Moon phases

Sambucus_Nigra

Right - my mistake was obviously telling the plants they were not moon plants; I should have kept schtum!

Doh!

rhiwfield

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Right - my mistake was obviously telling the plants they were not moon plants; I should have kept schtum!

Doh!

Wouldn't have mattered either way, young plants never listen to their elders

Sambucus_Nigra

rhiwfield wrote: »

Wouldn't have mattered either way, young plants never listen to their elders

Tell me about it!

gardenroute

Is there a prize for thread of the year?

I couldn't defend every theory out there , the cow horn crystal thing for example, but this doesn't mean its all rubbish.
People have talked about companion planting for centuries without having any idea why it worked - it just did, and as scientific knowledge progressed people worked out why.
Sheep farmers used to keep a goat in the field to keep witches away, the sheep fields with goats in them suffered less aborted lambs, deaths etc. It was discovered that the goats were eating the toxic plants before the enclosed sheep did. The reasons given at the time may have been completely wrong, but the sheep farmers still found it increased their yields.
How many old-wives tales have since found out to be based on scientific facts?
I know two old hands who use moon phases who would probably laugh at anything 'new age/hippy', and they certainly get good harvests.

If there is enough water in the soil to grow crops then that water must be able to move a fluid mass, at least by capillary action. I've seen a tide on a large lake so it not restriced to oceans. As the volume of water is smaller it just means there is less water to be shaped by the gravity of the moon so the changes are less visible to the human eye - it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Why wouldn't water in the soil and cells of a plant be affected by this? Could an analogy of rowing a boat with/against the tide be with nutrient and water molecules moving up and down the plant be used? It's not about life and death for the plant, but slightly boosting yields by working with natural forces. Plants don't have muscles so would 'feel' any outside iinfluences more than an animal would.

I can't say for certain it does work, but I know several people who say it does. One thing I wouldn't do, is to write it all off as rubbish without at least knowing something about it first.

The placebo effect is meaningless for plants - its to do with the brain controlling the body - the people taking them believe it is a real medicine. On a side note its been proven that placebos are much more effective than they 20 years ago.
Scientific research needs funding. There is a lot less money to be made on moon phases than selling a highly addictive drug like nicotine; not including the cost of treating dying smokers, so a lot less research has been done on it. The tobacco companies knew it was dangerous and produced loads of evidence to claiming it isnt - that' s why they were sued in the states. That 80 year-old smoker is an exception, the OP was asking about a trend, i.e. do smokers die younger?, to use cootambear's analogy.
Would one of the sceptics/keyboard warriors be willing to try and prove it doesn't work next year?

cootambear

gardenroute wrote: »

Is there a prize for thread of the year?

I couldn't defend every theory out there , the cow horn crystal thing for example, but this doesn't mean its all rubbish.

`Biodynamics` was founded on such rubbish


People have talked about companion planting for centuries without having any idea why it worked - it just did, and as scientific knowledge progressed people worked out why.
Sheep farmers used to keep a goat in the field to keep witches away, the sheep fields with goats in them suffered less aborted lambs, deaths etc. It was discovered that the goats were eating the toxic plants before the enclosed sheep did. The reasons given at the time may have been completely wrong, but the sheep farmers still found it increased their yields.

How many old-wives tales have since found out to be based on scientific facts?

Trial and error by generations ago established which were harmful and which were not. Like its fine to eat blackberries but not miseltoe berries. In other words, an early form of research. Most old wives tales are harmless, some cause harm. We no longer believe that witches cause cows to go dry of course, but many women were killed because of this unscientific belief.

The tale that You should put butter on a burn to stop it is still believed by many.The heat that caused the burn will continue to penetrate until it completely dissipates, all the way to the bone if intense enough, unless it is stopped by cold (ice or cold water). Salves can help heal the burned skin later, but butter will not do it. Butter, margarine, lard, and mayonnaise are all organic, can hold in the damaging heat, rot, and attract harmful bacteria and resulting infections.

I know two old hands who use moon phases who would probably laugh at anything 'new age/hippy', and they certainly get good harvests.

