Valerian | BD 507 and relation to phosphorus processes

[Kathryn]

In trying to understand the BD prep 507 (valerian), I've only arrived at more questions specifically to its stimulating relationship to phosphorus processes.

Can anyone guide me in better understanding this relationship?

Why are the flowers only used in this prep? Western herbology and Ayurvedic medicine use the root specifically to treat human conditions (I'm unsure how the homeopathic remedy is made, as it was not disclosed in Kent's Materia Medica). I understand its use in these forementioned systems and thought there would be some parallels between these and prep 507.

In many of the biodynamic books, including Steiner's Agriculture Lectures, only statements of use of this prep is written of...I'm hoping some of you could shed light on my question...

[Mark]

The homoeopathic remedy valerian is made from the fresh root - see the section called 'About the remedy' on the valerian page.

In regards to your question about the phosphorus process I would like to throw this open to the BdNow discussion list where this might be discussed.

[Mark]

OK - there was no response on the BDNow list so I will bluster a little.... almost all the BD compost preparations are made from the flowers - yarrow, dandelion, chamomile and valerian. The flower is the part which shows the kiss of the astral - and an unfallen astral at that. I think it is for this reason that the flower is used.

When the phosphorus process is spoken of it refers to a different approach to chemical elements than is the cultural norm. At least in my schooling phophorus is stuff, molecules that have essentially been around since the big bang, and if any more is being made there isn't much. Steiner's approach is very different; he sees the elements as precipitations out of a flow of activity. It is as if a process grinds to a halt and leaves the matter as a deposit.

So the phosphorus process grinds to a halt and leaves phosphorus. If we do a chemical analysis of soil or compost we get a picture of what happened there but not, as is supposed now, a picture of what may happen there due to the possibilities of phosphorus. The idea is to encourage the appropriate process since it is this process to which the healthy plant responds.

The question then arises as to what the phosphorus process is .. and rather than talk to myself I'll bounce that one to the great and good on BdNow and see if we cannot get some input....

[Mark]

Well that thread fell asleep but fortunately the work itself hasn't and the offline communication didn't. I wrote about this later after the experiments with Jo Bradley at Hungry Lane farm as we had some lovely results. (Independently measured phosphorus up by 30% in the field compared to the control and before spraying.)

This file shows the original thinking.

I shared the above with Malcolm Gardner who was good enough to reply:

"Hi Mark, thanks for sending your report.

OK, some quick comments. Looking afresh at the original German and the three translations, I would have to say in this case that the Creeger (not Creager!) & Gardner one is actually the most linguistically accurate. The German word Steiner is recorded as using here is not in fact something fuzzy like "Phosphorige," which could well be translated as "phosphorous substances," or "phosphorus-like substances." The word he uses is "Phosphorsubstanz," which is a term that any material chemist in his era would have been perfectly comfortable with. In other words, in my opinion, this construction unambigously refers to the physical substance. As evidence I offer Steiner's parallel usage in the first lecture of the term 'Kieselsubstanz' in the sentence: "Sie finden diese Kieselsubstanz, verbunden mit Sauerstoff, in unseren Quarzkristallen" (literally: "You find this Kieselsubstanz, bound with oxygen, in our quartz crystals"). Here, from the context, it is unambiguous to me that 'Kieselsubstanz' refers to the chemical element silicon, which when combined with oxygen, is familiar to us as quartz (silica). Yet just a few pages later, Steiner is recorded as saying that the forces of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn work on plants by way of "das Kieselige und Verwandtes" (literally: "the silicon-like and related"), which is a very broad and fuzzy expression. And there are many other examples I could give from other places to support the idea that with the word Phosphorsubstanz he means the physical substance phosphorus.

But to me it does not necessarily follow from this that here "we have a way [not "away"!] of increasing the chemical element using 507." Steiner says nothing about 507 "increasing" the element of phosphorus; on the contrary, he uses much more subtle and convoluted language: "it will call forth that which stimulates the manure to relate in the right way to phosphorus." This is where the big puzzle for me.

Similarly, I cannot conclude from Steiner's remarks about 'phosphorus' and alchemy in Lecture Three that "valerian isn't related to what modern chemistry knows as phosphorus." Why can't valerian be related to both chemical phosphorus and alchemical phosphorus? You quote the sentence about the five sisters: "They are quite different than the elements modern chemistry talks about," but you do not go on to quote the next two sentences: "Modern chemistry talks only about the corpses of the substances, not about the real substances. We have to get to know their living, sensitive aspect." In other words, a corpse is not the full "living, sensitive" reality, but it is certainly related to that reality, being the product of that reality.

You refer to Steiner's "medical lectures" in support of your thesis, but if you turn to the fifth lecture of his first medical course (March 25, 1920), Steiner describes phosphorus both in terms of its chemical properties (of internalizing heat and light) as well as in an explicitly alchemical way. (And this lecture contains both the chemical term 'Phosphorsubstanz' and the more fuzzy alchemical term "das Phosphorige.")

So I disagree with the opposition that you set up in the early part of your report, but I can only agree with you when you later show that the alchemical qualities are expressed in the corresponding chemical elements.

I may also agree with you when you say that 507 "is something to regulate the phosphoric process," but I think there is more to it than just "minimising losses [not 'loses'!] during manuring and other cyclic processes." As I suggested to you in conversation, I think 507 is meant to complete the process of raising the manure to the "egoic" level by doing something with the element phosphorus. More specifically, I suspect that phosphorus is related to the process whereby the "ego-potential" in animal manure is raised to the point where it is suitable for becoming the "brain" of the farm and receiving the ego-forces of agricultural individuality.

If you research Steiner's use of the term 'ego-potential' (Ich-Anlage), you find that it is often used to describe what human beings received from the Spirits of Form at the beginning of Earth evolution, and also to describe the first glimmer of self-consciousness during the Lemurian period when the human being's "eyes were opened" due to the influence of Lucifer (the Light- Carrier!). (See, for instance, the cycle, World, Earth and Man, esp. the 4th, 5th and 11th lectures.)

Furthermore, in medical contexts Steiner often speaks about the relation of phosphorus to the ego. Probably the best reference is in the book he co-authored with Ita Wegman in 1924/5, chapter 19, second case study, where it says: "Phosphorus supports the ego-organization so that this can overcome the resistance of the physical body."

