Talk:Biodynamic agriculture/Archive 1

Older comments (2005)
Hi everyone. I am not an expert on biodynamics. I studied up on this while studying organic farming in general. I think both the philosophy and the practice is rather interesting and deserves a good NPOV treatment here.

I have seen some jostling since I expanded this page with actual details of a biodynamic compost pile. Please feel free to record your comments here as this article progresses. Thanks.


 * I guess it depends on how you define NPOV. I think generally Steiner's teachings are considered somewhat lunatic fringe, and I'd be inclined to think that biodynamic farming has about as much to do with organic farming as alchemy does to chemistry. My take on NPOV in this case would be to say that it should be evaluated from a more or less scientific standpoint -- that way it can be discussed in terms of what's observable in its claims and effects. After all, gardening/farming is more or less a scientific pursuit when you get right down to it -- evaluate it on those terms. Haikupoet 04:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I quite agree. But: (1) NPOV requires that the author explain the phenomenon as is, and then apply the discriminatory language - like "Fascism attempted to unify the national will and resources of a nation behind a militant leader.  Most historians believe that Fascism was a self-destructive and extremely dangerous political ideology."  I think the article as is just barely holds on to this precept.  (2) Yes, the line between science and pseudoscience should be noted, but pseudoscience is a reasonable subject of interest.  Historically, alchemy did contribute to chemistry, but doesn't anymore.  Steiner promoted organic before more scientific proponents in a similar way.


 * By the way, my real frustration is that my reference to preparations involving ox horns and deer bladders, which Steiner most definitely suggested, was mollified into a vague reference to eastern medicine. What's that about?  It's like saying that the Catholic rite of communion relates to Egyptian resurrection stories, rather than saying it involves a cup of wine and little wafers of bread!  User:KTyson

An organic farmer is not only no chemicals etc. He is taking care of the aerth on which the crop grows. If the dirt is very good, by way of composted materials inserted, the crop wil and is very much more immune for sicknesses. Also the cattle which grow upon wellcared grassland, has a very high resistance against sicknesses. The cattle hardly is crippled and pregnances are more likely. Steiner adds to this some mystical matters, although I must say, that some of them are very usefull. Likle tea from nettles. If you want to know more, plse contact me on vogelpoelarius@hotmail.com


 * the new version is much better, more detailed and balanced, thanks. Justinc 09:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed text
The following text was removed awaiting adequate citation.

New approaches using biodynamic principles
There are developments to the traditional approach to biodynamics, some of which are not certified by Demeter, that employ some unique agricultural techniques, including those of Hugh Lovel, Greg Willis, Enzo Nastati and Glen Atkinson. These are not universally accepted within the biodynamic movement. Glen Atkinson's BDMax preparation products are accepted for use with Demeter trademarks in New Zealand and the UK and Europe.

( To see the trademarks go to www.bdmax.co.nz )

''The folliowing text was removed from the page, since it was too much of argument, personal opinions and story-telling rather than encyclopedic. Parts of it may be reused, please feel free to do so if suited.''

Biodynamic farming compared to organic farming
A biodynamic farmer differentiates between biodynamic and organic farming is as follows:


 * "An organic farmer grows his products by taking care of the soil, he grows his crop in. By taking care of the soil, the crop will have a tremendous increase of immunity against viral and bacterial diseases. Therefore he doesn't need all kinds of chemicals. He uses however several 'tea's' For example a tea from nettle, and composted material. He therefore has most often some horses, cows or pigs. A biodynamical farmer does the same, but adds some technics, which mostly have to do with the way composted material is treated. Also moon phases is used. This is actually that you sow, plow etc. at specific lunar phases. I myself have conducted an experiment. I took some sunflower seeds and sowed them during the 'leave'phase of the moon. Then some other seeds sowed during the 'flower'phase' Then some sowed during the soil phase of the moon. phase, . The plants sowed during leave phase sowed a reenmarkable amount of leaves, the flower phase produced huge flowers. The plants sowed during soil phase, produced a huge mass of roots. There are several other technics they use, which goes too far in detail.

Two principles typical of Steiner's biodynamic theory have to do with composting and moon phases. As prescribed by Steiner, these principles go far beyond the usual attention paid to such factors by pre-modern agriculturists and their modern counterparts in the organic movement.

For example, Steiner suggested that the precise composition, position, shape, and handling of compost piles made up of cow manure and plant trimmings was critical to making it truly biodynamic.

He further suggested that the beneficial organic matter and humus produced in the resulting composts would be greatly enhanced by specific additions of homeopathic doses of special "preparations" often made in ways reminiscent of Aryvedic or Chinese medicine. The reason for such additions apparently has to do with subtle forces creating balance and harmony in the natural world akin to enhancing the immunological functions of the human body with homeopathic or naturopathic approaches.

Practitioners who have the patience to follow Steiner's detailed instructions have claimed significant results.

Biodynamics, as well as biological farming, are increasingly well known on the basis of its application to viticulture (grape growing) and to the production of biodynamic wine.