If there is enough water in the soil to grow crops then that water must be able to move a fluid mass, at least by capillary action.

I've seen a tide on a large lake

I did say earlier that some of the great lakes have tides. All larger bodies of water can have waves caused by the wind.


so it not restriced to oceans. As the volume of water is smaller it just means there is less water to be shaped by the gravity of the moon so the changes are less visible to the human eye - it doesn't mean they don't exist.

Why wouldn't water in the soil and cells of a plant be affected by this?

Because its not a large, 99% water, contained body of water. If streams and rivers dont have tides, why should a carrot? (tidal surges up rivers are caused by tides effecting the seas, not rivers).

Could an analogy of rowing a boat with/against the tide be with nutrient and water molecules moving up and down the plant be used? It's not about life and death for the plant, but slightly boosting yields by working with natural forces. Plants don't have muscles so would 'feel' any outside iinfluences more than an animal would.

I can't say for certain it does work, but I know several people who say it does.


My granny put butter on burns.


One thing I wouldn't do, is to write it all off as rubbish without at least knowing something about it first.

We know that its premises go against the laws of nature.

The placebo effect is meaningless for plants - its to do with the brain controlling the body - the people taking them believe it is a real medicine. On a side note its been proven that

placebos are much more effective than they 20 years ago.

I didnt know that, and I find it very interesting. I would hazard a guess - its only a guess mind - that as the advertising of swallowing pills as a solution has more deeply penetrated the public mind, so the effect of placebo pills has increased. It certainly the case that in trials more people find branded medications more effective than generics despite them being chemically identical.


Scientific research needs funding. There is a lot less money to be made on moon phases than selling a highly addictive drug like nicotine; not including the cost of treating dying smokers, so a lot less research has been done on it. The tobacco companies knew it was dangerous and produced loads of evidence to claiming it isnt - that' s why they were sued in the states. That 80 year-old smoker is an exception, the OP was asking about a trend, i.e. do smokers die younger?, to use cootambear's analogy.


No one is doing serious trials on it because it is premised by ideas that are against natural laws ie the moons gravity causes tides in plants (or whichever way it is described).
You might if you were so minded argued that the big agro companies that produce fertiliser are burying evidence, but surely the greens with their now central influence in government policy would be crying foul but I hope you would agree that this is taking conspiracy theories a little too far.

Would one of the sceptics/keyboard warriors be willing to try and prove it doesn't work next year?

You may call me a coward I guess, but what I want for my garden is the most minimal work for the maximum reward. I have just thrown barrow loads of leaf mulch on my garden and barring a terrible growing season, I know that my yields will be up greatly. All for 20 minutes work.

I am not prepared to waste valuable time or engage in new age voodoo.

I always thought keyboard warriors were those who called people tw@ts or threatened them behind the safety of a keyboard. I do not do this, with two exceptions. Those who make money from abusing the credulity of others, and or those who do harm in the process. Which is no one here.

rhiwfield

Ok, lets have a bit of scientific rigour (it will make a nice change from being repeatedly bludgeoned with anti-new age voodoo polemic )

Try reading in full: Evidence for Lunar-Sidereal Rhythms in Crop Yield: A Review Nicholas Kollerstrom and Gerhard Staudenmaier published in 2001

The abstract reads:
ABSTRACT
In 1956, Thun developed a procedure of sowing according to the position of the Moon in front of the twelve zodiacal constellations. These constellations were classified into four groups according to the element (Earth, Water, Air and Fire) astrologically associated with them. Root, leaf, flower and fruit crops were found to show increased yields if sown when the Moon stood before Earth, Water, Air and Fire constellations, respectively. Thun’s philosophy of sowing by this sidereal rhythm has become a major component of biodynamic planting calendars, even though the founder of biodynamic agriculture, Rudolf Steiner, had only mentioned positive effects of the Full Moon in an agricultural context. In 1990, Spiess published a three-year study claiming to find effects of other lunar rhythms but not those of the 27-day sidereal month. This paper reviews
published confirmations of the ‘Thun effect’ and reanalyses data concerning planting times and crop yields from Spiess’s study with radish and carrots, by computing yield values as deviations
from a moving average rather than as deviations from seasonal trends estimated by quadratic functions. The re-analysis showed an increase (ca +7%) in the yield of radishes which were sown in Earth constellations for his 1982 trial, with a comparable result demonstrated on re-analysing data from three years of carrot trials (my emphasis)

cootambear

All that glitters is not gold or
Be careful what you wish for
Part One

I give a couple of studies below. They provide citations to other studies of course. They conclude there is no evidence for the claims of the occultists (more on that later).