In September 1922 Steiner also made a number of remarks about phosphorus and salt in the human head. To the workmen on Sept. 16th he said that non-salt foods are potentized and transformed into a "kind of" fine phosphorus in the head. To the members on Sept. 17th he said the blood going to the head becomes very fine and phosphoric. And to the priests on Sept. 19th he said that it is the "extra-fine" content of phosphorus in wine that is most significant, as is the salt content of bread. The sacramental sacrifice of wine and bread is what overcomes Ahriman and Lucifer respectively. So here we have yet another far-reaching perspective ...

As for Enzo's "potion," I am happy if he has discovered something that is so very effective in increasing soil phosphorus levels, but I am not convinced that this is actually the most important thing to do with regard to phosphorus and fertility.

Sincerely yours, Malcolm"

I also got some input from Dennis Klocek:

"It was good to see you at the conference. I enjoyed what you brought as clear and sympathetic science.

Regarding the essay you emailed to me. I think it is good to remember that sal and sulf are compounds as Ernst Lehrs remarks in Man or Matter (pgs 181 ff). The idea that sal and sulf are compounds of gravity and levity is a great help in parsing out the thickets surrounding the idea that phosphorus as an elemental substance and sulfur as an elemental substance are both “sulf”.

Further, I have found it useful to distinguish between sulfur as a process and sulfur as a substance. The substance / process polarity is the source of much confusion that I think you are clearly working to clear up. I think you are already onto this idea in a strong way but I just bring it as a talking point in your work.

In my understanding the alchemists regarded salt as a product of ash. Ash and salt were both in the sal pole with salt coming out of or
rising out of the ash as a phoenix. This idea that I am holding makes me not understand the concept that kali as an ash lies beyond the realm of salt.

These are questions that arose in me reading your article.

I am attaching the transcription and handout from a lecture I gave on the valerian prep FYI. (Attached) I hope that you find it of interest.

It was good seeing you at the conference."

In later correspondence with Dennis he suggested that the lemniscatory depiction of these dynamics could be improved if one were to have three little lemniscates in a vertical column within the one I drew in the first paper. The upper lobes of the bottom two lemniscates would overlap with the lower lobe of the of the top two such that the two over-lapping lobes were considered as one. (A similar three-fold three-folding is used in establishing the three bodies, three souls and three spiritual aspects of a human into its sevenfoldness - see Steiner's Theosophy where sentient body and sentient soul form a functional unity as the strap body and so forth.)

In this depiction, the calcium that appears in lecture five when describing the oak bark preparation (505) is less of a surprise. One might otherwise wonder what an earthbound element like calcium does in that upper realm, but since it is the lower lobe of the upper lemniscate it makes sense, especially if one thinks of the bark as a peripheral organ, and the skull as one in which the bone is surrounding the brain rather than like a long bone in a limb. Hence one sees a resonance of peripheral calcium gestures - i.e. the earthly matter in cosmic form! This has been a stimulating concept for me, and when I passed it on to Glen Atkinson for him also. [url=http://garudabd.org/content/biodynamic-chemistry]He merged that image with his own work on the periodic table.[url] That feels like good communication with the people who are thinking along similar lines. Almost makes it all worthwhile.

[Mark]

Someone else has offered an opinion about phosphorus / 507

http://biodynamicus.com/biodynamicus/ar ... -organism/

This is an interesting website and seems to be in the stream considering biodynamics and RS's thoughts on medicine. The writer - Peter Stewart - says:

The valerian preparation is only briefly mentioned, all Rudolf Steiner says is that it “stimulates it to behave in the right way in relation to what we call the ‘phosphoric’ substance”. With the phrase “phosphoric substance”, he is using an alchemic term to characterise substances which bear the imponderable etheric forces, like light and warmth, within themselves, in contrast to the polar salt-like substances, which are the bearers of ponderable earthly forces. Phosphorus is the bearer of etheric light. In Lecture 3 of the Curative Education course Steiner clarifies that the etheric “light” which Spiritual Science refers to is the light that lives in in all our sense perceptions{iii]. Continuing the picture, we can say that once the organism has received “senses”, an open sensitivity, through the working of silica in the dandelion preparation, it is to the phosphoric forces of light that those senses open. On the “phosphoric substances” as healing remedies in the human organism, he says in the medical lectures that they are “especially conducive to bringing the astral body and the ego into closer relationship with the physical organism”, to allow the more spiritual principles to find their expression in the more material.

The link gives the fuller essay.

Peter Stewart will be in the UK in May 2019

Information in this image:

WhatsApp Image 2019-04-21 at 20.26.18.jpeg (228.67 KiB) Viewed 9374 times

[Mark]

Prepared Valerian: The Secret of Finished Compost

My research into the valerian preparation began in June of
1999 at the JPI preparation-making seminar when I
noticed a difference between the way we were being shown
to use it and the indication as given by Rudolf Steiner.
Prior to that moment the use of the preparations was
something that I took on faith-that is to say, I did not
understand how and why they worked; I only knew from
Alex Podolinsky’s lectures1 that they did, and in a nearmiraculous
way that seemed to me to be the agricultural
equivalent of walking on water. Nor could I make any
sense out of the Agriculture Course2; the ideas expressed
in these talks were wholly enigmatic and entirely incomprehensible
to me.
I also could not understand why none of the farms I
had previously visited that used the preparations could
produce anything like Podolinsky’s published results with
tilth; the creation of thirty inches of topsoil (twelve percent
organic matter in the top four inches) in six years
using nothing but preparations, rock dust and subsoil
plowing. What was he doing with them that nobody else
was?
There was a profound mystery here. It occurred to me
that the answer to that mystery might be found in the
way the preparations were made and used.
At the JPI seminar I heard one thing from Hugh
Courtney above all else, which was this: every word
Steiner uses has significance. Keeping this in mind, I
began to read, very slowly and carefully, one word at a
time, the indication for prepared valerian and all at once
it made perfect sense to me.
This insight can be summarized in the following way:
A close reading of the indication text reveals that prepared
valerian is correctly applied only to the finished pile.
Think about the meaning of the words “. . . before using
this treated manure. . .”3 and you will realize that “treated
manure” really means, “treated fertilizer”, since you can’t
actually use “manure” until it has become “fertilizer”.
And indeed, in the German, Duenger is correctly translated
as “fertilizer” rather than just “manure”, and therefore
refers to a finished product.
How astonishing then to learn that traditional practice
applies prepared valerian to the unfinished pile, when
Steiner clearly does not say to do that at all !
On the contrary, his actual directions state explicitly
that prepared valerian is applied only when the pile has
become usable substance.

That is to say, with just five words Steiner describes in a
very clear and self-evident manner an application sequence
which, apparently, no one ever seems to have read.
What is going on here? How can this be?
Steiner says elsewhere that people are not yet accustomed
to reading his books very closely . This would still
seem to be the case today because, as you see, there is no
basis in the indication text for applying valerian preparation
to a pile not ready for use.