Both methods produce a healthy series of products, from vegetables to meat. It a proven fact ( see Wageningen Univerity, Holland) that the products from the 'regular 'farming, are far from healthy. For example all cabbages, salad, spinach and the like are gathering heavy metals, which are stored in your tissues. Also the way this farmer treats his dung in such a manner, theat sicknesses increasingly are originating from that dung.

odic force
i removed a sentence about and link to odic force. i can see no connection to biodynamics and think it makes things sound more obscure than they are anyway.--trueblood 11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathic Preparations
The use of homeopathic dilutions of the Biodynamic Preparations was indicated by Dr Steiner in the Agriculture Course ( in 9 places) and through his acknowledgement and encouragement of the work of Drs E & L Kolisko, who published their research into ptoentised preparations in "Agriculture of Tomorrow" in 1939. (Glen Atkinson - 7 August 2007)

Other text seems to indicate that this approach is applicable in New Zealand. That is only one of dozens of countries which practice biodynamics. The text as written gives the wrong impression as to this practice. I do not know if this is someone's original research or not - if so, it may not be appropriate under the rules of Wiki. It certainly doesn't seem to be able to be verified through the international biodynamic movement. Jean Yeager 21:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a section describing homeopathic doses for the preparations. I would like to ask that person to quote their source from the prevailing biodynamic literature for this entry. I have not seen this verified in the literature. The material I have received from Josephine Porter Institute (JPI) which produces the biodynamic preparations in the U.S., does not represent what is presented in this section.

i was thought of them homeopathic, since very little matter is used, but i agree with you, this section is misleading (i did not write it) and why not use biodynamic literature for this. it should be changed. trueblood 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

i deleted the passsage:

Homeopathic preparations
The standard preparations 500-507 are added at a rate of 1 part preparation to 9 parts distilled water for an X (or D) potency or 1 part preparation to 99 parts distilled water for a C potency. They are succussed according to standard homeopathic practices. According to practitioners, this has the effect of transferring the energetic patterns from the preparations into the distilled water. The first step is called the mother tincture and 1 part of the mother tincture is added to 9 or 99 parts distilled water and successed to create a 1X or 1C dilution. Repeat again and it becomes a 2X or 2C dilution. The process is repeated as many times as necessary in order to create an appropriate dilution (ie. 30C). The correct dilution is up to the experience and intuition of the farmer just as it is up to the homeopathic doctor to give his patients the right dilution of medicine to treat them.

this is not part of standard biodynamic farming. the preparations are already discussed in the sections field and compost preparations trueblood 21:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Biodynamic certifying organizations
CURRENTLY THE TEXT READS: Other certifying organisations exist; in the USA this has led to the BDA (Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Inc.) who are responsible for the Demeter system in the U.S. and for the trademarked term biodynamic.

The term Biodynamic(R) is a trademarked term which can only be granted when farms/gardens are certified by the Demeter association Int'l or its designee. Since this trademark is international, how could other certifying organizations can exist for Biodynamic(r) agriculture? If they do exist, then please provide specifics. Otherwise, this is not verifiable and the text removed or re-written. Jean Yeager 22:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

recent additions history and sceptical view
i object to a some of these changes: trueblood 16:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the section biodynamics and the environmental movement adds in my opinion nothing notable to this article and even fails to actually show a general connection between biodynamics and environmental movement.
 * the section sceptical view is about criticism, as the name leads one to think, don't overload it with praise. also science is the name of a well respected scientific magazine, the way it is written now one might think, science is quoted. calling pfeiffer a noted soil scientist is misleading. i don't think ehrenfried pfeiffer is known outside the biodynamic movement.
 * i prefer all the preperation related sections coming after the introduction, because they really are central to biodynamics.

Dr. Ehrenfried E. Pfeiffer
Dear Trueblood,

I suggest you take a look at:

http://rotheraine.com/golden_garbage.html (Which is a reprint of an article from Colliers magazine, May 31, 1952.

It is a great biography of Dr. E.E. Pfeiffer and gives you some idea about how well Pfeiffer was known outside of the world of Biodynamics during his time.

Perhaps this also gives you more information about how B-D was connected with the environmental movement during the early days?

What could be more environmentally conscious (and quite ahead of its time) than composting Oakland's municipal waste in the 1950's? The Collier's article was complete with photographs.

Jwyeager

i am sorry, but this article does nothing of the sort to me. in fact it mostly tells me that he tried to compost oklands municipal waste in the 50's and i knew that already. trueblood 20:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In the 1930's, Steiner sent Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer (1899 - 1961) to the U.S.. Shortly after his arrival, the Biodynamic Farming & Gardening Association, Inc. and the Pfeiffer Center were formed. Pfeiffer supported the organic agriculture movement in the U.S.

i deleted this, not to be nasty but because it is inaccurate. steiner died in 25, according to your link pfeiffer arrived in 1940 in the us to escape the nazis (unclear what they wanted from him though) and the Biodynamic Farming & Gardening Association was formed according to wikipedia in 38, two years before pfeiffer arrived. trueblood 12:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

biodynamics is organics
bd farming is an organic system, this not just a claim of somebody but a fact, if you are bd you are certified organic. trueblood 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So where exactly did Rudolf Steiner mention a prohibition on Genetically Modified Organisms? Does Manure from cows fed with highly fertilized crops count as organic once its been through the BD processes? Or did you just say more than you can defend?--Brendan White (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Difference between 'normal' Organic and Biodynamic
I have added the title 'difference between organic and biodynamic' because often people ask this question first 'What is the difference'. Lkleinjans 10:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

wholescale clean-up
Wow. This was a mess. I have just done a complete work-over, organizing sections, removing duplicated material, referencing to objective sources, etc., etc. I hope this is now a much improved basis for working further. Hgilbert 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph removed for checking
I have removed the following paragraph for the nonce until the original language can be checked. Can anyone give the original text on which this is based? Other than the heavily loaded "dictates", the whole section reads improbably. Perhaps I just don't know enough about biodynamics.

