Stirring or "dynamising" in biodynamics

The following is an extract from my book, Biodynamic Wine-Growing: Theory & Practice, which is published as an e-book on Amazon Kindle, and as a paperback via www.lulu.com (http://www.lulu.com/shop/monty-waldin/monty-waldins-biodynamic-wine-growing-theory-practice/paperback/product-20231020.html).



The underlying principle of the nine biodynamic preparations 500-508 is that they are physical substances which carry intangible etheric formative forces. Carrying the forces contained in the six compost preparations 502-507 over large areas of farmland is made possible by the act of spreading biodynamic compost. The compost brings these forces as well as valuable substances to the soil. However for the forces contained in the three biodynamic field spray preparations horn manure 500, horn silica 501 and common horsetail 508 to reach the farm it is first necessary to dilute them in water and then stir or “dynamise” them. The same dynamising process is also used for the only liquid compost preparation, valerian 507, before it is applied to the compost.

            On one level the stirring or dynamising process allows both the forces contained within the preparations as well as those from the wider celestial sphere to reach the land. The theory is that water keeps the memory of the dissolved biodynamic preparation[1] and that this “information” can be transferred.[2] On a practical level stirring helps the substances to be thoroughly mixed in the water. The oxygenating effect the stirring has brings a substantial increase of oxygen in the water, up to 75% after one hour of manual stirring according to Pfeiffer.[3] This helps microbes present in for example the horn manure 500 or Maria Thun’s barrel compost 502-507 sprays to multiply rapidly.

The Significance of the Vortex

Steiner[4] described the stirring or dynamising process he intended when discussing horn manure 500: “You must make sure…that the entire contents of the horn have been thoroughly exposed to the water. To do this, you have to start stirring it quickly around the edge of the bucket, on the periphery, until a crater forms that reaches nearly to the bottom, so that everything is rotating rapidly. Then you reverse the direction quickly, so that everything seethes and starts to swirl in the opposite direction. If you continue doing this for an hour, you will get it thoroughly mixed.”

            When stirring a biodynamic preparation in water in a vertical container a whirlpool effect is created by the wall of water which forms at the centre. Steiner described this as a “crater”, but this is now more commonly referred to as the vortex. Jennifer Greene calls the vortex the water’s sense organ.[5] This recalls the idea of how six of the nine biodynamic preparations are sensitised to formative forces by being enclosed in sense organs (animal sheaths). The vortex is the water’s way of rhythmically ensheathing the forces contained in the preparations. When the direction of the stirring changes from one way to another the vortex is lost as the water seethes and undergoes chaos. This moment of chaos is when the preparation being stirred is said to receive the imprint of the cosmos, whose forces stream into the earth leaving their imprint on all living things.

            Greene worked with Theodor Schwenk, a German hydro-engineer and pioneer in water flow research whose book on the subject Sensitive Chaos[6] was described by Commandant Jacques Cousteau as the first phenomenological treatise on water. Schwenk identified the vortex as the living pulse which allowed water to take in air in such a way that the water could regenerate itself just as it did in natural springs to stay cleaner and fresher, not simply to purify it but to revitalize it as well so that it could then support living processes. Hence Greene[7] says that while we happily think of water in terms of pollution or its use as a mechanical or engineering (hydraulics) aid, water as an element for the purveyor of life has not generally been the modern focus. Joly[8] reminds us that the latent forces underlying life are often manifested in physical matter in the form of spirals: calving rings on vortical shaped female cow horns are the prime biodynamic example (see Chapter 2, Horn Manure 500). Another might be our universe, a spiral in which our planets constantly swirl. Spirals of water are what form or create the vortex (see photo). 

 A vortex, water’s “living pulse” in a stirring machine made by Seresin Estate in Marlborough, New Zealand from an old milk storage vessel. Here 2,500 litres of compost tea (see Chapter 6) are being aerated by dynamising. Seresin Estate is certified biodynamic by Demeter.

           Greene[9] describes how Schwenk noticed that movement at the centre of a funnel or vertical vortex is faster than the movement on the periphery, and that this exemplifies Kepler's Laws of Movement observed with the planets: those closest to the sun move more quickly than those furthest away. However if one takes a small rectangular piece of paper, puts a dot at one end, and places this piece of paper midway between the periphery and the centre of the water and air surface, the paper will move in a such a way that it maintains the same orientation. As Schwenk describes it, it retains its orientation to a fixed star. The conclusion drawn is "that water moves pertains to earthly forces" but "how water moves" pertains to cosmic laws.

            West[10] argues that spraying herb teas and liquid manures like those described above without first dynamising them encourages plants to feed directly off the substances they contain through their water roots, exactly as if inorganic water-soluble or “chemical” fertilizer was being applied. The act of dynamising and the vortex the process of stirring creates allow nutrients suspended in the water to carry an electrical charge. This renders them colloidal and, says West, for a plant to feed naturally nutrients must be colloidally bonded to an organic molecule. Plants fed with the organic colloidal rather than inorganic water-soluble system have more feeder root hairs and thus stronger, healthier root systems because this is exactly how nutrients pass from soil solids to plants anyway. Through the chelating action of the aerobic bacteria, nutrients are in the perfect form for a plant to utilise and have become part of a living organism, namely the soil. Plants stay healthier when they have more food to chose from because nutrients held as liquid colloids do not leach from the soil when it rains as water-soluble fertilizers do. By implication colloidally held nutrients will provide greater health and vitality to humans hoping to assimilate nutrients from crops they consume. Biodynamic wine-growers who extol the healthful virtues of wine drinking (in moderation) but who fail to aerate their liquid manures could be accused of hubris.

The Container for Dynamising

It is no surprise that the most common container used by wine-growers for stirring is an old barrel with one of the ends removed. The barrel can be cleaned naturally by weathering it outside rather than scrubbing it with detergent or charcoal. Those who favour containers made of inert materials should try to avoid galavanised vessels, and if there is no alternative to plastic one of the hard, dense types should be chosen[11], presumably to reduce the risk of off-gassing. Guy Bussière of Domaine du Val de Saône in Burgundy hand stirs his biodynamic sprays in a clay pot once used for salting meat. For stainless steel containers, non-magnetic forms should be used. Courtney[12] says the main thing to keep in mind is to get the biodynamic preparations stirred and sprayed onto the farm; worrying about the perfect stirring vessel should be an afterthought. At the very least though the stirring vessel should be sited in a place which makes use of gravity both for filling it with water and draining dynamised liquids ready for spraying.

