Blow against bio-dynamics

[edith4278]

Dear All,

I am new on this forum but I have been reading it for quite some time on certain agricultural or health topics. I pass the course today by registering and launching on a subject that bothers me (we will say that like that ) for a while: it concerns certain ecologists in agriculture.

To introduce myself quickly, I have been vegan for about three years and little financial support from L214 for a year. I of course directed my purchases towards organic but the return to earth has been somewhat brutal lately. By being interested in organic production, I discovered the methods of biodynamic agriculture and the large-scale use of horns and blood of animals intended to be used as fertilizer for the cultivation of fields. A real animal massacre!

However, in their speeches, the promoters of biodynamics talk to us about respect for nature, respectful practices, but in fact, it is fanaticism. I really think that REAL organic farming can do without these people. The problem is that they have a certain celebrity and that the publicity which is made of it harms those who really want to move awareness for a more sustainable world.

If some of you have elements on biodynamic practices, I am interested in continuing to document myself on the issue.

that's it for this rant!
Good day to all !
Edith

[olivier75]

Hello edith4278,
Welcome to this forum.
Organic farming is a big step forward compared to so-called conventional farming, it cannot be denied. That said, it is only an improvement which is what preserves the soil and possibly our health, which is far from being completely successful, in particular because of the copper derivatives.
Here phenoculture more than organic sees things from a too different angle to be accepted and applied quickly and on a large scale. By reading us you will have noticed that little used animal by-products, and even less mining, but by uselessness more than by principle.
I myself use recreational pony crotin, having a very close and unused source.
It should be remembered that today as before, the carcass products, which you want to do without, are existing, and without this valuation would be lost, amplifying, in my opinion, the "sadness" of killing an animal.
Things are progressing slowly, the least attempt in agriculture takes at least a year, and with a lot of vision, of different goals.
For me, the problem is not to wear a leather jacket or to put the horn under a tree, but to raise too much, and too badly, meat. I am for a (drastic?) Reduction in consumption and maximum use of by-products.
Man has developed with the exploration of animals, and eradicating meat seems utopian to me, but each consumer changes the whole offer.
Olivier.

[olivier75]

For biodynamics, it does not require the use of animal by-products either, even if "recipes" contain them, and the sensitivities are multiple. I don't think there is more fanaticism than in Vegan, knowing that being neither I had the opportunity to be aware of both.
Olivier.

[Did67]

This always poses the same problem: reasoning in "method", in "recipe" rather than analyzing a "system".

Can a Tuareg be vegan. Or an eskimo. Or a Masai ...

The answer is no.

These "tribes" need animals that collect sparse biomass, which man cannot consume raw: the meager grasses of desert areas or the plankton of cold seas ...

The use of the animal is generally accompanied by a "sacralization" of these animals. These tribes know very well that they make a living from it, that they owe their survival ... Animals are then at the heart of various rites, while not being the basis of food.

This is what must be seen: the desecration of the animal through "modern breeding" in our societies. But the rejection of any use of the animal is for me only a creation, understandable but of which I doubt the foundations. A new "religion"?

[Janic]

Edith hello

I am new on this forum but I have been reading it for quite some time on certain agricultural or health topics. I pass the course today by registering and launching on a subject that bothers me (we will say that like that) for a while: it concerns certain ecologists in agriculture.

To introduce myself quickly, I have been vegan for about three years and little financial support from L214 for a year. I of course directed my purchases towards organic but the return to earth has been somewhat brutal lately. By being interested in organic production, I discovered the methods of biodynamic agriculture and the large-scale use of horns and blood of animals intended to be used as fertilizer for the cultivation of fields. A real animal massacre!

that's it for this rant!
Good day to all !

Edith
Hi
Biodynamics is not VGR, or VGL, but organic only, even if Rudolf Steiner was rather favorable to VGR like many "thinkers" on life. In fact everything that is organic becomes an element that can promote better soil fertility and therefore replace fertilizers and chemical treatments. It is an approach that is suitable for some and not for others, quite simply.

Anthroposophy presents itself both as a spirituality and an attempt to approach human nature and the great questions which have always animated religions by a new science of the phenomena of the mind. It was mainly developed by Rudolf Steiner.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophie

For fanaticism veganism is considered by some to be! Everything is therefore only a personal point of view.
But then again there is the Vorganization and vegans as there are religions and their doctrines and next to the more or less practicing and their differences in point of view and practice.

Personnellement, But this only engages me, apart from deleting what is animal (it's already not that bad) what I noticed in their forumsis that health, BIO, chemicals or not, it goes over the top of their heads (not all fortunately, but it is a minority) and their "fanaticism" vis-à-vis their B12 is deplorable in terms of real health. But everyone does what they want in a country of (relative) freedom of life choices.

Did hello

Can a Tuareg be vegan. Or an eskimo. Or a Masai ...
The answer is no.
These "tribes" need animals that collect sparse biomass, which man cannot consume raw: the meager grasses of desert areas or the plankton of cold seas ...

