he does not deprive of licking the heart ... Did's boots so as not to poison himself with these same products which he also defends! Beautiful hypocrite!