Dynamising by Hand

Ideally all biodynamic farms would be of a size which permitted all tasks to be carried out manually, even stirring, although even Steiner[13] said that for large farms mechanisation would be necessary. However Steiner[14] did also say “there’s no question that stirring by hand has a quite different significance than mechanical stirring, although of course someone with a mechanistic world-view would never admit it. Just consider what a huge difference there really is: when you stir by hand, all the fine movements of your hand go into the stirring, and quite possibly all kinds of other things do too, including the feelings you have as you stir. People nowadays don’t think that makes any difference, but in the field of medicine, for instance, the difference is quite noticeable. Believe me, it is really not a matter of indifference whether a certain medication is prepared by hand or by machine. Something is imparted to the things that are produced by hand.”

            For this reason it is recommended: that only one person should stir any given preparation, rather than have several people take turns stirring the same preparation for short periods; that once started a dynamisation should never be interrupted; and that a dynamised solution should never be mixed, either with another dynamised solution (see Chapter 2, Horn Silica 501) or a non-dynamised one. Germany’s Institute for Biodynamic Research (IBDF) has changed its advice on the application of biodynamic spray preparations in recent years through its research into formative forces, recommending hand rather than machine stirring.[15]

 Silvana Braun hand stirring horn manure 500 in Weingut Dr Bürklin-Wolf's Forster Kirchenstück Riesling vineyard in the Pfalz, Germany. Bürklin-Wolf is certified biodynamic by the SIVCBD ("Biodyvin").

           
Storch makes an observation few involved in biodynamics would disagree with: “Anyone who has done a serious amount of hand stirring will have noticed a point in the stirring process where there is a transformation in the liquid. The stirring gets easier and there is a noticeble difference in the ease with which the vortex forms and there is something in the stirred liquid that changes that I cannot put my finger on.” [16] The likely answer is the oxygenating effect the stirring has; or perhaps the water’s change in texture arises because dynamising splits clusters of water molecules, energising them via the action the vortex has on quarks, suggests Rhône-based winemaker Michel Chapoutier, quarks being hypothetical elementary particles at sub-atomic level.[17]

            Peter Proctor[18] says that when the water becomes more slippery and viscous and easier to stir “the water has become enlivened by a similar process to that of the growing plant, the rhythm of the expansion to leaf and contraction to seed. In this process you have increased the oxygen content of the water. At the same time you have introduced the cosmic forces that enable the water to become a dynamic carrier of the life energy of the [biodynamic preparation] as it is spread over the land.”

            Hand stirring can involve either placing one’s hand directly in the water-filled recipient, or using one’s hands to move an implement, such as a pole suspended in the water from above (attached to an overhead beam, for example) which makes stirring larger volumes of water less tiring.

Bertie Eden of Château Maris in the Minervois with his wooden dynamiser. Château Maris is certified biodynamic by Demeter.

Dynamising by Machine

The number of companies supplying stirring machines aimed at the biodynamic market is small but increasing. Suppliers I am aware of include Matthieu Bouchet’s Terres en Devenir in Montreuil-Bellay (Maine et Loire), France for dynamisers made from wood (see photo) and latterly from clay-lime (and thus metal-free) mortar. Gian Zefferino Montanari of Bio-Meccanica (biomeccanica.com) in Scandiano (RE), Italy produces cleverly designed and mechanically robust copper stirring machines and sprayers framed in stainless steel. The electric motor is insulated and moveable and so can be sited away from the machine when a dynamisation is taking place. Unframed alternatives also from copper are made by the Swiss Ulrich Schreier of Eco-Dyn (eco-dyn.com) in Becon Les Granits (Maine et Loire), France, now by far France’s leading supplier of copper dynamisers to wine estates. Steve Storch (naturalscienceorganics.com) in Water Mill (NY), USA designs and produces barrel-shaped copper stirring machines which are hydraulically rather than electrically powered. As he says it makes no sense going to the trouble of storing and keeping the biodynamic preparations away from electricity if at the most intense moment they experience when being stirred in water they are blasted with electromagnetic fields from electrical machinery.[19] 

Italy’s Gian Zefferino Montanari builds dynamisers (his right shoulder) and dedicated sprayers for the two biodynamic horn sprays (his left shoulder) from copper.

            There are two schools of thought on when the reversal in direction of the movement of stirring which creates chaos should take place. One school argues it should be decided by the height the water reaches as the central vortex pushes the water up around the side of the stirring container. This takes account of the suppleness of the water, and how it changes during stirring (see Storch’s comments above). The other school maintains that the motor should be deliberately pre-programmed to change direction every twenty to thirty seconds or so, with a short pause. Placing the drive mechanism which turns the stirring paddles beneath the chamber holding the water, rather than above it, may allow even better penetration of celestial forces. Biodynamic growers are encouraged to remain near mechanical stirring machines when they are being used so that “the intention of the farmer [remains] fully involved with the stirring”[20], meaning that even if the machine is a money saving device it should not be seen as merely a time saving device as well. This echoes Steiner[21] who said that “you may say that enthusiasm cannot be weighed or measured, but an enthusiastic doctor is an inspired doctor, and the doctor’s enthusiasm supports the effect of the medicine.” One can use the word “farmer” instead of “doctor” and “farm spray” instead of “medicine” for his point to have an agricultural resonance.

Flowforms

The traditional way of dynamising using a bucket, tub or tank results in a single central vertical vortex or whirl forming in the water. At most around 200 litres can be stirred by hand in this way, with volumes of around 600 litres possible in the largest mechanically powered vertical dynamisers. Much larger quantities of water of upto several thousand litres can be dynamised by using what are called flowforms. The first flowforms were designed in the early 1970s when the above-mentioned Theodor Schwenk asked John Wilkes (1930-2011), an English potter-turned-sculptor and graduate of the Royal College of Art, to make a model over which water could flow.

            Wilkes wanted to work on the subject of resistance in streaming water and the resulting rhythms. During his experiments Wilkes found that by creating a certain resistance to the water flow in a vessel with defined proportions, a pulsing figure-of-eight pattern would arise. Thus the flowform principle was discovered. The work into what became known as flowforms took place at Herrischreid in Germany at Schwenk’s fledgling Institut für Strömungswissenschaften (Institute for Flow Sciences). Wilkes installed his first flowform in 1971 in Järna, Sweden (this prototype was later commercialised as the Järna model).[22]

Matthew Frey with the flowform at Frey Vineyards, Mendocino County, California. Frey Vineyards is certified biodynamic by Demeter.
  

            A flowform consists of a series of between three and up to a dozen or more small and symmetrical sculpted vessels or basins through which water is channelled. Rates vary between 1,000 litres per hour for a three basin flowform upto 2,800 litres per hour for a seven basin flowform. Each basin has an inlet and an outlet. Water is channelled to cascade and stream through these sculpted forms in a way which replicates certain archetypal forms found in water's movement in its natural state, such as if it were eddying and flowing over pebbles in a stream. The proportions of the basins create and maintain a rhythmical pulsing figure-of-eight or lemniscatory movement in the water which replicates how blood moves in living organisms. Wilkes[23] said this figure-of-eight was fundamental to organic processes. The water undergoes chaos when it falls in a collecting tank and can then be returned to the top of the cascade for the cycle to begin again.