I then began to pursue this line of thought a bit further.
To begin with, we must grasp more precisely the difference
between “fertilizer” and “manure” when we read
the indication for procedure instructions. People for years
have been saying “manuring” when they mean, “fertilizing”;
but “manure” is not “fertilizer” either in German or
English. Knowing the difference between them explains
why valerian preparation is applied to “fertilizer” and the
other five are applied to “manure”; the principles at work
behind their effects run along opposite lines.
Review briefly each of the preparation-making procedures
and you will find that valerian is the only preparation
not exposed to the solidifying winter crystallization
process below the Earth; it remains instead a liquid dilution
of the summer blossoming process above the Earth.
Note well the polarities you see here.
They are winter/summer; solid/liquid; below/above the
Earth; and crystallization/blossoming. These are sequentially
opposite natural processes that produce correspondingly
opposite forces in substances exposed to them.
Likewise, compost preparations produce effects in the same
natural order used to create them. Just as summer follows
winter, one process begins where the work of the other ends.
Knowing the order in which the forces develop in
making the preparations also tells us the order in which
effects must occur in using them.
The winter crystallization process concentrates forces
within substance. Summer blossoming processes release
forces from substance. The five solid winter preparations
create a structured, inwardly organized substance in the
finished pile that is mobilized into outward activity in the
life of the soil by the liquid summer preparation. Compost
becomes a substance by a winter crystallization
process; this substance becomes usable through a summer
dissolution process.
Why then is prepared valerian effective only on the substance
of a finished pile?
Because it is a potentized dilution (like all homeopathic
preparations made in the same way), the release of
its radiant effect is instantaneous but momentary. Valerian
preparation requires the colloidal humus structure of
finished compost in order to deliver its effect.
The force of this momentary impulse is lost in an
unfinished pile because there is no unified structure in
place to absorb its impact. Such a unified structure is created
and refined by the metabolic uptake of the first five
preparations.
The same principle of potentized dilution effects
applies to the use of Horn Manure, Horn Silica, and
Equisetum preparations; all the liquid preparations work

by extending or amplifying the resonant forces contained
in the substances of the soil or plant they act upon.
What happens to the compost when the effect of valerian
preparation is lost?
According to the indication, prepared valerian activates
phosphorus, or “light-bearing” substance. Phosphorus is
the switch that turns on the “light” which catalyses the
crystallized fertility of the finished compost into energy
available for plants. Losing this effect means that the radiant
force of the compost never gets “turned on”, and as a
result the effect of the field sprays will lack a characteristic
intensity.
“Light” is also the structuring power of the ego organization
(“uprightness”) carried by phosphorus through the
fertilized cow manure. Without the right amount of
“light” activity the humus structure of the soil that sustains
the agricultural individuality either falls apart and mineralizes
into dust or stagnates into a swamp-like condition.
As it happens, Alex Podolinsky’s Prepared 500 applies
valerian preparation to the colloidal humus of finished
Horn Manure. This usage is consistent with the sequence
given by Steiner and may explain (along with good farming
practices) the phenomenal depth, fertility and structure
of Podolinsky’s soils; the “light” switch has been
turned on and the agricultural individuality can see its
path illuminated everywhere into the Earth.
You can try this sequence with the valerian preparation
yourself over the next year or two, and record the changes
in the depth and quality of your soil structure in the way
Podolinsky describes in his lectures.
My research over the past two years to further develop
the parameters of this insight includes a pharmacology of
valerian in its medicinal and spiritual effects, a precise
indication translation from the German, a description of
the chemistry and physics principles embedded in the
language Steiner uses, and a discussion of a variety of
techniques and applications, some traditional and some
new, that may be of interest to practitioners.4
This is a work in progress that invites response and
seeks to stimulate the experiments that will verify these
ideas and explore their implications. It outlines a view of
this preparation that is at once both buried beneath an
obscure text and yet stands as if hidden in plain sight.
You may wonder, as I have, why someone has not discovered
this use of prepared valerian long before now.
Most discoveries appear obvious only in hindsight; the
indication for valerian calls little or no attention to itself,
and under ordinary circumstances it would never have
occurred to me to notice it. The indication provokes no
real curiosity or interest, especially after having to ponder
the preceding indications. It just doesn’t make much of
an impression the first few times you see it and weigh its
content in your mind. This weak impression has consigned
it to obscurity.
Valerian preparation is almost, you might say, invisible;
it exists as a kind of blind spot and so over the years,
nobody has had much to say about it. Had the indication
for valerian never been given, none of our books about
the preparations would need very much revising.
In reality, however, it asks from us an effort beyond our
usual capability.
Unless we can call forth within ourselves a perspective
from above, the information it contains escapes our
notice and the indication remains indecipherable in the
ordinary sense.
Truly observing these inner processes in oneself moves
us to re-examine all that we think we know about the
preparations in the light of their spiritual foundations;
right preparation use is in fact a method of accelerating
our spiritual evolution.
The Agriculture Course was met with almost universal
incomprehension at the time Steiner gave it, and to some
extent this is still the case today. We continue to interpret
what he says according to our “education”, and this predisposition
then renders the information he gives us psychologically
inaccessible.
What is the path to understanding preparation use?
Steiner gives us two clear instructions for the future of
his agriculture indications. The first is to use them and
then to conduct experiments to verify that we know how
to use them. The second is to then spread their use as far
and wide over the Earth as possible.
Alex Podolinsky’s initiative in Australia seems to me to
be an experimental verification of the right use of the
preparations spread over a wide area, and therefore fulfills
both Steiner directives. His example can enable us to produce
comparable results, provided we are willing and able
to learn from it.
For without such results Steiner’s agriculture will
shortly cease to exist in America. It is in fact already
legally dead here, having been made indistinguishable by
law from “organic” agriculture. While nothing harmful
in itself, “organics” is far too weak to support evolving
human life on the Earth very much beyond the immediately
foreseeable future. Nor has “organics” the moral and
spiritual power to shift the current materialistic agribusiness
paradigm, but will instead be co-opted and made to
accommodate.
If this unique way of life is to rise again from the dead
and distinguish itself in the way Steiner indicated, on this
continent, it must be taken up by a generation of farmers
who can absorb and manifest in themselves the gift and
power of the Spirit of the Earth.
It is this future generation of farmers in America for
whom this study is intended.

Summer Solstice,
In the last year of the 2nd millennium ad,
Under the earnest gaze of Uriel.

