And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

[Janic]

You better analyze objectively, instead of systematically displaying your paranoia.

especially as objectivity is not your prerogative. And as paranoid you are on the podium in first place. These politeness is soon over?

This is a meta-analysis done by a university on world agriculture, so the place of realization does not matter.

and you pride yourself on being a scientist! There is a major rule in science that a comparison is made "all other things being equal"and there it is far, very far from being the case.
but still you should not ask too much!

[Moindreffor]

There is a major rule in science that a comparison is made "all other things being equal"and there it is far, very far from being the case.

hold elsewhere you also say, just observe

[Janic]

hold elsewhere you also say, just observe

absolutely! Both are important and even inseparable.

[Moindreffor]

hold elsewhere you also say, just observe

absolutely! Both are important and even inseparable.

so you admit that observation alone is not enough
So when you say observe 2 plots one biodym and the other treated biodym is doing better, you admit that to conclude it would be necessary to make a comparison "all things being equal", something which is not done, we cannot conclude that biodym is well founded

thank you we finally agree

[Janic]

so you admit that observation alone is not enough

Obviously. Our society is saturated with cameras of all kinds that will see, observe, what is happening on the streets, on highways. The good deal, of course that is not enough in itself, but it is from this observation that will be noted a registration number, photograph of the offender, and where possible prosecution may be initiated, but then only.

so when you say observe 2 plots one biodym and the other treated the biodym is doing better,

Not at all ! it would be a simplifying view of the situation. Any farmer, even in agrochemicals, knows that the result of a sowing depends on the nature of the soil, its composition, the place, the exposure, the climate, etc. like the old ones in "natural" cultivation. including biodynamics.
So there is a high number of parameters which to be comparable (all things being equal) is almost impossible to achieve in real life, on the ground. And even on two very close lands, the results, with the same methods, can give very different results including in classic organic as in biodynamic. Any cultivator knows this.

you admit that to conclude it would be necessary to make a comparison "all things being equal", something which is not done,

Of course, as I said above and Did, whose job it is, can explain it to you through the menu. I even go further, and I think Did could follow me on this ground, the seed industry collects in block the seeds coming from various origins and regions Previously the farmers reserved a part of their harvest, for the following sowing, on a same place, the DNA of the seeds having recorded all these parameters indicated earlier and therefore were prepared, predisposed, to have a maximum qualitative "yield". Just as a group of individuals living in the same place is more adapted to it than another previously living in another environment such as Inuit adapted to a bacterial, microbial, viral environment coming to live in the equator where these microbes and cie are not the same and generally more virulent. For example, the Spanish conquest in South America contaminating populations and decimating them much faster than with their weapons or the colonists with the Indians. It's just a matter of common sense.
So this mixture of seeds leads to the same result, very random.

we cannot conclude that biodym is well founded.

In the same way that we cannot conclude that agrochemicals, medicine or even less vaccines are just as standard as seeds. So what does agrochemicals do? It establishes an overall assessment (especially in terms of yields) neglecting everything that did not exist or shortly before, that is to say all this parasite linked in part to this biological seed uprooting. It is therefore necessary to have a TOTAL assessment to have information that is somewhat credible. Like nuclear, which only recognizes immediate, short, very short-term interest by not accounting for all the environmental costs that result, this is therefore false in principle.
Now, and this is an important, major element, the general AB, official or not,
http://www.agencebio.org/la-bio-en-france
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultu ... _en_France
http://www.agencebio.org/sites/default/ ... _Monde.pdf
only covers a tiny part of farms, i.e. in 2015: 4.9% of agricultural land. Among these, biodynamics which is also tiny compared to organic in general and would bring together around 450 farms in France and therefore a drop of water in the agricultural ocean and which like all minorities (of which organic has been a victim ) becomes the object of bashing unfounded most of the time by ignorance, fanaticism and superstitions, like the other zigoto
http://www.itab.asso.fr/downloads/Alter ... ynamie.pdf

thank you we finally agree

We only agree on certain points. If I had a piece of advice to give, the wisest thing is to meet agrobiodynamics to exchange, compare and therefore avoid images of Epinal and fashionable fake news.

[Moindreffor]

agrochemistry brings visible results in a few weeks, so proving that it works it's easy, and that any farmer will tell you and use it, the contribution of organic fertilizers does the same thing and this by modifying only nitrogen content for example

do you get the same kind of results using a biodynamic decoction as the only change?

because to know the effectiveness of a fertilizer (or a decoction) you must modify only one factor, if you modify more, you no longer know which factor to attribute the modification

so if tomorrow i prepare a biodynamic decoction that i apply on my vegetable garden, without modifying anything else, in how long i can expect to get an improvement

[Janic]

agrochemistry brings visible results in a few weeks, so proving that it works it's easy, and that any farmer will tell you and use it, the contribution of organic fertilizers does the same thing and this by modifying only the nitrogen content for example.

