It seems to me, that the BioDynamic Movement is attempting to keep Food as "Pure and natural" as possible. The Planetary influences mentioned, do NOT negate what appears to me, to be a worthwhile endeavour.
don't mean to be rude but that farmer doesn't seem to be the epitome of health. I always look at someone's pedigree to see if its a worthwhile lifestyle.
+Spill Burg You know what? No, Mary Forstbauer was not the epitome of health, I'll give you that. You actually made this comment a day or so after she passed away. She passed away far too young, age 67, after complications following a very serious blood infection. What you don't know and what you don't see from this video is how much Mary put before herself. She was entirely selfless, in every sense of the word! She worked long, hard days advancing the farming, organic and biodynamic farming, and farmers' market industries since the early 1970s. She was a pioneer and a huge difference maker for all of these movements. She did so much that she was awarded the "CHFA Organic Achievement Award" - a NATIONAL award (see: chfa.ca/en/awards/index.html?category=chfa-organics-achievement-award-2). Her days in the field were not as much in the past many years, because of the work she put in to advance the industries to benefit everyone else that was, is, and will be farming. She sacrificed so much, her health included. Furthermore, she had some underlying health issues/conditions that made it challenging to be the "epitome of health". Your N of 1 study here of watching this video and judging her by how she looks is not an accurate representation to conclude whether this is a worthwhile lifestyle. If you were to look into the family she raised with this lifestyle you would see that she has 12 children (yes, all hers! She gave birth to 13 children, and that alone puts a huge toll on a person's body), and her 36 grandchildren that are seen as being the "epitome of health". On top of everything she did for the industries she advocated for she did everything for her children and they all knew and experienced her love. She impacted the schools and the school districts her children attended in phenomenal ways. Teachers and administrators adored and respected her and went to her when they wanted advice on their own children. I can't possibly give complete justice to who Mary Forstbauer was in a comment box on youtube, but know that she was one phenomenal lady and she will be remembered by many. I understand where you're coming from, and I get it. She doesn't look healthy...and she wasn't perfectly healthy, but the way she raised her family is truly an inspiration and if you are to take a wider look at more people taking part in the lifestyle you would likely come to a different conclusion than you did. It is hard not to judge, but I ask you to please take into consideration that you have no idea what is going on in somebodies life. You don't know the challenges they face. Do me a favour and google Mary Forstbauer and you can have a glimpse into the legacy she has left behind...
+butterfly101887 Thanks for posting such a thoughtful reply. I don't mean this to be a disparaging comment about Mary, but I have trouble reconciling her apparent interest in sustainability with giving birth to THIRTEEN kids. Assuming one father, that's a single-generation population growth rate of FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY PERCENT! How on Earth is that sustainable? Thirty-six grandkids (so far)? Do you happen to know how she herself reconciled her advocacy for sustainability with her own, spectacular fecundity? (13?!)
The mysticism of biodynamic farming threatens the legitimacy of sustainable farming. Cosmic rhythms?! Biodynamics is just astrology for potatoes. I'm certain these folks are sincere in their beliefs and their laudable desire to improve the planet while providing wholesome food, but this biodynamic stuff is pseudoscientific nonsense. What makes it potentially harmful is that many people might confuse it with "sustainable farming" and therefore dismiss all of it as hogwash. Sustainable farming is great, but a sustainable farm will not have better or healthier food due to any of these contrived superstitions. (We really need better scientific education.)
@Katrina Sinclair: Did you read the article? Table 2 indicates that the control (no preparation) outperformed all 9 biodynamic preparations. The conclusion discusses possible reasons why they didn't find the expected benefits of biodynamic preparations... and this was published in _Biodynamics._ Separately, I didn't find the methods or analyses particularly scientific, and the paper seemed to avoid completely any assessment of the mystical gibberish of biodynamics. Essentially, they just measured whether or not they could make compost. Compost predates biodynamics.
Actually, the explanation is not sciencey enough for those thoroughly brainwashed by propaganda instead of deep personal experience. Go live on your own land for a while and see for yourself. Watch One Man, One Cow, One Planet, the story of how Indian farmers, after farming the same land for thousands of years sustainably with natural methods like biodynamics, gave that up for what you believe in, which is the miracle of chemistry and the so called Green Revolution. It was a Green Revolution for putting greenbacks in the pockets of Monsanto, but it was a short term boost to production at the cost of the health of the land. Farmers there are turning away from chemistry and genetics because they can see that it is NOT sustainable for thousands of years like biodynamics is. You might want to appreciate one fact about science that is done in a lab--it is reductionist and designed at creating sellable product, specifically dependency creating product. Biodynamics is about depending on natural cycles. Study ecosystems science and then come back and make comments. Try organic growing. Try making compost and see the difference between what you can buy in a bag from a garden centre (dead matter) vs what you can make in a large composter in your yard. The microbial life in the soil is real, and there is actual 'science' to support it, but not from major academic institutions purchased by chemical companies. Make an effort and do the research. It's not about astrology, it's about microbials and their actions. If you don't believe in microbials, go to any hospital and ask them about MSRA. Perhaps it is easier to just be a crock of shitter instead.
Until you taste it and until you research how phytochemicals are being used as mitochondria targeted cancer stem cell therapy Yeah, the enzymes and molecular compounds are that high in quality. Research about how pytochemicals kill cancer stem cells.
It seems to me, that the BioDynamic Movement is attempting to keep Food as "Pure and natural" as possible. The Planetary influences mentioned, do NOT negate what appears to me, to be a worthwhile endeavour.
nice! can't wait to see you, wellyjane!
hi i am from india and i want more about this
don't mean to be rude but that farmer doesn't seem to be the epitome of health. I always look at someone's pedigree to see if its a worthwhile lifestyle.