            Flowforms create layers in the water because streams of water are moving in the same direction in the basins, but at differing speeds. This allows multiple vortices to develop. This contrasts to the single, vertical vortex produced in a vertical container. When two layers of water flow past each other creating resistance, planes of vortices form between these layers. This dramatically increases oxygen levels in the water and does so in a rhythmical way which is said to enhance the water’s vitality. As well as being used in biodynamics, flowforms are also used to treat industrial and agricultural effluent because, as initial research at the Rudolf Steiner Seminariat wastewater treatment ponds in Sweden showed, they can oxygenate large volumes of water while also stimulating biological activity. Some wineries such as Frey in California pass waste water from the winery through a flowform to clean and re-vitalize it (see photo). The visual and aural effect flowforms have mean they also have a role in therapeutics.

Germany’s Institut für Strömungswissenschaften (stroemungsinstitut.de) is researching how stirring affects the biodynamic preparations. Research into flowforms is also being undertaken in America at the Michael Fields Research Institute (michaelfields.org) in Wisconsin.

The Water

Tap water is deemed too hard and alkaline for the kind of sprays used by biodynamic growers, and anyway may have been chlorinated or had flouride added. One alternative, rain water, is softer and more acidic than tap water. Saverio Petrilli uses rain water rather than water from streams running through Tuscany’s Tenuta di Valgiano which he manages. “Biodynamic experts tell me one of our streams has water with a better pH than the other one,” he says “but that the water from either stream has better pH than that from the sky. However obtaining water from the stream means finding pumps, a power supply, tractors and trailers whereas water from the sky arrives by gravity.”

Those who collect rain water should wait twenty minutes before placing a recipient under say a roof gutter to avoid harvesting the earliest fraction of rain water which is the most polluted, and contains mineral impurities which may inhibit the fermentation process for liquid manures. It is also likely to contain dust and other dirt from the roof itself.

Françoise Bedel in Champagne uses water from her own well. Dominique Derain in the Côte de Beaune uses water from his local stream in St-Aubin. Melted snow may also be used.

Spraying Dynamised Liquids by Machine

When Steiner was asked, in the discussion after the fourth lecture of his 1924 Agriculture course, whether the etheric and astral forces carried by a dynamised liquid would be lost by using a machine that breaks the liquid up into a very fine spray he replied “Not at all. They are very firmly bound. In general, you don’t have to be nearly as afraid that spiritual things will run away from you as you do with material things.”[24]

---

[1] See Schiff, Michel., The Memory of Water: Homoeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science (Thorsons, 1995)

[2] See Schwenk, Theodor., Sensitive Chaos (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996) trans. by O. Whicher & J. Weigley

[3] Pfeiffer, Ehrenfried., Biodynamics: three introductory articles (Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association USA, 1956)

[4] Steiner, op. cit., p.73

[5] Dagostino, Kathryn., ‘A new way of looking at water: an interview with Jennifer Greene’, Applied Biodynamics 16/1996, p.6

[6] See Schwenk, op. cit.

[7] Greene, Jennifer., 'The vortex in water and flowforms', Stella Natura Calendar 2000 (Kimberton Hills USA, 1999), p.30

[8] Joly, Nicolas., What is Biodynamic Wine (Clairview, 2007) trans. by M. Barton, p.62

[9] Greene, ibid., p.30

[10] West, Lynette., ‘Using Liquid Manures’, Star & Furrow 109/2008, p.15-16

[11] Soper, John., Bio-Dynamic Gardening (Souvenir Press, 1996), eds. B. Saunders-Davies & K. Castelliz, p.40

[12] Courtney, Hugh., ‘Stirring vessels and sprayers (part 2)’, Applied Biodynamics 20/1997, p.4

[13] Steiner, op. cit., p.74

[14] Steiner, ibid., p.76-77

[15] Baars, Ton., and Pfirmann, Dorothee., ‘On the effect of horn manure, discussion on evidence in accurate trials’, Star & Furrow 115 (Summer 2011), p.32 trans. by John Weedon

[16] Storch, Stephen., ‘Developing a hydraulic stirring machine’, Applied Biodynamics 20/1997, p.8

[17] See Beckett, Neil., ‘Biodynamo’, Harpers Wine & Spirit Weekly, 25 October 2002, p.31

[18] Proctor, op. cit., p.46

[19] Storch, op. cit., p.7

[20] Courtney, op. cit., p.5

[21] Steiner, op. cit., p.77

[22] Wilkes, Thomas., & Schwuchow, Jochen., ‘John Wilkes 1930-2011’, Star and Furrow 116/2012, p.48-49

[23] Wilkes, John., Flowforms - The Rhythmic Power of Water (Floris, 2003)

[24] Steiner, op. cit., p.83

Tim Atkin's Brunello di Montalcino Special Report 2013

As someone who lives in Montalcino, one of Italy's blue chip wine regions, I am always curious to see how the place, its people and their wines are perceived by outsiders, not least my fellow wine critics.

Tim Atkin's recently published 47 page Special Report (see below for more details) covers the newly released 2008 Brunellos and 2007 Brunello Riservas. Sensibly, Tim's report focusses on the wines, not the recent "Brunellogate" blending scandal, 2008 being "the first post-Brunellogate vintage".

It is clear to anyone living in the region that things have changed post-scandal, and for the better. I find the wines much more credible than I did when I first came here nearly ten years ago. By being forced to get to grips with Sangiovese, the only grape allowed in wines bearing the Montalcino name, local producers are having to work harder in the vineyard rather than relying on illegal dollops of Merlot or Petit Verdot for colour, tannin or more impressive mouthfeel, or legal dollops of additives like "flavoured tannins and gum arabic" which Tim cites.

There is an increased interest in organics and biodynamics (over a dozen producers are now certified), and Tim flags all those producers who have taken this course and who appear in his tasting notes. Tim's one omission is in his (slightly harsh I felt) note for Tenuta Corte Pavone which was converted to certified organic practices by its new owners, the Loacker family, immediately after they acquired it in 1996.

Tim's idea that Montalcino's Sangiovese wines should all be analysed by a laboratory before they can carry the Montalcino name is laudable but unworkable in terms of logistics and cost (especially for smaller producers). I think a combination of random checks and analysis of any wines which give the appearance of having been dishonestly backblended should be applied. This is much more likely to keep producers on their toes.