I have had a little skip of the very long document you posted.

I note that the studies quoted exemplify one of the common underhand way of providing evidence - cherrypicking. If I was to do some nazi type experiment (more on that later), and fed fed 10 groups of jews batteries, and then only quoted the three groups that had a significant relief of their headaches, that would be cherry picking. That is what he has done.


It also uses another trick. As a movement that is avowedly anti science and based on the occult, it is still happy to quote sciencey jargon when it suits.

Linda Chalker-Scott, Ph.D., Extension Horticulturist and Associate Professor,
Puyallup Research and Extension Center, Washington State University
The Myth of Biodynamic Agriculture
“Biodynamics is a scientifically sound approach to sustainable management of plant systems”
The Myth
Biological dynamic agriculture, a.k.a. biodynamics, is a system of agricultural management based on a
series of lectures given by Rudolf Steiner in 1924. Over his lifetime, Dr. Steiner became concerned with
the degradation of food produced through farming practices that increasingly relied on additions of
inorganic fertilizers and pesticides. Reputed to be the first alternative approach to agriculture,
biodynamics has evolved over the last century to include many organic farming practices that have
demonstrable benefits on land use and crop production. In fact, biodynamic is often used synonymously
with organic in both scientific and popular literature. Biodynamic agriculture has more recognition in
Europe, but North American proponents of this system are increasing. Is the biodynamic approach one
that should be encouraged?
The Reality
There are many non-scientific websites and writings about biodynamics, Rudolf Steiner, and the school of
thought he developed (anthroposophy). [An excellent scholarly overview by Kirchmann (1994) is
referenced at the end of this column.] There are fewer refereed articles on biodynamics, and a review by
Reganold (1995) found many of these to be of questionable scientific quality.
Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) was a true intellectual with interests in many academic areas; his forte,
however, was philosophy and his PhD dissertation topic was Fichte’s theory of knowledge. The intention
of his series of agricultural lectures was to instruct farmers how “to influence organic life on earth
through cosmic and terrestrial forces” (Kirchmann, 1994). This distinction is important because
biodynamic agriculture, as initially conceived, consisted primarily of concocting and utilizing eight
biodynamic “preparations” that would “stimulate vitalizing and harmonizing processes in the soil”
(Kirchmann, 1994).
The directions for preparing the eight biodynamic compounds are complicated and can be found on a
number of websites and in popular literature. Briefly, two of the compounds are prepared by packing cow
manure (preparation 500) or silica (preparation 501) into cow horns, then buried for a number of months
before the contents are swirled in warm water and then applied to the field. Cow horns are utilized as
antennae for receiving and focusing cosmic forces, which are transferred to the materials inside. The
other six compounds (preparations 502-507) are extracts of various plants either packed into the skulls or
organs of animals (i.e. deer bladders, cow peritonea and intestines) or into peat or manure, where they are
aged before being diluted and applied to compost. The chemical elements contained in these preparations
were said to be carriers of “terrestrial and cosmic forces” and would impart these forces to crops and thus
to the humans that consume them.
These processes were not developed through scientific methodology, but rather through Steiner’s own
self-described meditation and clairvoyance. In fact, Steiner declared that these spiritualisticallydetermined
methods did not need to be confirmed through traditional scientific testing, but were “true and
correct” unto themselves (Kirchmann, 1994). The rejection of scientific objectivity in favor of a
subjective, mystical approach means that many of Steiner’s biodynamic recommendations cannot be
tested and validated by traditional methods. In practical terms, this means any effect attributed to
biodynamic preparations is a matter of belief, not of fact.
Other non-scientific practices have become part of the post-Steiner biodynamic movement. These include
use of cosmic rhythms to schedule various farm activities and nutritional quality “visualization.” This
latter practice uses legitimate chemical analyses such as chromatography as ways to study the “etheric”
life forces in plants through “sensitive crystallization” and “capillary dynamolysis” – techniques that are
again not scientifically testable.
What has muddied the discussion of biodynamics even further is the incorporation of organic practices
into Steiner’s original ideas. Many of these practices – no-till soil preparation, use of compost,