Notes
1) Alex Podolinsky, Biodynamic Agriculture, Volumes 1 and
2 (St. Leonard’s, Australia: Gavemer Press, 1985).
2) Rudolf Steiner, Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of
Agriculture (Kimberton, PA: Bio-Dynamic Farming
and Gardening Association, 1993).
3) Steiner, op. cit., 104.
4) This research is available upon request by contacting Joe
Stevens, 31 Bethwood Drive, Loudonville, NY 12211;
voicemail: (518)465-9472; e-mail: <jas5261956@hotmail.
com>.

[Mark]

Using Valerian the Way Steiner Indicated – An Update

A few years ago the article, “Prepared Valerian: The Secret
of Finished Compost,” written by Joe Stevens,1 (Applied Biodynamics,
No. 33, Summer 2001) reported of his discovery
of a misinterpreted instruction in the Agriculture lectures.
His findings conclude that Dr. Rudolf Steiner indicated that
valerian (bd #507) be added to the pile after the manure becomes
fertilizer. Apparently this instruction seems to have
been overlooked by many for nearly eighty years. After the
article was published, Joe received a few responses.
The valerian experiment
In the same issue with the article, “Prepared Valerian: The
Secret of Finished Compost,” was an experiment form for
people to record their experiences of using valerian-treated
compost. From this experiment, we received one response.
This came from Heike-Marie Eubanks of Myrtle Point,
Oregon. Heike-Marie lives on a forty-two-acre farm. The
land is leased for grazing except for one acre where she has
a large orchard and a year-round vegetable garden. Following
is her summary from using valerian finished compost
(see page 6 for photographs of the cover-cropped
beds).

This is an experiment with a cover crop on two garden beds.
The treated valerian compost area [Cover crop bed #2] is
fifty square feet and the other area [Cover crop bed #3] is a
full-size bed of one hundred square feet. Cover crop planted:
crimson clover, common vetch and rye. Even though the
cover crop on the untreated area [Cover crop bed #1] was
planted two weeks earlier and also had 500 applied the day
before planting, the crop came up rather spotty and then
gradually disappeared. The treated area performed much
better. I have now (March 2002) a lush stand of mostly
crimson clover and chickweed while the other bed [Cover
crop bed #1] is pretty bare.
The garden compost was made in fall 2000 from garden
refuse and hay; it did not contain manure (maybe a bit of
chicken). It was prepped with the BD compost preps and
heated up normally – not as hot as my manure added compost
usually did. It probably was up to 120 degrees initially.
I used approximately one-half wheelbarrow full per bed.
That’s a big construction type wheelbarrow. It was quite mature,
a beautiful, earthy humus-like structure.
My soil is clay-loam on old volcanic rock-mixed with sedimentary-
topsoil, which varies quite a bit even within the
garden of 2,000 square feet, but has been treated the same
over the ten years it has been under BD.
Postscript
Following the experiment, untreated compost was applied
to the two beds.
After the winter cover crop with the valerian compost,
I tried to grow tomatillos in that half bed that had the valerian
compost and they would not do anything. They
were just sitting there. I took them out and planted black
beans (bush beans) and they did okay in the half bed. The
full bed with the valerian compost I grew tomatoes and they
did alright. That was in 2001. In 2002, I grew cranberry
beans which is a dry bean in the full bed and they did okay,
and the Roma beans (a bush bean) in the half bed. The half
that had the valerian compost did better than the untreated
half. In 2003 I had corn in both beds and they did great. I
had a very good corn year. I will start to use the valerian
compost again this year.
Results of valerian-finished compost
After reading Joe’s article about valerian in 2001, Steve Storch
of Water Mill, New York changed his method for making
biodynamic compost, by adding the valerian to the finished
pile. He has found that the compost works much better.
Steve specializes in care of soils, trees, shrubs and turfgrass
in his business, Natural Science Organics and also maintains
a CSA. The results he has seen from the valerian finished
compost include a perkiness in growth, increased flowering,
enhanced color of fruit and flowers and dramatic earthworm
activity from observing the vast amounts of earthworm
castings in lawns and gardens after application. He also
uses this sequence of adding valerian last for making the BC
[Biodynamic Compound Preparation, a.k.a. Barrel Compost].
He waits for both the BD compost and the BC to be
finished, and then adds the valerian. Steve does not sprinkle
the valerian all over the compost. Instead, he pours it
down a hole in the middle of the pile. After adding the valerian
preparation, he then waits two weeks before using the
compost or BC.
In addition to the compost working better, it also has properties
of frost protection. Steve has reported that impatiens
normally will die from exposure to the first frost. However,
for impatiens treated with the compost finished with valerian,
they were able to withstand at least four frosts before giving
in to the chilled weather–quite impressive hardiness for
a tender annual. Steve figures, “The valerian, when inserted
along with all the other preparations into the compost pile
is wasted at this stage and loses its effectiveness when added
so early. If everyone read the section in Agriculture about valerian
on page 104, they would find this is what Steiner
meant that the valerian is supposed to be used last.”
Steiner’s indication regarding the compost preparations
is as follows:
And so it seems to me that you should try to produce fertilizer
by enriching the manure with these five ingredients – or
appropriate substitutes – in the way I have suggested. Fertilizers
of the future should not be prepared with all kinds of
chemicals, but rather with yarrow, chamomile, nettle, oak
bark, and dandelion. A fertilizer of this kind will in fact contain
very much of what is actually needed.
And if you can still bring yourself to do one more thing,
before using this treated manure, press the blossoms from the
valerian plant, Valeriana officinalis, and greatly dilute the extract
with warm water. The extraction can be done at any time
and can then be stored. If this diluted valerian juice is applied
to the manure in a very fine manner, it will stimulate the manure
to relate in the right way to the substance we call phosphorus.
—Rudolf Steiner, Spiritual Foundations For the Renewal of
Agriculture, p. 104
The icing on the cake
While responses were quite sparse, the encouraging results
of Heike-Marie’s and Steve’s compost, serve as some proof
that valerian yields its most effective influence when it is
added after the pile is finished, i.e. compost. To understand
valerian’s role in compost making, the process which occurred
to me is the idea of making a cake. First you make
the cake batter and then you place it into a pan for baking
in the oven. Once baked, you take the risen cake from the
oven to cool. You now take the icing and frost the cake. The
cake and the frosting complement each other well. But
what if you added the icing to the cake batter before it went
into the oven? Well, it may come out alright and the icing
would become another ingredient of the cake batter, but its
purpose would be lost and be better served topping the
baked cake, helping to seal the moistness and freshness in
the cake itself. Like icing on a cake, valerian holds an influence
of keeping the finished compost pile enlivened in
nature as well as playing a key role in retaining the qualities
of the other five biodynamic compost preparations.
We invite readers to re-visit this most important interpretation
by reading the articles about valerian in Applied Biodynamics
No. 33 and trying out the valerian experiment for
yourself. Please let us know of your results and if possible,
photos to accompany your findings.