Tim touches on the issue of terroir "zoning", a hot topic here, whereby Montalcino would be divided up into a set of sub-regions (probably between four and seven) based on soil type, altitude, and according to which side of Montalcino the vines are on. Some see this move as too divisive, predictably those on lesser (lower, heaver soiled) sites, while others argue although Montalcino's red wines are from a single town and grape, it is foolish to think they are homogeneous and that inter-regional differences should be celebrated. Tim says (I think accurately) that journalists seem keener on the idea than producers, and he declares himself as pro-zoning (so am I). Most trade buyers can work out which wineries have vines on the best terroir with or without zoning, and while Tim notes that zoning brings with it the potential to over-complicate the Brunello offer, he does quote at length winemaker Alberto Antonini who quite reasonably says:

“Brunello is probably the most famous Italian wine and if you compare it to other premium regions, particularly Burgundy, it is too generic. Identifying sub-zones on the label would give Brunello a better definition, identity and uniqueness.”

 Any form of classification is controversial, and Tim's decision to divide his selection of top producers into five classed growths (on the model of Bordeaux's 1855 classification) and his lesser wines as crus borghesi (bourgeois in French money) is bound to stimulate debate. Tim says he has classified the estates according to his impressions based on a decade of tasting their wines, and not just on the 2007/2008 vintage cited in his Special Report. He adds that his classification is not set in stone, and thus wineries may be promoted/demoted in his new classification in next's year's report. I believe Tim when he says he has not set out to be controversial in his selections/ratings, but some might see some of his classification choices as just that.

Tim Atkin MW, 29 March 2012

Biondi-Santi, the estate credited with being the grandaddy of Brunello through its work in selecting and developing the Sangiovese clone known as "Brunello" in the late 19th-century, is given only third growth status. Tim admits he is "in the middle" of the divide when it comes to judging the Biondi-Santi wines - laudably traditional or boringly old-fashioned - but adds this is one of the few Montalcino estates whose wines do consistently show "breed". On this basis and at worst one might give Biondi-Santi a more generous second growth listing with a "must try harder" mark because its genetically proven old vines and decent terroir are a potentially first growth combination.

I would also argue against Tim making Barbi second growth material. I think it made clearer, more ethereal wines in the past (1950s, 1960s, 1970s) than it does today and I see no reason why it should not repeat this form. Likewise Casanova di Neri. While the estate has many attributes, me the wines emphasise winemaking rather than terroir, and I am not sure this is what second growths should be about (in a similar way I find Angélus a triumph of style over substance, albeit a consistently clever one). If Il Poggione is a second growth, and I think Tim is right to say it is - good, tight, traditional Brunello whose tannins are easily capable of slaying one of Montalcino's numerous local wild boars - its alter ego Col d'Orcia, which has similar terroir but makes a more obviously approachable but no less traditional style, should be bumped up from third to second growth.

I am pleased to see Stella di Campalto's small estate (called San Giuseppe) as a second growth, but feel Jan Erbach's Pian dell'Orino and Francesco Leanza's Salicutti are just as worthy (both deemed thirds by Tim). Viticulturally I rate few higher than Jan Erbach in Montalcino. If you put him in Burgundy he'd grow (not make) premier cru wines from village terroir, and grand cru from premier.

Leanza, Erbach and di Campalto all collaborated on the geological map which Tim published in his report, the map being the first step in what these three hope is a move towards a better understanding of terroir in Montalcino (and by possible implication zoning). It is no coincidence all three are either certified organic or Biodynamic. Montalcino got itself into a hole of its own making by thinking what happened in the winery was more important than what was going on in the vines. The end results were certain Brunello wines getting scores from Wine Spectator that only a scriptwriter from Dreamworks could realistically have imagined, and Brunello-gate.

Overall, Tim's report is clearly and attractively laid out. The way the wines are colour coded according to their score is both clever and useful, the text is peppered with some of Tim's mouthwatering landscape photos plus tighter, informal shots of the region's key personalities. His tasting notes are concise, Tim preferring to illustrate each wine's flavours with just a couple of well-chosen adjectives allied to a brief set-the-scene description so you get an idea of where the wine came from, who made it and where it fits in the winery's hierarchy.

In his next report I'd like to see a bit more on the region - its viticulture and terroir - and some background on which markets are buying Brunello and what they are paying for it.

When I met (bumped into) him at this year's Benvenuto Brunello anteprima tasting (en primeur), Tim was wearing a thick trenchcoat, had both pen and notebook in hand plus his own personal translator by his side. He looked like a foreign office emissary whose orders had been to observe and gauge the natives, but without getting too close to them. Ultimately, this is what gives this report its credibility. The cult of personality - "100-point" Brunello winemakers feeding off "superstar" journalists and vice versa - was only a small part of the Brunello myth but it was the part that ultimately caused devastating hurt to many blameless individuals as well as to the region as a whole via Brunellogate. Tim's interested-but-dispassionate stance marks a potential new beginning in the way Brunello is presented by the media, and is a logical reflection of what is happening on the ground here. As both a wine writer and Montaclino resident, I see this as potentially very welcome.

I have no commercial interest in any Brunello wineries. The names of those Brunello wineries for which members of my family work are not mentioned in this blog post (but do feature in Tim's report).


Tim Atkin's Brunello Special report is available (£10 €12 $15) from

http://www.timatkin.com/reports/2013-brunello-special-report
 

Biodynamics – five reasons for

Jessica Standing, Secretary of the Biodynamic Association (BDA) in the UK (contact details below), asked me to come up with five good reasons for Biodynamics, and this is what I wrote:

1) Biodynamics teaches farmers to be more self-reliant, minimising potentially harmful inputs like man-made sprays, saving money and making for safer farms and communities

2) Biodynamics emphasises real self-sufficiency, creating food/wine which tastes of a unique sense of place because Biodynamic farmers have to put more in to the land than they take out

3) Biodynamics re-connects our farms, our farmers, our food and thus us to the kind of seasonal cycles and natural rhythms that our 24-hour culture obliterates

4) Biodynamics is the only farming system which sets out explicitly to produce food which stimulates both body and soul, vital for sentient beings like us

5) Biodynamic techniques like composting, making herb/mineral teas, and working to celestial cycles are cheap, safe, common-sensical and easily applicable to any farm, field or back garden. Biodynamics is neither patented nor trademarked, and so is thus available to everyone. Biodynamics can be learnt quickly and universally: by kids, pensioners and everyone in-between. Biodynamics is a think-local farming system that is cost-effective, produces high quality food, is inherently sustainable, and works.

A quick response to Wreggian over-simplification

Doug Wregg's pronouncements on natural wine, posted on his Caves de Pyrène website are always a pleasure to read, dotted as they are with references to bits of classical literature I studied long ago and have, in the main I am afraid, long since forgotten. What I do clearly remember being taught at school however was the importance of "substance over style", a rule I think Doug can tend to forget. 

In his latest post, Is Natural Wine Moral? (http://therealwinefair.com/is-natural-wine-moral/), Doug falls in to the classic trap of equating small with good, and big with bad, when it comes to wine's often questionable environmental footprint. This is the same morally spurious malady that afflicted Jonathan Nossiter's 2004 documentary Mondovino, which pitched Aimé Guibert in the role of the small guy protecting France's bucolic landscape from Yankee raiders in the form of the more obviously corporate Mondavi family. 