polyculture – are effective alternative methods of agriculture. These practices often have demonstrated
positive effects on soil structure, soil flora and fauna, and disease suppression as they add organic matter
and decrease compaction. Combining beneficial organic practices with the mysticism of biodynamics
lends the latter a patina of scientific credibility that is not deserved. Many of the research articles that
compare biodynamic with conventional agriculture do not separate the biodynamic preparations from the
organic practices – and of course obtain positive results for the reasons mentioned earlier. However,
when researchers have compared biodynamic, conventional, and organic farms (where again
“biodynamic” incorporates organic practices), by and large there are no differences between the
biodynamic and the organic farms (though both are different from conventional farms). It would be an
interesting experiment to compare conventional farms to conventional farms with biodynamic
preparations without the organic practices to see if a difference exists.
Given the thinness of the scientific literature and the lack of clear data supporting biodynamic
preparations, it would be wise to discontinue the use of the term “biodynamic” when referring to organic
agriculture. I am guessing many academics, both theoretical and applied, have no idea where the roots of
biodynamic agriculture lie: the fact that “biodynamic” is used interchangeably with “organic” in the
literature seems to support this conclusion. For me and many other agricultural scientists, usage of the
term is a red flag that automatically questions the validity of whatever else is being discussed.
The onus is on academia to keep pseudoscience out of otherwise legitimate scientific practices. As
Robert Beyfuss (NY Cooperative Extension) and Marvin Pritts (Cornell University) state, “it is this type
of bad science that has created a hostility between the scientific community and many proponents of
biodynamic gardening.” All too often scientists avoid addressing the problems associated with
pseudoscience. Those scientists who do challenge pseudoscientific are frequently attacked and ridiculed,
thus shifting the focus from the problem (pseudoscience) to a personal level. Part of this is a cultural
shift; Alan Alda is quoted as saying “we’re in a culture that increasingly holds that science is just another
belief.” But more importantly, when published research is not held to an acceptable standard of scientific
rigor and when junk science is not challenged, pseudoscience creeps closer towards legitimacy in the
public eye.
The Bottom Line
• Biodynamic agriculture originally consisted of a mystical, and therefore unscientific, alternative
approach to agriculture
• Recent addition of organic methodology to biodynamics has resulted in a confused mingling of
objective practices with subjective beliefs
• Scientific testing of biodynamic preparations is limited and no evidence exists that addition of
these preparations improves plant or soil quality in organically managed landscapes
• Many organic practices are scientifically testable and can result in improved soil and plant health
parameters
• The academic world needs to address the explosion of pseudoscientific beliefs and help nonacademicians
become more discerning learners
References:
Kirchmann, H. 1994. Biological dynamic farming – an occult form of alternative agriculture? Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7: 173-187.
Reganold, J. 1995. Soil quality and profitability of biodynamic and conventional farming systems: a
review. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10:36-45.
For more information, please visit Dr. Chalker-Scott’s web page at http://www.theinformedgardener.com.


and


http://www.springerlink.com/content/c46076866n6477m0/


Abstract
An analysis of the theory of biodynamic farming is presented. The founder of biological dynamic agriculture, the Austrian Rudolf Steiner, Ph.D., (1861–1925), introduced methods of preparation and use of eight compounds forming the nucleus of his agricultural theory. His instructions were based on insights and inner visions from spiritualistic exercises and not on agricultural experiments. His purpose was to show mankind a form of agriculture that enables not only the production of healthy foods but also the achievement of harmonious interactions in agriculture and a spiritual development of mankind through “cosmic forces” captured in the foods. However, many of his statements are not provable simply because scientifically clear hypotheses cannot be made as his descriptions were unclear and not stringent. Those predictions that can be tested scientifically have been found to be incorrect. It was concluded that Steiner's instructions are occult and dogmatic and cannot contribute to the development of alternative or sustainable agriculture.

cootambear

All that glitters is not gold or
Be careful what you wish for
Part Two

Now my following argument could justifiably be challenged as an ad hominen attack. But please think about it.