Note
1) For further information about valerian, please contact Joe Stevens,
31 Bethwood Drive, Loudonville, NY 12211; voicemail: (518)465-
9472.

[Mark]

The Valerian Preparation (BD #507) Revisited
Abigail Porter

Last spring, as I was looking through some of the past issues
of Applied Biodynamics, I came across an article titled,
“Prepared Valerian: The Secret to Finished Compost”
(Summer 2001, Issue No. 33). Since I was getting ready to
harvest valerian flowers, this caught my eye. In the article,
the author (Joseph Stevens) proposes that Rudolf Steiner’s
indications regarding the use of the valerian preparation
were mistranslated and misinterpreted as published in
both the Adams and the Creeger/Gardener editions of the
Agriculture lectures. Stevens asserts that Steiner advised
farmers to apply the stirred valerian preparation to the
finished, transformed, colloidal compost rather than to a
newly built pile along with the other five compost preparations.
He further postulates that the success Alex Podolinsky
has achieved in Australia, which includes millions of
acres converted to biodynamics and the creation of thirty
inches of topsoil in some places, is in large part due (in addition
to other biodynamic farming practices) to the use of
“Prepared” 500, where bd #507 is applied to the finished,
colloidal bd #500 preparation.1
Translations: A Closer Look
Stevens contends that the translators used the words
“dung” and “dunger” interchangeably, when in actuality,
Steiner used the word “dung,” when he referred to raw manure,
and he used the word “dunger,” or fertilizer, when
discussing the preparation-treated manure (finished compost).
Stevens feels that the full effect of the bd #507 is lost
when it is applied to raw manure or uncomposted materials.
Stevens states, “According to the indications, prepared
valerian activates the phosphorus, or ‘light-bearing’ substance.
Phosphorus is the switch that turns on the ‘light’
which catalyses the crystallized fertility of the finished
compost into energy available for plants. Losing this effect
means that the radiant force of the compost never gets
‘turned on,’ and as a result, the effect…will lack a characteristic
intensity.”
My curiosity was aroused, and I promptly reread the
section about valerian on the last page of Lecture Five of
the Agriculture Course (Adams translation, p. 100), which
reads in part:
“And so I think you should try to create good manures,
by adding these five ingredients – or suitable
substitutes – to your manuring matter in the way
indicated [Steiner had already given directions on
how to make the five compost preparations in theprevious pages]. Manures in the future should not be
treated with all manner of chemicals, but with these
five: yarrow, chamomile, stinging-nettle, oak-bark,
and dandelion. Such a manure will have very much
of what is actually needed.
Now you have one more bridge to cross. Before
you make use of the manure thus prepared, press out
the flowers of Valerian [officinalis]. Dilute the extract
very highly.… Add this juice of the Valerian flower
to the manure in very fine proportions. Then you will
stimulate it to behave in the right way in relation to
what we call the “phosphoric” substance.
With the help of these six ingredients you can
produce an excellent manure –whether from liquid
manure, or ordinary farmyard-manure, or compost.”
The Creeger/Gardner translation of Agriculture is similar,
but does use the word fertilizer more often, and perhaps
more appropriately.
The operative phrases for me in both translations are,
“Before you make use of the manure thus prepared….”
(Adams) and, “Even better, before using this treated manure,
press the blossoms from the valerian plant and greatly
dilute the extract in warm water…”(Creeger/Gardner).
Ordinarily, one would not be using the manure until the
composting process has transformed it. This indicates that
perhaps one should be applying the stirred BD #507 closer
to the time when the compost will actually be used.
In the same issue of Applied Biodynamics, Hugh Courtney
encourages readers to conduct their own experiments
on the timing of the application of bd #507. (“New Insights
on the Valerian Preparation – A Call to Examine Old
Habits in Biodynamics.”) Both of these articles are available
for you to read or download on the JPI website (www.
jpibiodynamics.org/node/597#attachments).
Results
Only a few readers responded to the call for experimentation,
even though a form was included with the newsletter
for people to record their observations using bd #507 on
finished compost. A follow-up on their results was printed
in Applied Biodynamics (Winter 2003-2004, Issue No. 43)
along with an anecdotal report of using bd #507 to protect
blueberries from early fall frost.2
Steve Storch of Natural Science Organics in New York
state changed his method of making biodynamic compost
and Genesis Compound (his enhanced version of barrelcompost a.k.a. Biodynamic Compound Preparation), and
always waits for the compost to finish before applying the
bd #507. Instead of sprinkling the stirred bd #507 over
the whole pile, he pours it into a hole in the center of the
finished compost pile and waits two weeks before using
the compost or Genesis Compound.3 He has observed
improved results by adding the bd #507 at the end of the
composting process. Storch notes better plant growth,
increased flowering, enhanced colors of fruit and flowers,
and increased earthworm activity.” Additional benefits
have included improved frost protection for tender
annuals. Impatiens that usually succumbed with the first
frost were able to withstand four frosts before dying off.
Heike-Marie Eubanks in Oregon reported better growth of
a cover crop on the areas where finished biodynamic compost
treated with bd #507 was applied, in contrast to beds
that received no treated compost. Patricia Smith, editor
of Applied Biodynamics at that time, has since changed to
applying the bd #507 at the end of the composting process
and feels that it makes a finer compost with superior results
and retains moisture longer.
Future Research
It seems that this question of when to apply bd #507 warrants
further investigation and research. To really confirm
the best time for application, three compost piles and test
plots would need to be set up. One pile would have the
stirred bd #507 sprayed over the outside of the newly built
compost pile at the same time the other preparations are
inserted into the pile. The second pile would have the bd
#507 sprayed over the pile only after the other preparations
have transformed the pile. And, the third pile would have
the bd #507 sprayed over the pile twice: once when the
other preparations are added, and again when the compost
is finished. A further variation might be to see if there is a
difference in the compost material and effects with an additional
pile by inserting the bd #507 in a hole in the center
of the finished compost the way Steve Storch does. The
compost from the test piles would then need to be applied
to three adjacent test plots with same soil conditions and
the same seeds would need to be planted in each plot on
the same day. Ideally, conventional analysis, sensitive crystallization,
and chromatography tests would be conducted
done on: all three finished composts, soil in the three plots
some time after application of the compost, and on the
plant tissue/juice of the plants growing on the three plots.
It would also be good to keep track of the date and type of
day (whether root, water, air, or fire) on which each step
was taken.
This is just one of many research projects greatly neededin the area of preparation making and use. I encourage
anyone who has an interest in the question of the timing
of bd #507 application to do further investigation and research.
Please send your observations and findings to JPI
so we can share them.