A more corporate-minded man than Guibert you are unlikely to find, if the startlingly rapid rise in production of his Wine Challenge-winning red (called, from memory, Figaro) in the early 1990s is anything to go by. A glove-maker by profession, Guibert's guiding philosophy always seemed to me to be "never mind the quality, feel the width". His estate-grown Mas de Daumas Gassac is as lumpen and terroir-lite a super-premium red as I have ever had from a hot climate. A triumph of neither substance nor style. Anyone like Guibert who was producing 200,000 cases (and more) of a negociant wine like Figaro cannot, realistically, play the role of the small guy without inviting ridicule, unless invited to of course by a naive if undoubtedly well-intentioned movie maker.

This 'small-is-good, big-is-bad' conceit is too simplistic an idea to support, even if I sympathise with both Nossiter and Wregg's motives for trying to do so. Those whose work the vegetable allotments that surround my own are all small-scale gardeners. To a man they delight in telling me how they "sow by the moon." What they omit to mention is the huge proportion of insecticide and herbicide they use per square metre, way over what is recommended on the packet. They over-spray not because they are amoral but because they are ignorant. They buy a packet of herbicide, and use half one year and half the next, before the use-by date expires. In small-allotment-waste-not-want-not-world it makes perfect sense. Nothing gets wasted. The pay off is that everything gets over-sprayed by a factor of twenty.

I have seen the same reverse (meaning dumb) logic applied and at first-hand on small vineyards as well: organic, conventional, IPM, natural and biodynamic. The argument goes that if you have to take the tractor out to spray the vines, you might as will fill the spray rig right up to the top (with copper sulfate/Bordeaux mixture) and only come back to base when you have sprayed until nothing is left, irrespective of need. This kind of over-spraying is endemic in all fields of wine production, and agriculture in general, and our hospitals (MRSA anyone?) because of paranoia. This is a paranoia created both by "evil" chemical companies looking to sell more product as well as by well-meaning organic, natural and biodynamic greenies and hospital staff lacking the confidence and knowledge to be more risk-averse. 

The reason I like the biodynamic approach over the organic or natural approach is because it is the only one which makes farmers explicitly accept they have to put back more than they take out. In his piece Doug writes "Working in harmony with nature, putting back in what you take out, conserving the landscape, the local flora and fauna, is the moral responsibility of all farmers. "

For me this not enough. You have got to start thinking of putting more back if you are a farmer, not just maintaining a touchy-feely status quo. 

One of my key criticisms of natural is wine quality. I am not alone. I said the same about organic wine in its early years, in the late 1980s, and about biodynamic wine in its infancy in the early 1990s, so please don't think I have it in for natural wine. I don't. 

Jean-Pierre Frick (Alsace) is an example of someone who started off in the 1980s by adopting a passive mode of organic wine-growing, à la naturel, and it didn't work. He decided he would just let the weeds grow, to be a true non-interventionist, which worked for a while; but eventually his vines and wine started to suffer nutrient deficiencies, stinky unfinished ferments. It was only when Frick started lightly working the soil/weeds that his vines could start to breathe again, and feed and hydrate properly, and so produce grapes more likely to ferment healthily and to their full potential. 

Frick compensated for any disruption he was causing his terroir by putting more life back into his soils and vines than he was taking out with the plough by spreading both biodynamic compost on the soil and spraying plant and mineral teas on the vines. These provide both the physical "substances" (humus-forming, disease-preventing microbes and nutrients) and the voodoo-esque "life forces" biodynamic loonies like me feel our planet, our food and our souls need if we are going to survive and prosper as sentient beings. 

Frick now makes some of France's best examples of the no-added-sulfites "natural" wine style, and I would argue his success is down to both experience (learning from failure) and more importantly learning  how to use biodynamics as a means of staying in environmental credit [Frick's vines are certified biodynamic by Demeter].

Wine from a vineyard which is farmed nobly, with minimal intervention, but badly because the non-interventionist stance results directly in unhealthy grapes capable only of producing stinky, unappealing wine is actively bad for the environment if consumers reject the wine as being unhealthy or unappetising. 

Having to bin a bottle of natural wine after just half a sip because its manufacture was negligent is just as much an environmental sin as deciding to replace an iPod Touch in perfect working order simply because its colour is no longer in fashion. Both result from a type of arrogance, conspicuous consumption in the case of the latter and a misguided sense of laissez-faire in the case of the former. 

There's a moral in there somewhere not just for music lovers and wine drinkers, but for all of us, but one I feel Doug Wregg's recent post did not fully address.

Everything you needed to know about Maria Thun's Barrel Compost

Source: Biodynamic Wine-growing: Theory & Practice which is

on Kindle
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monty-Waldins-Biodynamic-Wine-Growing-ebook/dp/B009B0QOY6/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1358109499&sr=1-1

in paperback
http://www.lulu.com/shop/monty-waldin/monty-waldins-biodynamic-wine-growing-theory-practice/paperback/product-20231020.html

Barrel compost is simply a quick form of solid biodynamic compost 502-507 which is applied to the soil but in much smaller volumes and in spray form.

Barrel compost is an economical and speedy way of getting the compost preparations 502-507 on the land, biodynamic compost often being at a premium, especially when treating new land or converting a new farm to biodynamic management, where there may be no compost available to spread.[1]

Barrel compost is often the first tool used by wine-growers converting to biodynamics, allowing vineyards to receive their first set of biodynamic compost preparations 502-507 within a matter of weeks, rather the 6-12 months compost piles need to mature.

Barrel compost was developed in the early 1970s in her native Germany by Maria Thun (see Chapter 7).[2] Its precursor was the ‘collective preparation’ or Sammelprepärat developed in 1927 by MK Schwarz, one of the first German farmers to adopt Rudolf Steiner’s biodynamic ideas. Schwarz made his collective or ‘birch pit’ preparation by lining a long pit dug into the ground with birch poles and locating it near the barn in which farm animals overwintered. Their manure was emptied into the pit and the biodynamic compost preparations 502-507 were dropped in. The manure was left to compost for several months and then spread on the farm in solid form, and the pit was re-filled with fresh manure.

Rudolf Steiner made no reference either to barrel compost or a collective/birch pit preparation in his 1924 Agriculture course; and while barrel compost compensates to a degree for a lack of sufficient compost, spraying barrel compost has never been seen as a long-term substitute for solid biodynamic compost 502-507. The latter imparts a more profound, longer-lasting effect to the soil as far as the forces exerted by the compost preparations 502-507 are concerned.[3] This is why the barrel compost spray 502-507 and solid biodynamic compost 502-507 are best used in tandem. Making a pile of compost and omitting to add the biodynamic compost preparations 502-507 to that pile because one is also spraying barrel compost 502-507 would be considered an undesirable and unnecessary short-cut.