How unfortunate all this ignorance that makes you want to say what is not. [*]
All farmers, organic or not, have received the same lessons on agriculture, the famous NPK and its subsequent treatments. The change comes from the fact that some farmers have become aware that they have embarked on a dead end, dangerous for themselves, their family, the environment and not just how much will they earn. money (even if we all need it).
It is this awareness, not unanimous and particularly coming from industrialists in agrochemicals wanting to keep their monopoly (as in medicine, it is everywhere the same thing whatever the object in question, all industrial sectors combined, therefore you must not see agriculture only) which gave the bio, in fact it was much more a homecoming than real bio. It only became so when agro engineers added their knowledge to this “return” agriculture and added their knowledge to it: analysis of soils, their components, bacterial activity, living, of these. (everything Did said by the way) and it is this couple of scientists and practitioners, traditional farmers, breeders who have helped to develop specific rules for this new path and who, slowly but surely, allowed to recover a better vitality of soils, benefits that it brought to plants (without chemical treatment) and in fact as much to consumers, as to nature by ceasing to disfigure and destroy it.

do you get the same kind of results using a biodynamic decoction as the only change?

Again it's a shame to see all this ignorance (for which you are not responsible, but victims like the rest of the population,) on the subject. Do like me, study it first, then do your sorting: okay, not okay, hold that it's interesting, that much less or I don't understand anything, etc… not be satisfied with fake news like the other zigoto. Biodynamics, as far as I know, and I'm not an expert, Did may know much more than me, it's not producing fertilizers, but only promote the life of soils by various preparations mainly used in composting and "treatments" based on various preparations that characterize them. Are they effective? Only their users can answer it, we have to believe that it works enough for them to continue on this path. Especially when we praise the famous common sense of the people of the earth.

do you get the same kind of results using a biodynamic decoction as the only change?
because to know the effectiveness of a fertilizer (or a decoction) it is necessary to modify only one factor, if you modify more, you no longer know to which factor to attribute the modification.

Organic farming, like biodynamics, has not received the holy spirit and a ready-made and infallible recipe book, otherwise it would be known. It is trial and error after trial and error, successful or failed experiences that the organic discourse was gradually built up with notable differences according to the agrarian cultures, the countries, the protagonists and their differences of conceptions, it is everywhere the same all subjects combined. This gave different "schools" because there is not organic, but organic DES with each its characteristics, its common points, its differences, like the organic school (and even more than organic) of DId. One is for or one is against according to its choices or according to its interests (especially when these interests are figures in bundles of billions of dollars.) But the a priori generally do more harm than good.
To answer this question, therefore: I do not believe in single changes, but in a multitude of changes adding to or subtracting from the desired results. Biodynamics uses (here again I am still not a specialist) for example, the sensitive crystallization method which gives indications, before use, of a product, a decoction, preparation, on the compatibility between the plant concerned ( vine, vegetables, fruit,) and the preparation, which allows us to know if this or that preparation will be favorable or unfavorable (we believe it or we don't always believe it) L
We find something close with Masaru Emoto's analyzes on the vitality of the waters. (Same thing we believe it or not)

so if tomorrow i prepare a biodynamic decoction that i apply on my vegetable garden, without modifying anything else, in how long i can expect to get an improvement

Only a farmer, or even a gardener, confirmed in this practice will be able to answer you because it depends on the situation where you are with your vegetable garden, do you practice everything that questions Did for example or do you consider yourself as a chemist (sorry you are one! ) that the living world consists of simple formulas, even simplistic, and that a selected, pure product can and must prove to be effective (and it can be, but at what cost!) even when the living is so complex that even organic can only seem like a very superficial tinkering (hence this rule stated by Hippocrates: First do no harm.) So you can have a one-off improvement, no more and even, why not, definitive, (for these plants there) that's the mysteries of life!

because to know the effectiveness of a fertilizer (or a decoction) you must modify only one factor, if you modify more, you no longer know which factor to attribute the modification

That's right ! Hence their method (but there are others much more classic or much more unknown in agrochemistry) of crystallization which can be used product after product, eliminating the less convincing (as in homeopathy) and then assembling them to obtain a more complete synergy.

so if tomorrow i prepare a biodynamic decoction that i apply on my vegetable garden, without modifying anything else, in how long i can expect to get an improvement

Same thing, discuss with a specialist or at least a confirmed practitioner, only they can answer you other than a pifometer.

To finish a little anecdote (not biodynamic for that matter)
I met and discussed with a confirmed gardener, son of a farmer (it's been a long time now,) who practiced in a classic way with deep digging (which broke his back as Did said) in a very clayey clay with the usual NPK, his kind treatment and the like. Interested in organic with all the usual a priori, but curious all the same. So I advised him another simple, effective practice without deep digging that he gradually applied and at the end of the season, he harvested huge carrots (compared to his usual ridiculous harvests), he couldn't believe his eyes and Neither did his neighbors who asked him which fertilizer he had used for that: " none, he told them, I just changed the tillage method and I also cover my lawn. Hey, can you keep your shears, I don't have enough for my whole garden And of course these neighbors threw away their shears, rather than giving it to them. This is conformism, to want your cake and eat it without questioning yourself.
So I recommended a series of books on organic farming and he ended up doing lazy gardening too.