Notes
1) “Prepared” 500 – Horn Manure is made from finished
bd #500 that is put into a ceramic crock and treated
with one or more sets of Biodynamic Compost Preparations,
the same way one would treat a compost pile.
For larger volumes, the bd #500 is put into the crock in
4–5 inch layers with one set of the five compost preps
inserted between each layer. bd #507 is lightly sprinkled
or misted over the top layer. The crock is covered with
a loose lid and stored in a root cellar or cool basement,
allowing four–six weeks before use.
2) bd #507 has been used successfully in early spring to
protect blossoms from frost and snow damage and has
been used in the fall to protect fruit and plants from
early frosts. It was applied in the evening before frost
as well as the morning of the frost. See “Anecdotes and
Antidotes – Biodynamics at Work.” (Applied Biodynamics,
Winter 2003–2004, Issue No. 43. Read the issue online
at www.jpibiodynamics.org/node/597.)
3) It is reported that Maria Thun advised against inserting
bd #507 into a hole in the pile at the beginning of the
composting process when the rest of the preparations
were inserted as, at least in her locale, it tended to make
the compost black and clump together like slag. One
assumes that she did spray the valerian over the top of
the pile. (Applied Biodynamics, Summer 2001, Issue No.
33, p. 7.)

[Mark]

Response to "The Valerian Preparation (BD #507) Revisited"
Abigail Porter

In the Fall zor3 issue of Applied Biodynamics (No. 82), I raised the questions of both the translation of Rudolf Steiner's Agriculture Course on the subject and the appropriate timing for the application of the valerian preparation to the compost pile- questions which were previously raised by Joseph Stevens and Hugh Courtney in two articles in the Summer 2001 issue (No. 33). All three of these articles are available for you to read or download on the ]PI website (www.jpibiodynamics.org).
I have since done a small informal survey and have found that people in various parts of the country are applying the valerian preparation at different times. Most people are sprinkling or spraying the diluted and stirred valerian over the outside of the pile at the same time the other preparations are inserted into the pile; some people are also pouring the valerian into a separate hole in the pile in addition to spraying it on the outside of the pile. Other people are waiting until the manure has been transformed by the preparations (a few weeks before using the compost) before they either spray the valerian over the pile or pour it into a hole in the center of the pile. More recently, I came across yet another variation.
Some people have been taught to put a little valerian in each hole with the other preparations in addition to spraying it over the outside of the pile.
Steiner gave indications on how the preparations were to be made and used and said that further experimentation and testing would be required. He recommended that we do our own investigation and research and not take his word or anyone else's as dogma. Much more research needs to be done with all the preparations and the valerian question is an easy place to start. Anyone making compost could do an informal trial by applying the valerian at the two different times and observing the results, both in the consistency and texture of the finished compost, and on the effect on plant growth and health in comparable test plots. If additional funding is available, conventional analysis, chromatography and sensitive crystallization pictures could be made of the composts, the soil in both plots a couple weeks after application of the compost, and the plants growing in the two plots to further verify differences and to determine if there is a preferred method of application. Good record keeping would be helpful including the date, crop and type of day (earth, water, air or fire) that seeds were planted. If any of you do any trials, please send your observations and findings to PI so we can share them.
Since Malcolm Gardner worked on the 1993 Creeger and Gardner translation of the Agriculture Course, I asked him for his response to the questions raised regarding the translation and timing of the application of valerian. He has generously shared his thoughts below.
Malcolm Gardner's Comments on the Valerian Question When and how to apply the valerian preparation to a manure pile is a valid and important question. However, Steiner's use of the German words Dung and Dünger does not actually throw much light on this question. Dung is the same as our English word 'dung, ie., solid animal excrement (feces), while Dünger means fertilizer in general. The two German words are obviously closely related, which is not surprising since dung is traditionally used as fertilizer.
In the Agriculture Course, Steiner is fairly loose with his use of these two words and their variants as well as with the word Mist (which has almost the same meaning as Dung but often refer to both solid and liquid excrement).
"When describing the valerian preparation in Lecture Five, Steiner first says to add it "bevor man den so zubereiteten Dinger verwendet" (before one uses the treated fertilizer), and then immediately goes on to say that it should be added in a very fine manner to the dung ("dem Dung*). In this case, therefore, it is particularly clear that he is using Dinger and Dung interchangeably and is not trying to make any distinction between dung as unfinished manure, and fertilizer as finished manure.
(For this reason, it is no sin to translate both German terms here with the single English word 'manure, which is more common than 'dung' and which can also mean 'fertilizer.")
"Conversely, when Steiner describes the other compost or manure preparations, he is equally loose with his terms. He says to add the yarrow to a Misthaufen (manure pile), the chamomile and nettle to the Dünger (fertilizer), the oak bark to the Dingemassen (fertilizer masses) and the dandelion to the Dung (dung). Incidentally, when Steiner does explicitly refer to unfinished (fresh) manure, as he does in connection with tomatoes in Lecture Eight, he uses the term wilder Dünger (literally: wild fertilizer). For those who want to study this further, the German text of the Agriculture Course can be found online at http://bdn-steiner.ru/cat/ga/327.pdf.)
As regards the original question, however, I think it is significant in itself that valerian is not mentioned until the very end of Lecture Five and that it is also not mentioned on page 3o of Steiner's handwritten notes where the other five manure preparations are listed (valerian is then listed briefly on page 33). Furthermore, while the first five manure preparations are solids that have undergone a period of burial and have a connection to potassium and/or calcium, the valerian preparation is a liquid that does not need any burial time and is connected with phosphorus ("it helps the manure relate in the right way to the substance we call phosphorus"). Lastly, while the solid preparations are meant to work on the manure pile from within (see Steiner's sketch in the Second Discussion), Steiner indicates that the liquid valerian preparation should be applied in a "very fine manner," i.e., sprayed on the outside of the pile (presumably in order to mediate forces coming from the periphery).
"These considerations suggest that the valerian's role with respect to the manure may be quite different from that of the other five preparations, and that unlike the solid prepara-tions, which Steiner says can stay mixed with the manure for any length of time (Second Discussion, is answer), it may indeed be best to spray the valerian on the manure not long before the manure is spread on the soil, especially if a crop is planted soon thereafter. Phosphorus is a carrier of energy and is most needed by plants when they are growing most actively. Seeds usually have relatively large amounts of stored phosphorus (e.g., as phytates), which at germination is then released by enzymes (phytases). After germination, however, plants depend on external sources of phosphorus, i.e., from soils and fertilizers. Valerian's role may well be to facilitate the release of phosphorus from these latter sources. If so, then it would make a lot of sense to wait to spray the valerian and spread the manure until just before the phosphorus and the energy were actually needed and not risk having them dissipate prematurely. One does not strike a match until just before one needs a fire! (Perhaps not coincidentally, phosphorus is an essential ingredient in every match.) In any case, some comparative trials would be very welcome here.