You quote
Nicholas Kollerstrom as an authority because he has written a long document and it has lots of subcripts and citations at the bottom. Any nut job can do that, nut job Gillia McKeith does it regularily. Kollerstrom is a disciple of Rudolf Steiner and his occult philosophy `anthroposophy`. His views, and other leading proponents of biodynamics are revealed below.

These people believe that Auschwitz was akin to a holiday camp where lazy jews would sunbathe at the side of an elegant swimming pool on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water polo matches.

I have to ask, if these leading subscribers believe such things, would you give any credence to their views on agriculture?




the lazy sunbathers
APRIL 16, 2010
tags: anthroposophists, pseudoscience
by zooey
Nick Kollerstrom used to teach maths at Rudolf Steiner School Kings Langley, in the London area. He also wrote a book about teaching maths — through the study of crop circles. According to the review

The author, quite deliberately, does not discuss any of the possibilities as to how crop circles appear, leaving the reader to further investigate if they so choose. It certainly offers a lovely way to teach mathematics in addition to promoting students’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and a must for any school library.

More importantly, though, Kollerstrom isn’t just a former waldorf teacher with a fascination for crop circles. He’s an anthroposophist and some of his work is presented here on the website of the science section of the Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain. He also holds some pretty peculiar — not to say abominable — views on Nazi Germany. When his viewpoints came to the knowledge of the University College London, they terminated his position as an honorary research fellow. Kollerstrom isn’t by far the only anthroposophist who happens to be a holocaust denier; there are several others, eg, Gennadi Bondarew, Bernhard Schaub, Willy Lochmann, Robert Mason, Jos Verhulst and Tom Last. As for Kollerstrom, after he was dismissed from the UCL, Nick Cohen penned an article about his case in The Guardian:

Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom is convinced that academics have punished him for a ‘thought crime’. The distinguished astronomer exercised his right as an intellectual in a free society to speak his mind. His university responded by stripping him of his research fellowship and declared that it wishes to have ‘absolutely no association’ with him.

Cohen offers a neat summary of Kollerstrom’s beliefs:

Once he was away from his scientific studies, Kollerstrom embraced them all. ‘Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water polo matches,’ he said of the Nazi genocide. ‘Let’s hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, where the postman would collect the mail twice weekly.’

Denying the crimes of the clerical fascists of today comes easily to a man who can deny the crimes of the secular fascists of the 1940s. Kollerstrom has opined at length on how the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the 7/7 London bombings were not the work of the actual bombers, but of Western security forces acting on the orders of – you’ll never guess – their ‘Zionist masters’.

[...] although he perpetuates Nazi doctrine, Kollerstrom presents himself as a man of the left rather than the far right. He says that he is not a member of a neo-Nazi organisation, but an active supporter of the Green party, Respect and CND. Given the political gyrations of our times, he may well be telling the truth.

This post summarizes Kollerstrom’s views from a number of discussions concerning holocaust denial, conspiracies, et cetera. A post at the Liberal Conspiracy blog adds to the picture of Kollerstrom, who even makes an appearance in the comment thread. Unity writes:

Ordinarily I might just write Kollerstrom off as just another run of the mill conspiraloon and move on, were it not for the fact that he holds down a ‘day job’ as a research fellow at University College London and actively trades on his academic credentials when writing articles for CODOH’s ‘New Revisionist Voices‘ website, where he has, to date, published three articles; Britain – Pioneer of City Bombing, School Trips to Auschwitz and The Auschwitz ‘Gas Chamber’ Illusion. CODOH, which styles itself as the ‘Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust’ – ‘open debate’ meaning open revisionism – also promotes the ‘work’ of the discredited revisionist ‘historian’, David Irving, and Ernst Zundel, both of whom Kollerstrom cites in his own articles.