Since Steiner viewed the full moon, Venus and Mercury as cosmic powers influencing the fertility of plants, the biodynamic techniques for pest control involves blocking the fertility influence from said planets on different pests. Steiner dictates that this is achieved in different ways for pests and weeds: Hgilbert 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC) ~

doc study
there is a study that compared conventional, organic and bd practices during 24 years, that is more telling then what is in the article, check out http://www.fibl.org/english/research/soil-sciences/dok/index.php anyone who feels motivated.trueblood 12:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing to this article. As you note, it describes a 21-year comparative study of biodynamic, organic and conventional agriculture on a research facility in Switzerland. I will add a summary of the study and findings to this article. Merci, EPadmirateur 01:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

controversy and studies of efficacy sections
at the moment those two sections cover the same subject. i propose to put everything that concerns studies about efficacy in the so named section, but then maybe some of it could be shortened, since the section is already quite long. at least in germany biodynamics has drawn in harsh criticism for being esoteric hocuspocus in mayor newspapers (a FAZ editorial is mentioned, but also in Der Spiegel); i would reserve the controversy section for those kind of things.trueblood 10:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

i removed a bit from controversy which discusses studies already discussed:
 * Several studies have been performed on the effects of biodynamic preparations compared with organic methods, showing discernible differences in compost chemical and microbial parameters and other differences in crop yields and composition, but little difference in soil biotic parameters in the short-term. A six-year study comparing vineyard blocks treated with biodynamic preparations with those tended with general organic methods showed some evidence that biodynamic methods may positively affect wine grape canopy and wine chemistry.


 * The only long-term study comparing the results of biodynamic, organic and conventional agriculture found that as regards soil structure, pH and humus formation, the biodynamic approach was superior even to organic farming techniques, which in turn yielded superior results over conventional agriculture. The yields in both the biodynamic and organic approach averaged 20% less than conventional agriculture, which the study suggested was acceptable given that fertilizer and energy input was reduced by 34 to 53% and pesticide input by 97%.

trueblood 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reformatted the above comment for better readability. --EPadmirateur 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this removes some duplicated description of the studies but these were meant to contrast the skeptical claims, for example, that "similar or equal results can be obtained using standard organic farming principles" or that "when methods of biodynamic agriculture were tested scientifically, the results were unconvincing" or that "no evidence exists that addition of these preparations improves plant or soil quality in organically managed landscapes". The sections you removed directly answer those statements and should be included, but perhaps in a more direct way to show that there is a contrasting viewpoint. I will try to incorporate them better. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * trueblood, the sections you have removed again directly answer the critical statements and should be included for neutrality. I tried to make them address the critical statements in a direct way to show that there are contrasting viewpoints. This is required in a good Wikipedia article. They are not just a duplication of previous material. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i think people can think for themselves. you don´t have to balance every sentence where it is placed. i don´t understand why you insist to put in the same info twice.trueblood (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When different research results exist on a specific issue, I think it is proper to put them together for pedagogical reasons in a description of the issue, and not in different sections. Thebee (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the criticism section contains only opinion and commentary and no studies, you guys can not stand to leave any hints at the possibility that someone has a critical opinion about biodynamics. i don´t what is balanced about that

trueblood (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you give citations of critical sources we can draw on? Or just find these and incorporate them? Hgilbert (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * how about the three that are already in the criticism section?trueblood (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are, oddly enough, already in the criticism section. What are you looking for? Hgilbert (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ???? i am not looking for anything, i am happy with the way it is now.trueblood (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

merging the criticism section
i would like to keep the criticism section as it is. there is a long overly positive section about studies that prove how effective biodynamics is (which could probably be shortened a lot). and then there is a tiny criticism section, but for some people that is already too much, it has to be balanced to make it more neutral by repeating things that were already mentioned in the studies section. to mention some critics and show what there reasoning is - what is unbalanced about that? when you qualify a critics opinion with a statement that begins with although or it should be noted that then you start to be unbalanced. trueblood (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that Wikipedia guidelines suggest the merge strongly. Hgilbert (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * most of the things in the criticism section are just opinion and not studies, i do not see why these sections need to be merged, they talk about different things. the efficiency section could be shortened though, a lot of talk about not very convincing results, the probably most convincing study is hidden at the end of the section.trueblood (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i would be happy though to give it a differnet name and incorporate positive outside reaction as well.trueblood (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)