Given its German origins it is not surprising Maria Thun’s barrel compost is especially popular with German-speaking wine-growers who call it Pfladenpräparat (‘cow pat preparation’). In France it is called le compost de bouse or simply le Maria Thun. In Australasia a variation developed by Peter Proctor made in a brick pit rather than in a barrel and called the Cow Pat Pit or CPP for short is a popular variation on Thun’s design (both are described in detail, below). Other names for this preparation include barrel prep, barrel manure, biodynamic compound prep or BC, dung compost spray, compost spray prep, manure concentrate.

Maria Thun said spraying barrel compost 502-507 had an enlivening effect on the soil, stimulating the soil metabolism by activating soil micro-organisms which results in better decomposition of organic matter, improved soil structure (less compaction), higher humus levels (balanced soil nutrients), and generally improved soil quality. For those converting to biodynamics after a period of conventional farming barrel compost 502-507 is regarded as being a useful primer for the soil’s very first application of horn manure 500, initiating healing processes for soils damaged by chemical spray residues and reversing the erosive, hardening tendency soluble fertilizers have of turning clay (aluminium silicate) back towards rock.[4]

Making Maria Thun’s Barrel Compost 502-507

Maria Thun made her barrel compost by placing fifty litres of cow dung (same criteria as for horn manure 500), five-hundred grammes of basalt grains or powder (basalt can easily be added as grit) and one-hundred grammes of finely crushed, dried eggshells in a container, like a barrel stood on one end with the other knocked out. Lovel[5] suggests cleaning the barrel by filling it brimful with water, “throwing in a shovel full of compost and stirring. After soaking it for a week, I emptied it out and scrubbed its charred interior with a steel wire brush and wood ashes. Then I filled it again and let it set, throwing in a large bunch of fresh stinging nettles. When this began to smell really rank, I used this nettle tea to water tomato plants and rinsed the barrel out well. I covered it to shade the interior and waited until a pale violet fungus grew on the inside walls. According to Maria Thun this indicates it is ready for use.”

Once inside the barrel the ingredients (cow manure, egg-shells, basalt) are stirred from the outside in for one hour, after which Thun says the mixture should have become “one dynamic whole”, resembling a big cow pat with a slightly dilute colour. Peter Proctor says farmers can become bored during the mixing or stirring and not mix as well or long as required, but a good stirring will “make all the difference” to this preparation's quality. Some find mixing the ingredients easier in a wheel barrow than in a barrel. Others say a cement mixer is easier still...

            Half of the manure, basalt, and eggshell mixture is then placed in another barrel stood on one end, but with both ends knocked out. This would have previously been dug into a hole in the ground, not quite half as deep as the barrel, with the excavated earth piled around the part of the barrel poking up above ground level. The barrel is left open at both ends so the contents within may receive both earthly (lime/calcium) and celestial (silica) forces. The five solid biodynamic compost preparations 502-506 are inserted one by one and separately into the mixture, with stinging nettle 504 usually placed at the centre. Then the remaining half of the manure, basalt and eggshell mixture is placed on top, and it too has a set of solid compost preparations inserted. Finally, a liquid mixture made from five drops of the valerian 507 preparation stirred for 10 minutes in a litre of water is poured over the top.[6] The barrel is then covered with its lid.

Barrel compost is prepared under a descending moon and when the sidereal moon stands in a root/earth constellation: Virgin in the northern hemisphere and either Goat or Bull in the southern hemisphere. When the descending, sidereal moon has returned to the same earth/root sign, twenty seven days or one sidereal month after the barrel was first filled with the barrel compost, the contents of the barrel are aired by turning briefly with a spade.

Thun says that after another two weeks the barrel compost will be ready. Bouchet says to wait another 27-day sidereal month. Some New Zealanders leave their barrel compost in the barrel for six to eight months, and even upto one year for it to experience all four seasons.[7] Leaving the finished preparation in situ risks allowing worms to devour it, however.

The finished preparation should resemble very rich, dark, fine soil with a clean, intensely earthy smell. It is stored in the same way as horn manure 500.

The Role of Eggshells & Basalt

Thun decided to add calcium-rich eggshells to her barrel compost because data from a research station in Freiburg (Baden region, Germany) indicated that oats, celery and tomatoes grown on limestone soils contained fewer residues of Strontium 90, a radioactive substance released by nuclear fission (which these plants tend to collect and left by America’s 1958 atomic bomb tests) compared to similar plants grown on sandy (siliceous) granitic soils. After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 the German Ministry of Agriculture participated in field trials with Maria Thun which compared perennial rye grass grown in Uranium-contaminated soil containing solid barrel compost 502-507 (15 grammes per kilo of soil) or merely sprayed with barrel compost (36 grammes of spray per kilo of soil) compared to plants in soil treated only with commercial fertilizer.

Plants in all three soils grew more fine root hairs and produced about 30% more roots than normal. However the green shoots of the biodynamic plants contained an average 55% lower levels of Uranium. This suggests Maria Thun’s barrel compost 502-507 helps to reduce the transfer of Uranium ions from the soil to the aerial part of the plant.[8] It also suggested that the negative effect radioactivity has on the capacity of plant roots to take up nutrients that otherwise would be impeded by the radioactivity in the soil is diminished in the presence of barrel compost. Biodynamic wine-growers are therefore encouraged to keep chickens from which to source fresh eggshells for this part of the preparation.[9]

Grinding the eggshells and calcium is said to allow micro-organisims in the manure a greater chance of breaking the minerals down, using some for their own nutrition, but excreting some in water-soluble form. The calcium element in this preparation is also thought to combat the effects of acid rain by stimulating calcium processes which help regulate soil pH.[10]

Thun says basalt’s role is to support those living organisms and processes in the soil involved in or which work towards decomposition, and thus promotes microbial activity in the soil and ultimately humus formation there. (Basalt can be spread directly on a garden to help the humus formation in clay soils, clay particles binding with humus to hold soil nutrients, preventing erosion of them.)[11] Henderson[12] points out that in chemical terms this leads to the formation of more clay-minerals, which encourage humus formation (clay-humus complex). The basalt acts in a nitrogen-fixing capacity when even more finely ground than grit, she says.

Another way of looking at the addition of eggshell (calcium) and basalt is that they represent two basic soil types. Basalt comes from inert magma within the earth’s mantle and amounts to embryonic, new soil[13], like infant clay.[14] Basalt is a young igneous rock formation originating from deep down in the earth’s crust. Brought to the surface through volcanic activity, the flowing lava cools rapidly to a very dark and dense rock whilst being exposed to the sun in its molten state, giving basalt a sun impregnated formative quality. It became in effect a rock formed not just by the forces of the earth but those of the cosmos too. This is why according to Maria Thun basalt is so beneficial as an ingredient of barrel preparation.[15]

Calcium in contrast is a geological baby present in limestone-rich soils formed by marine deposits from living creatures within the last several hundred million years. From a biodynamic perspective the eggshells provide the lime polarity (formative forces regulating crop growth)[16] while basalt provides the balancing silica polarity (formative forces regulating crop taste).