[Mark]

New Insights on the Valerian Preparation – A Call to Examine Old Habits in Biodynamics
Hugh Courtney

Very often in biodynamic agricultural practice, one is
inclined to approach everything with a certain trepidation
so as not to make any mistakes. While such an effort is
commendable in most respects, it may also have led to a
much greater rigidity than Rudolf Steiner intended. In
some instances, it appears that the earliest practitioners
may have put into effect their understanding of what
Steiner meant without paying adequate attention to what
he actually said. One of my own personal experiences with
this possibility has to do with the making of the stinging
nettle preparation. In general, the practice of most of
those in biodynamic agriculture is to harvest the stinging
nettle in the late spring, bury it, and then dig it up a year
later. They are paying attention to Steiner’s statement that
“they need to be buried for a whole year.”1 Unfortunately,
such a practice ends up completely ignoring his equally
valid statement: “Let the nettles spend the winter and also
the following summer in the ground.”2 As pointed out in
an article which appeared in Applied Biodynamics, Issue
#24, I believe there was a very specific reason that Steiner
did not want us digging up the nettle preparation until
after it had also spent the summer months buried in the
ground.
It is for this and similar reasons that I have often
expressed the thought that we really need to examine
most carefully what Steiner tells us. We need to also realize
that the words Steiner used to convey his message were
very carefully chosen, and we should not be too quick in
translating from the German to choose a meaning that
might make the words flow better in the target language.
When Joe Stevens was attending a Preparations Making
Seminar at JPI in June 1999, he took to heart my emphasis
on Steiner’s precision in his word choices. Joe chose to
focus on the words Steiner used to indicate how one was
to make and use the valerian preparation, which is usually
referred to as BD #507. When I use the term focus, I
should point out that Joe’s approach was extremely
intense, and launched him into a thorough search of all
that Steiner had to say about valerian, phosphorus, and
many other subjects, as well as Steiner’s word choices.
Joe’s search of the subject has now encompassed over two
years and is still continuing. It seems to me, he has come
to an understanding of Steiner’s indication for making
and using the valerian preparation that deserves our
attention. While Joe’s view will require us to shift gears,
and even to accept the possibility that our generally
accepted use of this preparation may actually be in error,
I would urge everyone to suspend judgment until such
time as some very practical research on the question can
be accomplished. It is for this reason that our subscribers
are once again invited to conduct their own experiments
on this question regarding the best timing for applying
BD #507.
As a kind of footnote to this subject, a recent letter
from Walter Stappung, who does biodynamic advisory
work in Switzerland, advises that Maria Thun would
avoid inserting BD #507 into the pile as it tends to make
the finished compost turn black and clump together like
slag. One presumes, however, that the valerian may have
been sprayed over the pile at the beginning of the composting
process rather than at the point where the compost
substance has become mostly colloidal in nature. At
the moment, it is only Alex Podolinsky who emphasizes
the need for compost to be colloidal. It is Podolinsky’s
“Prepared” 500 that meets the criteria that Joe Stevens
would have us follow in using the BD #507.
Notes
1) Rudolf Steiner, Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of
Agriculture (Kimberton, PA: Bio-Dynamic Farming and
Gardening Association, 1993), 99.
2) Ibid.

[Mark]

Podolinsky input


Phosphate
Phosphate – A Finite Resource Which Must Be Conserved - Alex Podolinsky

It is well recognised that phosphate is an essential requirement for plants, in particular for those non-indigenous to Australia, which have been introduced in the past 200 years for Agricultural purposes and which, quite miraculously, acclimatized and ecologised, together with introduced animals, into the Australian environment. In 1952 an eighty year old Jersey breeder friend, who arrived in Australia with his father in the 1880s and developed a South Gippsland dairy farm, reported as follows:

“Native pastures were replaced with more productive English clovers and grasses which, initially, grew prolifically, but from approximately 1910 onwards, slowly began to wane. No fertilisers whatsoever had been applied. By 1920 few of the imported species remained. On application of superphosphate especially the clovers returned in great abundance to the relief of farmers, even if associated with such problems as bloat. After some further years, despite increased applications of superphosphate, imported species again weakened. Applications of potash improved the situation temporarily, followed by a similar scenario with nitrogen”.



Quite obviously the original Gippsland soil supply conditions – maybe better than the Australian average – could, for the first decades, maintain improved pasture species. Whereas, the original native species, inclusive of some legumes, had maintained status quo – since whenever – under indigenous grazing pressure.

My friend Alan Morgan, Senior Irrigation Officer of the Victorian Agriculture Department after World War II, informed me:

1.That of the considerable quantities of superphosphate applied to the State Research Farm at Werribee, at that time, over 90% was locked up through acid action. Whereas it was unknown how much of the remaining 10% actually did reach plants and what proportion may have drained away.

2.When, after WWI Alan was irrigation Officer in the Kerang-Swan Hill district, during the establishment of Soldier Settler irrigation blocks – and only delivery but, as yet, no drainage channels, existed – “the more super and water we put on, the bigger the plants grew”: until, almost overnight, the Cohuna Salt disaster occurred. (The first real such - long before emergence of Western Australian salt problems.)

Alan, an objective scientist, blamed himself for Cohuna, “we just knew no better.” He retired early and looked after some land.

“We knew no better”. We still do not know how much, or how little phosphate is required to maintain a sustainable economic production.

“The more super, the more growth” has brainwashed not only the farmers, it has been the main “advisory” base of scientists (with later inclusion of Potassium, Nitrogen and trace elements), and , the resulting plant pest and fungal chemical “requirements”, ditto for animals1.

