The plant miasms are really caused by different (wrong) methods of cultivation and suppression of symptoms with poisonous substances. The first causality is improper spacing in monocultures. Plants are too close together, which is unnatural and they consist of a single species, which is also seldom seen in nature. The second causality is bare soil cultivation, which simply means a soil devoid of organic material. The third causality is the addition of inorganic plant ‘foods’ – NPK. This is similar to humans eating junkfood – it keeps them alive, but causes problems in its own right. It is imperative to know all these circumstamces in plant diagnosis.
These miasmatic states are of course very different from those for humans.They relate to those conditions I mentioned above. Bare soil cultivation is the first and could be called the fungus miasm. Because there is no organic content in the soil, the soil fungi are forced to attack the living crop – they have to live too and this guarantees their survival. The second miasm relates to spacing – the stress miasm. The third is connected to the nutrients – the junkfood miasm, characterised more by excess NPK and not enough micronutrients. The fourth is related to the suppressive treatment of pests and diseases – the poison miasm.
These problems caused by the wrong cultivation methods then set up reactions in the form of diseases and pests, which are invariably treated wrongly – even in so-called organic gardening. For in all these methods the focus is on the disease or the pest, while the suffering plant is not given any attention other than noticing its condition. This is the wrong approach and will remain a wild-goose-chase forever. It is the plant which suffers the pest or disease and thus it is the plants that needs treatment. Therefore it is the plant that requires our undivided attention, taking into consideration all of the above.
AS: Your insights into the plant kingdom and the parallels concerning constitutions, suppression and miasms are fascinating and momentous. Could Agrohomeopathy transform agriculture? What would the world have to gain?
Kav: Agrohomoeopathy would certainly transform agriculture tremendously, if and when it would be applied. It would be the true Green Revolution. I would have other benefits too, for agroforestry to which I shall return shortly. However, considering the tremendous amounts of money involved in Agribusiness, the chances are slim. The only hope I have is when it takes in India, where in Rajastan many farmers are already working with the concept and when my book – translated by Mr. Lethif into 5 Indian languages – is used by as many farmers as possible. If I had the money, I would set up a business as I did in Australia and offer the first treatment for free, so the farmers can see that it works and that it’s lasting effects will save them lots of money which they now spend on poisons. First get them convinced and then charge money – cheaper still than poisons at the same amount.
Imagine the benefits for the farmer first – a reduction in costs of treatment by at least 75% and possibly up to 90%. Next he can sell his produce as organic, getting a better price. Moreover, he no longer runs such great health-risks, reducing his healthcare insurance. He also grows on cleaner land, stops polluting the groundwater and so contributes to better earth management and a cleaner environment.
For the consumer there are similar benefits – healthier foods, no intake of poisons, equally reduced healthcare bills and a better quality of life. It will reduce the expenditure of governments for healthcare by such a significant amount; the sums are incalculable at present. Hence it can lead to significant reductions in taxes, which will enable people to pay for things they currently can not afford. It would help reduce the economic crisis we are in at present and shorten it considerably.
A cleaner environment has other benefits too. If we consider that our crops use up 50% of all arable land and if we also take into account that 30% of the crop is lost to pests and diseases, we can see that our crops have little capacity of taking up CO2. If we also consider that 30% of our natural forests suffer similar circumstances, we are faced with the fact that together with the weak plants we still have, about 50% less intake of CO2 is the result.
When homoeopathy is implemented, we have several benefits in this scenario.
1. More and healthier plants, so increasing the uptake of CO2.
2. More trees that are healthy, having the same effect on CO2.
3. An increase in covered land with plants by 30%, all of which take up much more CO2 than any sick plants are capable of.
4. Therefore, an increase in greenhouse-gas reduction that lies at somewhere between 150 to 200%.
One might think that my mathematics are off the mark, but we must consider that sick plants reduce their intake by 50%, plus 30% that does not take up anything at all. That makes for an 80% reduction compared to normal.
Given the fact that pesticides, herbicides and fungicides are made from fossil fuels, as well as the fertilisers, their reduced use and elimination would also help in cleaning up the greenhouse gases by some 30-50% of the farmer’s use. This means an even greater reduction in greenhouse gases than the mentioned 200%.
Homoeopathy improves not only the health of the plants, they also grow bigger and larger, so increasing the volume of leaf structures capable of taking up CO2.
This increase lies in the order of 30-50%. At the normal intake, we can assume a 100% uptake. At the increased uptake we have eliminated the 80% reduction compared to normal and added the 80% above normal. That makes for an increse of 160%.
Silicea has, besides the benefits enumerated by Steiner, a few other characteristics that are extremely important for agriculture. The first is as a help in seed germination, which results in nearly 100% of seeds being viable. Next it makes for stronger plants. The best feature of Silicea is its capacity to be able to green a desert in record time, by enabling the sand to hold enormous amounts of water for long periods – up to 6 weeks after spraying, water is held in pockets under the surface, to the extent that a spade will come out moist. My experiments in Australia have shown that a piece of desert of 100HA, greened in less than 3 months and permanently so. This greening of the desert can add tremendously to our surface of arable land and thus increase the CO2 uptake by another 30 to 40 %. It will also help in alleviating world hunger and provide enough food for all the world’s inhabitants. Provided of course we devide the benefits equally.
Since healthy people also think more harmoniously,it could be very likely that homoeopathy for people and livestock would also gain tremendous advantage and be implemented more readily everywhere. This would lead to a further reduction in healthcare costs, which at present lie somewhere at 10%, if not more, of a country’s GDP. If we also consider that people who are less sick will produce more, the gains are staggering, for it would increase the GDP by at least 20%, because the time lost due to sickness is tremendous. In short, the benefits outweigh the cost of conversion by a large margin and the sooner we implement it, the better it would be. We might even be able to heal the entire planet, at a fraction of the cost of technological ”solutions” which will only cause more problems. Since healthy people are less exploitative, that idea is less far-fetched than it seems.
AS: Given the current economic climate and the world’s needs, Agrohomeopathy starts to seem less utopian. The work in India sounds very promising. Let me ask about dose and potency. What kind of potencies are used and does the “treatment” require many doses? Are there any cautions?
Kav: In the treatment of plants one has to be more careful than with people, in the sense that plants are more sensitive in their reactions to homoeopathic remedies. Naturally, a remedy that does not fit the plant does nothing at all, like for instance Nux vomica Plants do not get tetanus and so Nux has no effect on plant life.
Within the plant constitution we spoke about, any plant remedy that falls within the same Family has a strong effect. Any remedy made from a companion Family also has a strong effect. As examples we may here mention basil and tomato, or beans and potato. The target plants belong in the Solanacea family, while the ones used as a remedy belong in the Leguminosa and Labiata Families.
The dose is dependent on several circumstances, but generally a 6X is the preferred potency. In the case of repellent qualities, sometimes a lower potency works better, such as a 3X, because the amount of substance required may be larger – pheromones being the active ingredient, which disappear in the higher potencies.