under a full moon) that carbon can be increased easily. It becomes even worse if we look at this from the point of view of all agriculture. Where can all the extra carbon biomass come from to mulch or fertilise the soil? The answer is, sadly, there aren't these sources. Which means the CFI is not in touch with what is actually needed. At the end of the day Tim, while our soils are carbon depleted the only option we have is to farm in a way that increases carbon. Anything else is a short term, band aid solution. It's easy to joke about cow horns, but reality tells us that biodynamics has been extremely productive in certain contexts. It's not necessarily 'the' answer, but it's a very interesting case study and you'd be naive to ignore it. I think the difference between us Tim, is that you are trying to make the best of the current agricultural framework. I am interested in blowing up the current framework and finding one that actually works. If you can't farm in a way that increases soil carbon (or at the very least maintains it)- STOP FARMING! It's as simple as that in my view. You can't seriously be proposing biodynamics as any sort of a solution? If so, the difference between us is that I'm looking to the reality of science and you have fallen prey to hogwash. I am neither naive nor bound by a framework, unless you call logic and