Doug Small’s 1991-4 (when Senior Soil Researcher of Victorian Agriculture Department at Kyabram) exhaustive tests, comparing 10 Biodynamic dairy farms to 10 near identical conventional neighboring farms – originally – showed results such as:

1. Biodynamic farms for average of 16 years had no Phosphate or any other fertiliser, no chemical, no drench input.

Conventional farms had all inputs in abundance.
He states: “Few differences were found in 130 different soil, plant, animal and milk measurements”, undertaken annually per farm.

Biodynamic

Over 40, of each, soil, plant and carcass tests NEVER showed a “deficiency” of any major or minor elements.
Indications of no NPK “run off” (though insufficiently researched)
1 X irrigation
Even without drenching virtually no liver fluke, even at age
High number of lactations per cow, insufficiently researched. Major cost factor as “two lactations” income required to raise a milker.
Gross income (very poorly researched) approximately 15% less.
Very low salt levels.
Biodynamic cattle fed little grain
Reported “loss” of phosphate via milk and carcasses leaving the farm was “mathematically calculated” for Biodynamic farms regardless of no deficiency of phosphate in all tests!

Conventional

Showed surpluses of some elements, especially Phosphate, - presented as “desirable”.
Indications of the usual high amounts of NPK and chemical “run off”
2½ X’s irrigations
Usual great amounts of drenching from early age and still some liver fluke damage.
Average number of lactations much lower.
Gross income - conventional taken as 100%.
Salt at critical level for clover growth.
Conventional used much grain
Artificially fertilised pastures2 and grain causes lowering of pH, resulting in bloat, undesirable “cell counts”, acetonaemia, sterility and other symptoms of ill health. Additional to this, John McDonald, Victorian Agriculture Department Veterinarian - who undertook the associated carcass examinations - attributed much lower rate of sterility of Biodynamic cattle to the “inexplicable” increase of selenium (nearly double) compared to conventional cows.

We accept Doug Small as an honourable and capable researcher of “figures” of test results. To my assistant, Frances Porter (B.Ru.Sc. Hon. I), and myself, he said, “the 130 research result figures of Biodynamic and conventional farms are almost the same, there is very little difference” (with selenium and salt major exceptions). He could, however not appreciate the cardinal difference that the Biodynamic results were obtained

W I T H O U T :

using fertilisers or chemicals;
NPK run off, contributing to blue-green algae problems;
Irrigating only once compared to 2½ times;
Water savings were not researched (!)
Costs to the environment were not addressed (!)
Humus levels and soil structure were not addressed.
The Western World is overloaded with dairy products. How much more sensible not to over-tax cow production causing health and other problems, ie. To avoid the hysteria of excessive production as “ideal”.

At the October Organic Federation of Australia conference in Adelaide, a 30% “oversupply” of phosphate was still reported as “ideal” – compared to the unforced and naturally offered milk production of the Biodynamic test herds.

The Victorian Agriculture Department, as reported to Frances Porter and myself, did not permit Doug Small to publish a complete report of his test results.

Costs, gross income and the more essential NET income were very poorly assessed:

Environmental costs caused by NPK and chemical run-off insufficiently assessed and calculated. Examples available from cotton farms, rice farms, Barrier Reef.
Costs caused by algae bloom;
Amount of expensive irrigation water used not assessed with Biodynamic farms irrigating less often;
Costs in labour of each additional irrigation not assessed;
Environmental costs to river systems through extra water usage;
Assessment of unnecessary drain on Phosphate recourses;
High levels of non-solar energy usage in the production of, especially, Nitrogen fertilisers;
Damage to soils through compaction and long lasting chemical residues;
Questionable chemicals entering food supply and resulting health concerns (with consideration that for many chemicals there is no testing method available, ie. no detection);
Establishment of biologically active soils on Biodynamic farms producing products attracting premium prices;
Rock Phosphate is acid soluble. Certified organic or biodynamic farms are not permitted to use “artificial” ertilisers. This causes a major problem to certified farms on alkaline (Mallee) soils. A conventional suggestion is to add sulphur to the Rock Phosphate. Depending on organic matter evels and moisture retention this is more or less effective. The experience on Biodynamic farms is, that the “organic matter” level is not the deciding factor but the HUMUS level. Conventional Agriculture is not conversant with humus.

Figures from a Biodynamic – originally white sand – Mallee farm are:

Organic matter level in 1985 was equal to the district level of 0.5%. After two years under biodynamics, this had risen to 2.1%. Approximate consistency since has been 2.8 to 3% with a considerable increase in HUMUS COLLOIDS aiding water retention. The farm crops approximately one in three years.
Crops are amongst the best in quality and yields. Voluntary summer “weeds” as green manure offer an essential supply of recycled or new NPK. Wild melons have in spots even created a too high level of Nitrogen.
Under such conditions an addition of 2 to 3 Kg of Phosphate per hectare has proven a sustainable input level.
With drought caused lack of green manure 2Kg of P as “composted” chicken manure and chicken bodies (P) suffices, but green manure brings best results.
On conventional district farms 18 to 22 Kg of phosphate is used with each crop.
I used no Phosphate on my own farm for 40 years.

The world reserves of economically accessible Phosphate, at the current rate of usage, have been quoted at 200 years, with a possible further 200 years of increasingly more costly Phosphate. George Monbiot’s careful assessment – wherever the means of checking are available to me – points to only 80 years of accessible Phosphate.

How will conventional and “organic” farms manage without Phosphate? Is it not time to reverse the Phosphate policy in very many facets such as :

Stop the hysterical oversupply of Phosphate mentality as “keeping up the Soil fertility”
Recycling of Phosphate in well structured (air, drainage, humus) biologically active soils without murderous effects of chemicals and oversupply of NPK, laming soil biology which has been rendered unnecessary in virtual hydroponic situations3;
Research – under such biological conditions – of Phosphate recycling potential;
Even “inexplicable” INCREASES in Phosphate have been recorded;
Research and condemnation of NPK and chemical “run-off” via varying agricultural methods, causing environmental damage, such as dead trees, saltation etc4;
Revise agricultural education at Universities;
Huge amounts of Phosphate have been wasted and have damaged the environment. We have wasted the assets of future generations.

References:

Podolinsky: Bio-Dynamic Agriculture, Introductory Lectures, Vol 1, lectures 1 and 2
Podolinsky: Bio-Dynamic Agriculture, Introductory Lectures, Vol 1, p30 and Vol 3, and Bio-Dynamics, Agriculture of the Future
Podolinsky: Bio-Dynamic Agriculture, Introductory Lectures, Vol 1, lecture 1 and Bio-Dynamics Agriculture of the Future
Podolinsky: Bio-Dynamic Agriculture Introductory Lectures Vol 3, lecture 3, and Living Agriculture