Homoeonutrients

This board is for sharing results, experiences, concerns and thoughts on preparations - biodynamic or not - for use on plants and soils. These do not include 'peppers'.
Mark
Site Admin
Posts: 893
Joined: 12 Jan 2006, 11:26
Location: Forest of Dean, UK
Contact:

Homoeonutrients

Post by Mark »

I have just received 150 pages of results from Mr GSR Murthy who has been working with plant protection and 'homoeonutrients' since the 1980s in Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India.

My first look shows that Dr Murthy has had controls with no added fertilisers, compared with plants grown with typical NPK doses and with the NPK in homoeopathic potency. His conculsions are that both the NPK and homoeopathic NPK give significant improvements over the unfertilised controls and that the homoeopathic NPK gives yields equivalent or often better - both in weight and disease resistance.

I am in email contact with Dr Murthy and when I have his blessing I will post a download link to the Considera pages

Mark
Site Admin
Posts: 893
Joined: 12 Jan 2006, 11:26
Location: Forest of Dean, UK
Contact:

Re: Homoeonutrients

Post by Mark »

I have now uploaded This research to http://www.considera.org/downloads/homo ... ulture.pdf . Dr Murthy has also added some corrections to his numbers:

", I beg to be apologized for four mistakes crept in printing etc. as I did all this single handed.

I. HCV 11/2 – Maize RI/ As per
1. CNL (No manure) – Pl ht.- 1.18 (print) 1.7 (actual)
No of leaves 10.4 (print), 9.2 (actual)
Inter nodal length 9.2 (print) , 8.6 (Actual)
2. Homoeo T3 – No of leaves 11.8 (print) , 12.0 (Actual)

II. HCV 11/3 – R II
1. CNL - Yield/Pl. – 0.34 (Print) , 0.41(Actual)
Yield/ha. – 8.8 (print) , 10.66 (Actual)
2. Chemical fertilizers. – Inter nodal length.
13.6 (print) , 13.06 (Actual)

III. HCV 11/1 --------- Abstract
1. CNL – Plant ht. R1 – 1.18 (print), 1.17 (Actual)
Yield mt/ha R2 – 8.8 (print) , 10.66 (actual)
Average – 10.6 (print), 11.18 (Actual)
2. Chem.Fert. – Plant ht. Av. – 1.34 (Print), 1.69 (Actual)

The yields were calculated per plant (average of five) and the yield per hectare (2.5 acres) had been arrived by multiplying with the no. of plants/h.a.. In this case the no. of plants (actual because of poor germination) had been taken @ 26,000 no.’s.

Another point which I had not mentioned was this is the Wt. Soon after harvest. (not dry wt.). Similarly there may be some more petty mistakes in other work outs but I’m sure there would not be any mistakes on the final yields compared to chemical fertilizers and no manure, the spirit of the study would not be turned against."

I would like to thank Dr Murthy again for this phenomeenal work and allowing us to show it here. Dr Murthy has joined us on this board and I would be delighted to hear more of his work and how his research is received.

Mark
Site Admin
Posts: 893
Joined: 12 Jan 2006, 11:26
Location: Forest of Dean, UK
Contact:

Re: Homoeonutrients

Post by Mark »


Post Reply Previous topicNext topic