Talk:Biodynamic agriculture

Biased POV
I have made two minor edits to neutralised two heavily opinionated claims and they were reverted in less than a minute. I don't have the time to play editing games of course, so someone responsible please check this matter.
 * 1) "it is more akin to sympathetic magic" is a point of view, whatever the context. It should read "someone has characterised it as more akin to sympatheric magic" and the reader can look to the cited work for more.
 * 2) "it is a pseudoscience" is a POV. Even if I'm not a user of these methods, many thousands of farmers are, and they don't find it a pseudoscience. Just keep it simple, intelligent readers can make their own opinions, they don't need us to draw conclusions for them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.216.105.154 (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's obvious pseudoscience. WP:PSCI policy requires us to be up-front about that and we shan't give the false impression this is just an odd viewpoint with the "some people ..." wording, per WP:ASSERT. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it's not pseudoscience (nor that it is) I'm just asking that you refrain from forcing your own opinion into it. I retain that "it is more akin to sympathetic magic" should be changed to something like "it is has been described as more akin to sympathetic magic" and "it is a pseudoscience" should be changed to "some scientists described it as pseudoscience". I don't think the audience is as interested in your personal opinion as you seem to think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.216.105.154 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right: Wikipedia is not interested in his opinion, or yours, or mine. We have rules for stating that something is pseudoscience, and the statement complies with these rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to attribute statements that represent the scientific consensus view. In fact, to do so violates WP:NPOV. It would be like saying "according to Neil deGrasse Tyson, the earth is billions of years old". Attributing the statement gives the false impression that this is less than a universally held view. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A Google Scholar search gives more than 10,000 hits, nearly all of which are fully reliable sources which treat the topic in a straightforwardly scientific manner. Adding the term pseudoscience brings that down to 140 hits, or 1% of the total, and a quick survey reveals that most of these either do not connect biodynamics to pseudoscience (the terms occur in two different contexts in the source) or if they do, use nuanced wording such as that suggested above ("some have characterized it as pseudoscience).  Cl ea n Co py talk 11:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PROFRINGE. The only pertinent sources wrt pseudoscience are those which consider the pseudoscience classification. Advocacy based on a Google search is not relevant. In case anybody's wondering, burying crystals in the ground to harness cosmic forces is, in fact, pseudoscientific (at best). Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PROFRINGE does not support the contention that "the only pertinent sources wrt pseudoscience are those which consider the pseudoscience classification." An WP:RS article on a subject which does not mention pseudoscience is not inherently advocacy. For example, there are a number of RS articles about the economics of biodynamic agriculture, and wine in particular, which do not go into detail about the beleifs associated with the system.Dialectric (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PROFRINGE applies to the general move to play-down the pseudoscience. A source on economics is okay for content on economics, but not for playing down the pseudoscience aspect of BDA. No actual source (on economics or otherwise) has been proposed. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the theme is generally taken seriously by academics, then it is a violation of WP:NPOV to solely use the few sources where this is cast into doubt. Cl ea n Co py talk 20:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PSCI applies; that it's pseudoscience must be prominent. As to other sources, I'm hearing lots of words but seeing no sources: a section (e.g.) on the economics of biodynamic agriculture could be good. So add it - but it's not an excuse to whitewash the article. Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