Christian von Wistinghausen used volcanic ash instead of eggshells for his version of Maria Thun’s barrel compost, Der Mäusdorfer Rottelenker which he named after his home town of Mäusdorf and which directed the breakdown or decompostion of matter. He blended basalt dust (from below the ground) with ground lava (from above the ground) in cow manure which is forked over every three weeks, each time with a set of compost preparations 502-507 inserted. When the mixture was ready it is dried and crumbled up. Von Wistinghausen advises this be made in large amounts, twenty barrow loads at a time.

Peter Proctor’s Cow Pat Pit (CPP) Spray 502-507

Peter Proctor called his version of Maria Thun’s barrel compost the cow pat pit or cow pat prep (“CPP”). This is because a shallow pit or trench about 90cm long by 60cm wide and 30cm deep (3 feet by 2 feet by 1 foot) is used rather than in a barrel. Proctor found “making barrel compost problematic because it is slow, and hard to get the preparation out of the barrel when it is ready; and the preparation can smell because it has gone anaerobic in the barrel. I find it easier to make the preparation in a pit lined on all four sides by old bricks. These adsorb moisture but keep the dung cool, while stopping it from drying out.”

Peter Proctor and his Cow Pat Prep brick pits, 10th Feb 2004

Proctor lays the dung to a depth of 10-12cm (4 to 5 inches). “Any deeper and the transformation process will take too long. It should take about two months,” he says.[17] He lines the pit with the cow dung together with 200 grammes of powdered eggshell for the calcium influence and 200 grammes of basalt dust for the silica influence.[18] “These are first mixed together for 15-30 minutes in your hand,” he says “rather as you would mix dough, with a sort of flipping motion. Put the mixture into the pit and pat it down, but pat lightly, as you do not want to overly compact the mixture. It should be level. Then add 1-3 grammes of the solid biodynamic compost preparations [502-506]. Then potentize [stir] the valerian compost preparation [507] in the usual way and sprinkle over the cow pat mixture.[19] Then spread a damp hessian sack or gunny bag over the top. You should lay the brick pit in a shady place to keep it cool by allowing a good air flow in hot weather, to stop it from getting wet from rain, and to keep it sheltered in cold weather. The aim is to achieve a constant temperature and humidity. So in dry weather you can sprinkle the bricks with water every two or three days to keep them damp and to maintain humidity. After 6 weeks turn the preparation with a garden fork. If the dung has not broken down add another set of compost preparations. The dung should lose its smell. You will see decomposition begins at the edges of the pit where air flow is greatest.”

Figure 1A variation combining Maria Thun's barrel-shaped container but made of bricks which Peter Proctor favours over barrel oak for improved airflow as demonstrated by Jeremiah Courtney of the Josephine Porter Institute for Applied Bio-Dynamics, USA

Spraying Barrel Compost/Cow Pat Pit 502-507

Before being sprayed on the land barrel compost/CPP is diluted in clean rain water and dynamised (stirred) for twenty minutes, rather than for a full hour which is the case for the two biodynamic horn preparations 500 and 501. Thun says this is because the manure in the barrel compost/CPP has already been stirred for one hour when being mixed with the eggshells and basalt, so only 20 minutes of stirring is needed when the finished preparation is diluted in water prior to spraying. If the compost preparations 502-507 already present within barrel compost/CPP were to be dynamised for another full hour certain beneficial processes risk being inverted, such as barrel compost’s anti-cryptogamic effect.[20]

Barrel compost is stirred for 20 minutes before being sprayed on the ground

For one hectare Thun mixes 240 grammes of her barrel compost in 40 litres of water. The diluted preparation is applied as a fine spray on the soil. Whereas horn manure 500 should be sprayed within four hours of being dynamised, Thun maintained that because barrel compost’s ingredients are pre-stirred for one hour whilst being prepared this pre-potentizing process permits barrel compost to retain its effectiveness for up to 4 days after stirring even though it is only stirred for 20 minutes.[21] Hence Christian von Wistinghausen recommended three sprayings over 1-2 days from the same stirring.

For one hectare Proctor dilutes 2.5kg of his CPP preparation in 112 litres of water, over ten times as much solid material as Thun, probably because Proctor’s main consulting work was with Indian farmers with parched, easily eroded soils. The much more concentrated dilution means Proctor’s CPP acts almost as a liquid soil manure, or manure concentrate.[22]

Like horn manure 500, barrel compost/CPP 502-507 is most effective when sprayed in the afternoon, during humid, rather than dry weather for better integration into the soil. Ideally it is sprayed in autumn and under a descending moon when the earth inwardly inhales. Peter Proctor advised his cow pat pit is best sprayed for the first time early in the second quarter on a earth/root period, and during a descending moon phase as the earth breathes in, before horn manure 500 is sprayed. In other circumstances it is best applied at the end of the third quarter and the beginning of the fourth. At this time the formative forces and the water forces are at their peak in the soil.

Advice as to how often barrel compost 502-507 should be sprayed varies. One school says “barrel preparation can be used as frequently as you like. Because of requiring only twenty minutes stirring it can be used as a regular treatment of soil compost and stock yards to activate humus forming processes.”[23] Another says “it is not recommended to spray barrel compost more than once or twice a year, even on fields which need all the compost preparations [502-507], because continual use of barrel compost results in an accumulation of forces which ultimately will throw the field out of balance, a limitation of this particular preparation.”[24]

Peter Proctor told me he felt the cow pat pit (CPP) was severely under-utilised in biodynamic farming, meaning it should be used regularly on the soil or crops and in combination with the three other biodynamic field sprays horn manure 500, horn silica 501, and common horsetail (Equisetum arvense) 508, and biodynamic compost 502-507. The danger of barrel compost/CPP 502-507 throwing a field out of balance would arise only if this preparation was being continually and on its own.

Mixing barrel compost/CPP 502-507 with horn manure 500 to save spraying time may weaken the effect of both, and risks creating the same opposition of forces potentially present in prepared horn manure 500 + 502-507. This is why Bouchet[25] advises leaving a three week gap between spraying horn manure 500 and barrel compost 502-507 (see also Winter Tree or Pruning Paste/Wash, below). Proctor advises waiting at least two days after spraying CPP 502-507 before spraying either horn manure 500 or horn silica 501. However, farmers may still mix these two sprays for expediency, to have one stirring-and-spraying event instead of two, even though there could be an opposition between the growth forces contained in the horn manure 500 and the decomposition forces contained in the compost preparations 502-507.