[*] It reminds me of a documentary on Chinese medicine, on site of course, and the journalist asked a lady in the street of a city what she used in the event of illness. "I use western medicine because it works very quickly, but it does not last, so I then use Chinese medicine to really heal. "Oriental reasoning obviously! We in the West, in medicine, we continue with things that do not work, in the long term, but we insist (a residue of the belief in miracles?) Until it can no longer be done. walk at all (self-resistance)

[Moindreffor]

so this is the multiplication of factor changes, that we agree and believe or not roughly for the rest

modify certain factors bring very great benefits, but all these modifications are explainable, thank you to Didier's book and that for me is Top, it will be said that I switched to organic, which is wrong because before I was also doing organic I didn't use any banned organic product

for biodym, as you say we believe it or we do not believe it, because if there are benefits and that no objective explanation can be given therefore effectively it is necessary to believe, each Christmas at the feet of fir trees there is gifts, you can see it, children believe ... it's so beautiful and so sad when the truth comes out

not being a great naive and even less a great believer, I will stop there, with my Cartesian mind, I hoped to find other answers to my question on the subject, something to hang on to the speech

[Janic]

so this is the multiplication of factor changes, that we agree and believe or not roughly for the rest

Everything on this round ball is of this order there, it is only in chemistry that we believe in accommodating simplifications for the goal to be achieved.

modifying certain factors brings very great benefits, but all these modifications are explainable,

Ooh La La ! You confuse the explicable and the explained. [*] Everything is explicable as soon as you hold the key. All living things were breathing BEFORE we knew the mechanisms of breathing, the lungs dissociated oxygen from the air when we didn't even know what it was. So don't reverse it. We ignore many more things than we know and it is a vanity to believe that the little that we know little and must explain all that we ignore. A little humility!

thank you to Didier's book and that for me is Top, it will be said that I switched to organic, which is wrong because before I was also doing organic I did not use any banned organic product

so much the better, but organic is not reduced to doing "natural" gardening. Its role and objective is to be applicable to all plant life as animal in order to end, finally, this poisoning of life by all these toxic chemicals, which destroys it.

for biodym, as you say we believe it or we don't believe it, because if there are benefits and that none objective explanation cannot be given therefore effectively

I think you misunderstood what I said. I am not an expert and therefore my point of view is only a point of view, that's all. Find out from REAL FARMERS WHO HAVE PRACTICED for decades who will tell you about the goal, the means, the results and not from fake news which only denigrate by philosophy (unless they are financially there interested?).

you have to believe, every Christmas at the foot of the trees there are gifts, it can be observed, the children believe ... it is so beautiful and so sad when the truth comes to light

it's a shame you give in this kindergarten speech.

not being a great naive and even less a great believer, I will stop there, with my Cartesian mind, I hoped to find other answers to my question on the subject, something to hang on to the speech

As I already wrote, the answer can only be given to you by a professional, not by an amateur (even bad like me). But if you REALLY had the Cartesian mind, you would, on the contrary, have the "scientific" curiosity to check, on your own, whether what is said is justified or not. Otherwise how, by Cartesianism then, do you a fair idea, on simple pro or anti speeches, of this form of culture.
You are, like many, in favor of chemical drugs, vaccinations with pus, but have you studied, dissected, closely these subjects comparing toute the literature (not just the official stuffing) and then, ONLY THEN make yourself a true Cartesian opinion that is not just a conditioning.
Do you analyze the arguments of scientists from all specialties who do not share the blind good thinking that conditions crowds through fear and therefore who adhere to it without knowing anything about it (even if it changes because brainwashing also has its limits)

[*] we are almost at the point of explaining the universe from Planck's wall, but what there is before (and it can only be explained like everything else) we (astrophysicists) cannot rationally explain, Cartesian, what is before. Likewise evolutionists hold a "Cartesian" discourse on the evolution of life on this earth, but are unable to explain how (much less why) this life arose.
NB: you currently have a report on organic, on France 2. If that's organic, actually it's a decoy ... so we're not just talking about the same thing.

[Moindreffor]

for the appearance of life, we know, the problem is more than we do not know how to reproduce in a short time on a human scale processes that took millions of years to form, to prove , this is called a scientific theory, we can explain but not prove, unlike a belief where we can observe but not prove

my curiosity indeed pushes me to seek in the two-dynamic what is not of the order of belief, but from the moment when, it is necessary to believe first, all judgment is impossible, because once the we believe we can no longer be objective, this is the very definition of believing

from the moment you believe in the thing, there is no longer any need for verifications and therefore there are always those who find it hard to believe who need proof, why it is always for those who doubt to bring proofs of veracity or deceit, why are biodynamic professionals so reluctant to provide proof of their point and often limit themselves to simple observations

I may have already said it, I make an elephant scarer every year with a wooden camembert box, I put this box on my chimney and for more than 20 years that I live there, no elephant trampled my garden, it works, I observe it, my neighbor observes it, my neighborhood observes it

I can't explain it to myself, but it works, do you believe it? some ask me, others say it is useless, others laugh, but who laughs will laugh last