It is to take a very minority part of the population to make a reference against the VG. The question, already asked, is: is animal consumption useful and necessary for the majority of the rest of the population? Answer, no! Since it is only a food culture (which differs from one country to another) and whose origin of survival has been lost over the millennia to become just a habit.

This is what must be seen: the desecration of the animal through "modern breeding" in our societies. But the rejection of any use of the animal is for me only a creation, understandable but of which I doubt the foundations. A new "religion"?

A new religion? Of course in the Latin and Greek sense of the term, that is to say, to link together elements that take into account not only habits, but also acquired knowledge (the so-called exact sciences must be used for something!) by our modern era and therefore practice daily as you do in phenoculture, for example!
However, this sacralization was deported and carried over to a mode of expression of social success, the rich can eat meat, the poor can not (or too little in the eyes of "modern breeders") and the churches have emptied themselves in favor of temples of consumption and so-called civilization diseases.
Now the VG is a means, among others, of "religaring" ourselves to what has more or less been lost by modernism in question and which we will find in these "turning back of our ancestors", as AB, alternative medicine, non-synthetic clothing (including silk, wool, which bothers Edith, or hemp and other plant fibers), active walking in unpolluted air, etc.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

By being interested in organic production, I discovered the methods of biodynamic agriculture and the large-scale use of horns and blood of animals intended to be used as fertilizer for the cultivation of fields. A real animal massacre!

Strictly in relation to your question AND to your way on the roof to see things well in this case be careful to check, if you can, that what you consume has been cultivated or not with "waste" of animals.

Ironically, you may discover that organic people use animal "waste" and that conventional people don't use it ...

It remains to find bios that do not use them.

This poses the huge problem of traceability.

In my opinion it is impossible.
All that remains is to trust
You just discovered its limits

[Janic]

edith4278 wrote:
By being interested in organic production, I discovered the methods of biodynamic agriculture and the large-scale use of horns and blood of animals intended to be used as fertilizer for the cultivation of fields.

A real animal massacre! Strictly in relation to your question AND to your way on the roof to see things, well in this case, be sure to check, if you can, that what you consume has been cultivated or not with "waste" d 'animals.
Ironically, you may discover that organic people use animal "waste" and that conventional people don't use it ...
It remains to find bios that do not use them.
This poses the huge problem of traceability.
In my opinion it is impossible.
All that remains is to trust
You just discovered its limits

Edith can give her opinion, but the question asked is different and relates to the slaughter of animals and in fact the use of their waste, both being linked.
Then, the products used lose their initial specificity by the transformation that the plant operates (when you eat a product cultivated with organic waste linked to the defecation of animals, you do not consume shit either.) In fact a vegetable grown with blood or horn is no more containing it in its original form.
Now, it is a fact of life that biodynamics is not classic so far, including with its preparations which are out of the ordinary and it is distinguished from other organic cultivation methods.

[Ahmed]

I knew someone who practiced biodynamics with enthusiasm and I was interested for a long time, although from quite a distance, in these practices. It is certain that certain directions are positive and that the results are sometimes surprising. Since the beginning doubtful about some of his somewhat smoky concepts, I readily understand that the extreme attention paid to the soil and plants is not indifferent to his successes.

I do not disapprove of the whimsical aspect, but the latter would benefit from not contaminating the way of apprehending the functioning of the ground and its inhabitants, and to be confined simply in an assumed "style of life".

As said before Olivier75, the fact of having recourse to animal products does not change the overall situation, but as these are not strictly useful for phenoculture, it is quite possible to make personal convictions compatible with "lazy" gardening.

[sicetaitsimple]

Since the beginning doubtful about some of its slightly smoky concepts ...

With my heavy boots in addition this evening a little muddy (it fell a lot of rain at my place, so much the better, not only for me but especially for the young people but of the region which started to be thirsty), I admit not understand well and not cling to biodynamics ... It just seems far-fetched to me..It's just cultural, I don't think I will change, I need a minimum of rational explanation to cling to something.

Now, on the use of animal by-products (horn, blood, feathers, ...) in "organic" agriculture to generalize, I am totally for! We have to stop being hypocritical and pretending that breeding does not exist .... Breeding exists, it feeds people, what it produces including by-products must be used.

Afterwards, eating less meat, having more animal-friendly farms, ... are other questions, real questions.

[Janic]

Ahmed hello

I do not disapprove of the whimsical aspect, but the latter would benefit from not contaminating the way of apprehending the functioning of the ground and its inhabitants, and to be confined simply in a "style of life" assumed

it's not very clear!
However, biodynamics is so particular since it is linked to a particular spiritual philosophy and which denotes with the "classic" conception of agriculture because of its oriental influence. There are various philosophies that put off neophytes.
Very particular also his method of sensitive crystallization which is close to Emoto's work on water, (carrying information), and at the same time, by other paths, to dynamic homeopathic dilutions, to cellular memory, to water memory, etc ...