Hugh Courtney[26] says “a field receiving treatment for the first time probably should have separate application[s] of the B.C. [barrel compost] and #500 [horn manure], but that thereafter, if time constraints dictate, the two could be combined. This is based on my perception that although you are dealing with different forces in the different preparations, they are not incompatible with each other especially in a situation where they are already all at work together.”

Henderson[27] however says it is common practice in New Zealand, in India (advised by Peter Proctor), Germany and Switzerland, especially on larger farming operations, for barrel compost 502-507 to be added to a stirring of horn manure 500, to save an extra trip onto the land with the tractor or sprayer. In this case it is added to the final twenty minutes of the hour-long stirring for horn manure 500.

Barrel compost spray is applied to farmland in the same way as horn manure 500: directly on the soil, in large droplets, and during late afternoon

Effects of Barrel Compost/Cow Pat Pit 502-507

Barrel compost/CPP’s role is to activate soil organisms when soil activity needs to be encouraged, while also improving soil structure. Thus it is commonly sprayed on freshly ploughed soil or on soil (recently grazed pasture or pasture recently mowed for hay, for example) about to be ploughed, usually either in autumn or spring when compost or green manures (cover crops) are being turned in.[28] Spraying barrel compost in autumn is considered ideal as this is when the earth goes to sleep and inhales (see also horn manure 500). Autumn sprayings of barrel compost/CPP stimulate soil microbes just as the vine roots they often colonise become active and fill with carbohydrates from the previous year’s vine growth, the very food these microbes not only need but have been waiting for. A follow-up application of barrel compost/CPP in spring is seen to bring to a close the winter process of decomposition underground. By budburst in spring soil organisms should have finished decomposing compost, cover crops, fallen leaves or vine prunings left between the vine rows. If this process is incomplete then vines may struggle to find the soil nitrogen they need for bud burst and new shoot growth.

Other uses of Barrel Compost/Cow Pat Pit 502-507

Barrel compost/CPP can be added to effluent ponds before refilling instead of the biodynamic compost preparations 502-507 to reduce smell and aid decomposition (farmers may find it easier to add a few handfuls of cow pat pit than to fiddle with individual compost preparations). Barrel compost/CPP combined with plant-based liquid manures, typically comfrey, stinging nettle, Equisetum arvense (common horsetail) 508, can be sprayed on the soil, or as a foliar feed on crops with an additional anti-fungal effect provided by the cow manure. Barrel compost/CCP can be added to heaps of manure or other material intended for composting before a proper compost heap is made.[29] Plants grown in potting mixes come on earlier if barrel compost/CPP is added. The root balls of young vines can be sprayed with barrel compost/CPP just before they are planted. Barrel compost/CPP can also be used as a seed bath. Barrel compost/CPP is also useful for application when plants and soils are under stress from insect attack, drought, etc.

---

[1] Lovel, Hugh., A Biodynamic Farm (Acres USA, 2000), p.122

[2] See Thun, Maria., Work on the Land and the Constellations (Lanthorn Press, 1979)

[3] Courtney, Hugh., ‘A JPI Perspective on Biodynamics', Applied Biodynamics 1/1992, p3.

[4] Bouchet, François., L'Agriculture Bio-Dynamique (Deux Versants, Paris, 2003), p.67

[5] Lovel, Hugh., A Biodynamic Farm (Acres USA, 2000), p.122-3

[6] Some practitioners chose to add the valerian 507 later and only when the barrel compost has transformed into humus. See the profile of valerian 507, Chapter 2.

[7] Henderson, Gita., ‘Cow Pat Pit, Where Did it Come From?’, Harvests 55/2 (2002), p.4

[8] Jarman, Bernard., ‘Maria Thun, An Appreciation’, Star & Furrow 117, p.17-21

[9] Wine from certified organic/biodynamic vineyards either produced or intended for sale in the USA must now comply with the USDA’s NOP (National Organic Program) restriction which prohibits the application of raw manure to land within 90 days prior to harvest for crops for human consumption not in direct contact with the soil or soil particles. Therefore, chickens must be removed from vineyards 90 days before harvest, although they are free to remain on other parts of the same property.

[10] Lovel, Hugh., A Biodynamic Farm (Acres USA, 2000), p.123

[11] Poppen, Jeff., The Barefoot Farmer (USA, 2001), p.193

[12] Henderson, op. cit., p.3. Henderson reports bentonite, serpentine rock (68% silica and 22% magnesium), seaweed and stinging nettle being used in New Zealand as a substitute for basalt.

[13] Lovel, Hugh., A Biodynamic Farm (Acres USA, 2000), p.123

[14] Poppen, Jeff., The Barefoot Farmer (USA, 2001), p.193

[15] Jarman, Bernard., ‘Maria Thun, An Appreciation’, Star & Furrow 117/2012, p.17-21

[16] Henderson, op. cit., p.5 reports Philippe Melville of Weleda saying that small amounts of calcium from the eggshells present in the barrel compost might ‘model’ healthy calcium function in the soil, in the same way that the small amounts of calcium in Weleda Pharmaceutical’s calcium compound ‘model’ a healthy physiology and thus promote a balanced calcium household in the body.

[17] Conversation between Peter Proctor and the author Tuesday afternoon 10th February 2004, at Proctor’s home in New Zealand.

[18] Proctor said basalt dust was plentiful in New Zealand due to volcanic activity there but was hard to find in India, where blue granite is used instead.

[19] Smith, Patricia., ‘Using Valerian the way Steiner intended - An update’, Applied Biodynamics 43/2003-4, p.6 reports New York biodynamic farmer/teacher Steve Storch as waiting until the dung, basalt and eggshell mixture has received the five solid compost preparations 502-506 and for the mix to have then transformed into humus before sprinkling it with the valerian 507 preparation.

[20] Bouchet, op. cit., p.158-9

[21] Courtney, Hugh., ‘Practical Biodynamic Research’, Applied Biodynamics 3/1993, p6-7

[22] Proctor, Peter., with Gillian Cole., Grasp the Nettle (Random House New Zealand, 1997), p.113

[23] Perso communication (Dec 2004) from Bernard Jarman, then Executive Director of the UK Biodynamic Agricultural Association

[24] Perso communication (Dec 2004) from Anne Mendenhall, then of the Demeter Association, USA

[25] Bouchet, op. cit., p.120-121

[26] Courtney, Hugh., ‘Practical Biodynamic Research’, Applied Biodynamics 3/1993, p6-7

[27] Henderson, op. cit., p.4

[28] Sattler, Friedrich., and von Wistinghausen, Eckard., Bio-Dynamic Farming Practice (Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association UK, 1992) trans. by A. Meuss, p.89

[29] Henderson, op. cit., p.2