Kollerstrom’s main line of academic work appears to be the history of astronomy, albeit that he has a notable sideline in publishing articles on astrology and crop circles, and an interest in pseudoscience is not at all an uncommon feature amongst ardent conspiracy theorists.

Unity also provides a fuller quote than Nick Cohen, including a discussion of Kollerstrom’s sources. Kollerstrom professed these hopes, apparently:

Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water-polo matches; and shown the paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children’s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. Let’s hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, some of which still exist, where the postman would collect the mail twice-weekly.

Kollerstrom’s reply to Unity’s post doesn’t actually get us anywhere meaningful; he seems to be labouring under some serious misconceptions, I’d say. (For example, the mass gassings, as far as I’m aware, didn’t take place in Auschwitz but in death camps which were pulled down before Germany lost the war [ie, the main camp of Auschwitz -- I believe there was an extermination camp nearby, a facitlity which is sometimes referred to as Auschwitz -- correct me if I'm wrong, please]. In another comment, he writes that gas was used for delousing the concentration camps: ‘The Zyklon-B worked very well in the Nazi gas chambers of WW2, for delousing mattresses etc, but no human being was put into these.’ But again, in the extermination camps, there was no need for mattresses. People were taken there solely to be killed, basically upon arrival. But about this, Kollerstrom says nothing. He just voices his ‘doubts’, seemingly the guy who only has a few ‘questions’… who doesn’t ‘buy’ the official story. And so forth. That’s perhaps the usual routine; I have little experience with these folks and more of the Kollerstrom variety doesn’t seem tempting.)

Kollerstrom also takes an interest in recent events — or more precisely, conspiracies regarding terrorist attacks of recent years. One of his more odious acts is described in newspaper London Evening Standard:

He has admitted he phoned the father of one victim to tell him how he believed the man’s daughter’s body had been planted at the site of the Tavistock Square bus bombing. The victim’s family has described the phone call and subsequent claims posted on a website as “very upsetting”.

The London bombings, believes Kollerstrom, were carried out by

the four bombers who [...] were “innocent patsies”, set up by a combination of the British, US and Israeli secret services.

The last article by Kollerstrom published by an anthroposophic organisation is from the year 2008, according to UK Anthroposophy. It would be interesting to know more about his present status in anthroposophic circles. What are other anthroposophists thinking? Are they rejecting his views in silence? Do they believe that since this has nothing to do with anthroposophy — at least not on the surface — there’s no need to openly refute or reject Kollerstrom’s lunacy? Peter Staudenmaier writes:

Bondarew is scarcely alone. Further anthroposophist holocaust deniers include Bernhard Schaub, Nick Kollerstrom, Willy Lochmann, Robert Mason, and Jos Verhulst. A number of other anthroposophists, such as Michael Howell, Stephen Hale, and Carol Canning, have also publicly expressed excuses for holocaust denial similar to Last’s, and promote a variety of antisemitic conspiracy theories in anthroposophist terms. It is still relatively rare to find anthroposophists explicitly confronting and rejecting such views from their fellow anthroposophists.

In another post, he notes that

[Holocaust denial] is a genuine problem for anthroposophy, and one that isn’t really being addressed by the rest of the anthroposophist movement, by those anthroposophists who don’t deny the holocaust — Frank Smith, for example, takes the ‘ignore it and it will go away’ stance. In an important sense, it is a particularly disturbing instance of the broader anthroposophist predilection for conspiracy theories, combined with longstanding anthroposophist beliefs about Jews and Jewishness.

Sambucus_Nigra

I sowed some garlic on moon days and some on non moon days. I got better results from my final crops on all the moon ones.

That's all the evidence I need.

Perhaps some people need to get their heads out of 'google' and their hands dirty and try it. Or not.

Cutting and pasting arguments for and against isn't going to get any better crops than not cutting and pasting arguments for or against.

Still, if it keeps you off the streets.

cootambear

If it works for you can have $1m

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/about-the-foundation.html