Dear Dan, Jane, Anne, List Readers,
Maybe I can clarify things. Horn clay is not a new idea. It is a fairly
obvious thing to think about after reading lectures 2 and 4 of the
Agriculture Course. Hugh Courtney did indeed make horn clay as far back as
1984. I've discussed it with him on several occasions over the past 12 or
13 years. I didn't make any myself until the last couple years, and though
Courtney made it he hadn't put it to use so he couldn't very well say what
it would do. Cheryl Kemp has told this list of an Australian farmer who for
several years has added some clay to his horns of horn manure. I forget his
name right now, but this farmer has been well-known for his successful,
high quality crops.
The trouble all along has been inertia. It took someone with enough insight
and enough gumption to move forward against the tide of orthodoxy to put
horn clay into use. It had to be someone who went at it full bore too--none
of this business of making one application of preps a year. It is essential
to make as many applications as it takes to really bring the farm organism
to life. That's when it became apparant that horn clay was the key to
everything. That's what Greg did. He took this decades old idea of making
horn clay and he finally applied it. Full bore he applied it. I believe
Courtney is making it now. I think Peter Proctor is making it in New
Zealand. I suspect it will gain wider acceptance in Australia now that the
cat is out of the bag and the guy who was making it there gets some
recognition for doing what it turns out is KEY. Good for him.
So Greg didn't invent horn clay. He discovered how to use it and put it to
work. And I'm sorry to have to correct a couple other false impressions. It
is not just myself and Greg using horn clay or using field broadcasters for
that matter. You, yourself, Dan, are putting horn clay to use and you're
going to see what it does. It is the key to biodynamics. Read what I say
about it when your get the first issue of the ABA Journal. I don't know
where this is going, but it is taking off. Lucky you that you're getting in
on the gorund floor.
It's really fine for Demeter to stay their old, conservative self and guard
the reputation of traditional biodynamic methods. Tragically this
reputation--it is superior to just about everything else out there--is
almost unheard of. Routinely biodynamic gets written off as some sort of
wierd true believer cult. Ask Bargyla Rateaver on the Sanet list, for
example.Demeter is guarding a reputation that is almost non-existent, but
that is fine by me. However, what won't work is to confiscate the term
biodynamic and not let others use it.
Here's what Anne said,
>By registering the name ?Biodynamic?, --this-- method of agriculture can be
>made recognizable throughout the world by name association. BDF&GA first
>registered this word in 1991. When it was up for renewal in 1996, the idea
>originated within the BDF&GA Board to transfer registration to the Demeter
>Association, Inc. Demeter accepted, based on continuing support from
I don't hear any willingness in this to turn over this trademark to the
public domain. Am I missing something? That is what must come under
discussion. Otherwise this will be expensive and it will wreck Demeter.
Doesn't everyone understand I'd like to see Demeter survive?
Anne, don't you understand that? Have I failed after all this effort in
making it plain what we are up against?
I realize I've said some very unflattering things about Demeter in this
discussion. They can't be taken back, nor would I want to take them back. I
intend to publish them in a book, though it will take some editing. But it
should be evident throughout--first this discussion had to reach a level
that Demeter would take it seriously and respond. The trademark of
biodynamic will be fought over with lawyers and it will be bloody and
expensive if there is no response. I don't want to see that, but if the
trademark is not laid on the table, that is what has to happen. Otherwise
it is a sword of Damocles over our heads, and the fact that Greg managed to
provoke Demeter into waving it shows how serious the matter must be taken.
Incidentally, to say my field broadcasters are electro-magnetic in nature
or are employing the forces of subnature in the fallen ethers of
electricity and magnetism is slanderous. It shows virtual complete
ignorance of what these devices are and do. Like the BD preps themselves
the broadcaster establishes its fractal resonance patterns directly in the
ethers. This takes the energies away from the fallen ethers and puts it
back into the ethers. So the broadcaster DOES have effects on
electro-magnetic fields. Nuclear fields too. Don't forget what Steiner
called the "third force." Several years ago Heather Fox did a filming at my
place for the Discovery Channel (it never was produced) and her camera and
sound crew tried to film a segment up close to the broadcaster. After
replacing batteries 5 or 6 times in 3 minutes they fled while they still
had batteries left. We finished our filming a goodly distance away.
Anyway I really dislike anyone spreading the kind of mis-information as
Anne put in her post to Jane. It is not kind or helpful. But I lit the fire
and I'll take the heat.
Another thing. It is incorrect to suggest I've led this discussion but not
carried it to Anne's attention. I've e-mailed her the whole collection. No
acknowledgement. So I've printed it out and mailed it certified. No
response so far. I responded to the list about Jane's post earlier today. I
haven't seen it posted to the list yet, but I'll see if this try makes it.
At least there is some sign via Jane that it has come to Anne's attention
even though from what I can see Anne isn't taking it seriously enough about
relinquishing the trademark on the term biodynamic.
It is going to take something public and it will need to be soon. The
lawyers are working on this as I write. They are slow but exceedingly
certain--and exceedingly expensive.
>In a message dated 1/19/00 9:29:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>Thanks, jsherry -
><< As for horn clay, there are also many questions. Information
> is needed from JPI (Josephine Porter Institute for Applied Biodynamics)
> which has been working with the concept since 1984.
>What information? And if they have been working with it since 1984 why no
>info. From personal communication with Hugh Lovel ( who I greatly respect),
>he said that "I experimented with Horn Clay a dozen years ago & shared my
>sense of things with Greg Willis 3 or so years ago and he ran with it"
><< New methods require a certain period of testing by a broader base of
> experienced practitioners than one or two enthusiastic promoters. For
> some, the questions have not yet been sufficiently addressed. BDF&GA and
> Demeter Association stand somewhat as stewards where new methods are
> concerned. The task is not small and our responsibility to growers and
> consumers of Biodynamic products is taken seriously. We all share a
> responsibility to help Biodynamics work as a force for healing.
> This is where I will leave the matter.
> Anne Mendenhall, Director, Demeter Association, Inc. >>
>Interesting wording in that last pargraph.
>What new methods have been been approved by Demeter in the last, say 20 years
>and is there a publicly defined process for getting new methods approved?
>I'd like to see participation by Demeter and the BDA on this group so we can
>all work together as a force for healing.
>I appreciate the sharing of knowledge I find here.
>Dan Lynch, Long Mountain Vineyard
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 06 2000 - 12:00:22 EST