+Spill Burg
You know what? No, Mary Forstbauer was not the epitome of health, I'll give you that. You actually made this comment a day or so after she passed away. She passed away far too young, age 67, after complications following a very serious blood infection.
What you don't know and what you don't see from this video is how much Mary put before herself. She was entirely selfless, in every sense of the word! She worked long, hard days advancing the farming, organic and biodynamic farming, and farmers' market industries since the early 1970s. She was a pioneer and a huge difference maker for all of these movements. She did so much that she was awarded the "CHFA Organic Achievement Award" - a NATIONAL award (see: chfa.ca/en/awards/index.html?category=chfa-organics-achievement-award-2). Her days in the field were not as much in the past many years, because of the work she put in to advance the industries to benefit everyone else that was, is, and will be farming. She sacrificed so much, her health included. Furthermore, she had some underlying health issues/conditions that made it challenging to be the "epitome of health".
Your N of 1 study here of watching this video and judging her by how she looks is not an accurate representation to conclude whether this is a worthwhile lifestyle. If you were to look into the family she raised with this lifestyle you would see that she has 12 children (yes, all hers! She gave birth to 13 children, and that alone puts a huge toll on a person's body), and her 36 grandchildren that are seen as being the "epitome of health". On top of everything she did for the industries she advocated for she did everything for her children and they all knew and experienced her love. She impacted the schools and the school districts her children attended in phenomenal ways. Teachers and administrators adored and respected her and went to her when they wanted advice on their own children.
I can't possibly give complete justice to who Mary Forstbauer was in a comment box on youtube, but know that she was one phenomenal lady and she will be remembered by many.
I understand where you're coming from, and I get it. She doesn't look healthy...and she wasn't perfectly healthy, but the way she raised her family is truly an inspiration and if you are to take a wider look at more people taking part in the lifestyle you would likely come to a different conclusion than you did. It is hard not to judge, but I ask you to please take into consideration that you have no idea what is going on in somebodies life. You don't know the challenges they face. Do me a favour and google Mary Forstbauer and you can have a glimpse into the legacy she has left behind...
+butterfly101887 Thanks for posting such a thoughtful reply. I don't mean this to be a disparaging comment about Mary, but I have trouble reconciling her apparent interest in sustainability with giving birth to THIRTEEN kids. Assuming one father, that's a single-generation population growth rate of FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY PERCENT! How on Earth is that sustainable? Thirty-six grandkids (so far)? Do you happen to know how she herself reconciled her advocacy for sustainability with her own, spectacular fecundity? (13?!)
@@ncooty okay you're a bugman LOL. DURR BUT SHE ACTUALLY REPRODUCED AND HAD CHILDREN?!?! ZOMG SO DANGEROUS
The mysticism of biodynamic farming threatens the legitimacy of sustainable farming. Cosmic rhythms?! Biodynamics is just astrology for potatoes. I'm certain these folks are sincere in their beliefs and their laudable desire to improve the planet while providing wholesome food, but this biodynamic stuff is pseudoscientific nonsense. What makes it potentially harmful is that many people might confuse it with "sustainable farming" and therefore dismiss all of it as hogwash. Sustainable farming is great, but a sustainable farm will not have better or healthier food due to any of these contrived superstitions. (We really need better scientific education.)
You have no idea .....
@Katrina Sinclair: Did you read the article? Table 2 indicates that the control (no preparation) outperformed all 9 biodynamic preparations. The conclusion discusses possible reasons why they didn't find the expected benefits of biodynamic preparations... and this was published in _Biodynamics._
Separately, I didn't find the methods or analyses particularly scientific, and the paper seemed to avoid completely any assessment of the mystical gibberish of biodynamics. Essentially, they just measured whether or not they could make compost. Compost predates biodynamics.
Yeah, this was decent enough until the pseudoscience came in.
Biodynamic is a crock of shit
Actually, the explanation is not sciencey enough for those thoroughly brainwashed by propaganda instead of deep personal experience. Go live on your own land for a while and see for yourself. Watch One Man, One Cow, One Planet, the story of how Indian farmers, after farming the same land for thousands of years sustainably with natural methods like biodynamics, gave that up for what you believe in, which is the miracle of chemistry and the so called Green Revolution. It was a Green Revolution for putting greenbacks in the pockets of Monsanto, but it was a short term boost to production at the cost of the health of the land. Farmers there are turning away from chemistry and genetics because they can see that it is NOT sustainable for thousands of years like biodynamics is. You might want to appreciate one fact about science that is done in a lab--it is reductionist and designed at creating sellable product, specifically dependency creating product. Biodynamics is about depending on natural cycles. Study ecosystems science and then come back and make comments. Try organic growing. Try making compost and see the difference between what you can buy in a bag from a garden centre (dead matter) vs what you can make in a large composter in your yard. The microbial life in the soil is real, and there is actual 'science' to support it, but not from major academic institutions purchased by chemical companies. Make an effort and do the research. It's not about astrology, it's about microbials and their actions. If you don't believe in microbials, go to any hospital and ask them about MSRA. Perhaps it is easier to just be a crock of shitter instead.
@@addy113 whats a crock?
@@marklewis4793 a large usually ceramic container made for storage and pickling things
Biodynamic is a gimmick and novelty for sales that is all
Until you taste it and until you research how phytochemicals are being used as mitochondria targeted cancer stem cell therapy
Yeah, the enzymes and molecular compounds are that high in quality.
Research about how pytochemicals kill cancer stem cells.