To cut the cruft, Steiner wanted his adepts to believe that biodynamic agriculture is cutting edge technology based upon spiritual science (higher knowledge revealed through archangels and principalities), but scholars of religion have no qualms to qualify it as magic. For the same reason some fundamentalist Christian websites warn believers that homeopathy is not quackery, but directly from the Devil. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Open access journals
These are difficult to evaluate, but the Journal of social and development sciences is listed in the Directory of Open-Access Journals, which is one of the primary ways of judging the validity of such journals, according to this University research guide. It is published by Springer, which is a high-quality publisher. I don't know what other standard to apply... Cl ea n Co py talk 18:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this: the journal has to be either removed totally or kept totally, no in-between. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Biodynamics is Steiner cult bullshit, we should be pushing for good quality sources, not journals on Beall's list that have no impact factor and are in completely unrelated areas of study. There's a long term problem with rubbish being published in journals in tangentially related fields (see Iris Bell's publications on homeopathy, moving from journal to journal as they catch on to the fact that she's promoting woo). That's my view, anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have two scientific studies that show that there are benefits to Biodynamic Agriculture:
 * 1. A review of scientific research on biodynamic agriculture: A review of scientific research on biodynamic agriculture
 * Source: Santoni, M., Ferretti, L., Migliorini, P. et al. A review of scientific research on biodynamic agriculture. Org. Agr. 12, 373–396 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-022-00394-2
 * "This review was based on a structured literature survey of peer-reviewed journals indexed on the Web of Science™ (WoS) Core Collection database carried out from 1985 until 2018. We found 147 publications of studies in journals with an impact factor. Of these, 93 focused on biodynamic agricultural practices, 26 on the sustainability of the biodynamic method, and 28 on the food quality of biodynamic products. The results of the literature review showed that the BD method enhances soil quality and biodiversity."
 * 2. Source: Morandé, J.A., M.G. Vaghti, J.N. Williams, J. Medellin-Azuara, & J.H. Viers. 2018. Carbon Inventory and Annual Increment Analysis of Vineyard Blocks and Adjoining Wildlands of Bonterra Organic Vineyards. Pacific Agroecology LLC Project Report. Davis, CA. 25 ppd.
 * "In partnership with Pacific Agroecology of Davis, Calif., we conducted a study in 2017 – 2018 to discover how farming choices affect organic carbon storage in soil and above-ground plants. The study’s findings indicate that organic and other types of regenerative agriculture have a positive impact on soil health, and encourage us to continue exploring the dynamic relationship between soil and climate resilience."
 * Farming Method
 * Conventional: 41,000 lbs
 * Organic: 45,200 lbs
 * Biodynamic 46,300 lbs
 * "Vineyards farmed with organic and Biodynamic methods stored 9.4%-12.8% more SOC per acre, respectively, than the conventionally farmed control vineyard"
 * According to the study, Biodynamic methods sequestered the most carbon dioxide via soil building. FMRSJR (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit war
Organic farming was a golden opportunity for biodynamic agriculture to show that it can feed a country. But it flopped, and Anthroposophists could not prevent the failure of Sri Lankan agriculture. They can produce small quantities of luxury vegetables, milk and meat, but they cannot feed the world. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * So ALL of Sri Lanka switched to Biodynamic Agriculture? I think we all would have heard about this. Can you provide some proof to back up your claims? FMRSJR (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "this cannot be true because I never heard of it" gambit has been tried before on Wikipedia but as far as I know it has never worked. Wikipedia is supposed to contain the knowledge of the whole of humanity, not only yours.
 * Regarding "proof to back up your claims": Move your mouse cursor onto the underlined text "Organic farming#Sri Lanka" above, then click the left mouse button. You will arrive at a page that has little numbers at the end of sentences. Repeat that moving-and-clicking thing with those numbers, and you will see what the sources are. Find those and read them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A country switching to 100% organic agriculture would have been a golden opportunity for Anthroposophists to show the power of their own brand of agriculture. It was widely advertised, so it was no secret. Any honest agricultural businessman could join such transition. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Not claiming to be scientific
Biodynamic agriculture is not claiming to be scientifically based. It is not pseudoscience because it doesn’t claim to be scientific. It is comprised of policies and practices that some farmers use and the results speak for themselves. It follows the same base practices as organic certification farming, and then adds some extras practices. That’s all. There is no reason to call it pseudoscience. If it claimed to be a scientific method we could have that argument. But it doesn’t claim to be so why judge it according to a scientific standard? 2603:800C:2500:F58:A5CC:7CD5:E757:1783 (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * the results speak for themselves &larr; what results? Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See Organic farming. Can biodynamic agriculture feed 4 billion people? Sri Lanka could not avoid a crash of agricultural production, where were the Anthroposophists then? The Sri Lankan government would have accepted help from Lucifer and Ahriman, if these could feed their country. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding what "pseudoscience" means. It doesn't need to be currently claimed to be science, since Rudolf Steiner claimed it was a direct result of his "spiritual science." He claimed it had basis in "scientific reasoning" of his own design. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously not open-minded
I looked for the definition of biodynamic and stumbled on this entry. I read the first line and realized this text is not impartial. Disparaging words like pseudo-scientific and esoteric in the first sentence. Shame on the writer of this.

Biodynamic agriculture is a form of alternative agriculture based on pseudo-scientific and esoteric concepts initially developed in 1924 by Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925).[1][2] It was the first of the organic farming movements.[3] It treats soil fertility, plant growth, and livestock care as ecologically interrelated tasks,[4][5][6] emphasizing spiritual and mystical perspectives 102.165.195.156 (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia's job to be credulous, but to relay knowledge. What you quote is that, well sourced & cited. Bon courage (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)