Biodynamic agriculture

Biodynamic agriculture is a method of organic farming that emphasizes the holistic development and interrelationships of the soil, plants and animals as a self-sustaining system.^[1][2][3] Biodynamic farming has much in common with other organic approaches, such as emphasizing the use of manures and composts and excluding of the use of artificial chemicals on soil and plants. There are independent certification agencies for biodynamic products; most of these agencies are members of the international biodynamics standards group Demeter International. Biodynamics originated out of the work of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy.^[4]

Biodynamics was one of the first modern ecological farming systems^[5][6][7] and is considered to be one of the most sustainable.^[8] As of 2011 biodynamic techniques were used on 142,482 hectares in 47 countries; Germany accounts for 45.1% of the global total.^[9] Biodynamic methods of cultivating wine grapes have been taken up broadly, including by notable vineyards.^[10] Methods unique to the biodynamic approach include the use of fermented herbal and mineral preparations as compost additives and field sprays, integration of farm animals and plant production, an emphasis on local production and distribution systems using local breeds and varieties, and the use of an astronomical sowing and planting calendar^[11].^[12]

A 2009/2011 review found that biodynamically cultivated fields achieve lower absolute yields but better energy efficiency of production; impact the environment positively, including increased biodiversity; had greater earthworm populations and biomass than conventional farms; maintained or slightly improved organic carbon levels, while both organic and conventional farming techniques resulted in a loss of organic carbon; had higher microbial biomass carbon and dehydrogenase activity than those of either organically or conventionally farmed fields.^[13]:23[12]

Biodynamic agriculture has been characterized as pseudoscience.^{[14][15][16][17]}

History

The development of biodynamic agriculture began in 1924 with a series of eight lectures on agriculture given by philosopher Rudolf Steiner at Schloss Koberwitz in Silesia, Germany, (now Kobierzyce in Poland east of Wrocław). The lectures, the first known to have been given on organic agriculture,^[18] were held in response to a request by farmers who noticed degraded soil conditions and a deterioration in the health and quality of crops and livestock resulting from the use of chemical fertilizers.^[19] The one hundred and eleven attendees, less than half of whom were farmers, came from six countries, primarily Germany and Poland.^[18] Steiner emphasized that the methods he proposed should be tested experimentally; an agricultural research group was subsequently formed to test the effects of biodynamic methods on the life and health of soil, plants and animals.^[4]

Today biodynamics is practiced in more than 50 countries worldwide. Demeter International is the primary certification agency for farms and gardens using the methods.

Geographic developments

• Steiner's Agriculture Course was published in November 1924; an English translation appeared in 1928.^[20]
• In Australia the first biodynamic preparations were made by Ernesto Genoni in Melbourne in 1927^[21] and by Bob Williams in Sydney in 1939. Since the 1950s research work has continued at the Biodynamic Research Institute (BDRI)^[22] in Powelltown, near Melbourne Australia under the direction of Alex Podolinsky.^[23] In 1989 Biodynamic Agriculture Australia was established, as a not for profit association.
• In 1938 Ehrenfried Pfeiffer’s Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening was published in English, German, Dutch, French, and Italian.^[4]
• In the United States, the Biodynamic Farming & Gardening Association was founded in 1938 as a New York state corporation.
• In the UK in 1939, Britain's first biodynamic agriculture conference, the Betteshanger Summer School and Conference on Biodynamic Agriculture, was held at Lord Northbourne's farm in Kent; Ehrenfried Pfeiffer was the lead presenter.^[24]
• In France the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) was formed in 1972 with five founding members, one of which was the Swedish Biodynamic Association.^[25]
• The University of Kassel had a Department of Biodynamic Agriculture from 2006 to March 2011.^[26]
• Germany, Italy and India are reported to be the leading countries in biodynamic agriculture based on biodynamic hectares.^[27]

Biodynamic method of farming

Central features of biodynamic agriculture include crop diversification, the avoidance of chemical soil treatments, decentralized production and distribution, and the consideration of celestial and terrestrial influences on biological organisms. ^[28] A farm is conceived of as a holistic, self-contained entity, within which soil, crops, animals, and the farmers are interdependent parts. Important features include the use of livestock manures to sustain plant growth (recycling of nutrients), maintenance and improvement of soil quality, and the health and well being of crops and animals.^[29] Cover crops, green manures and crop rotations are used extensively and the farms foster bio-diversity.

Biodynamic farms often have a cultural component and encourage local community. Some biodynamic farms use the Community Supported Agriculture model, which has connections with social threefolding.

BD farming practices have been found to be more resilient to environmental challenges, to foster diverse biosphere, and to be more energy efficient, factors of increasing importance in the face of climate change, energy scarcity and population growth.^[30]

Biodynamic preparations

Steiner prescribed nine different preparations to aid fertilization, and described how these were to be prepared. Steiner believed that these preparations mediated terrestrial and cosmic forces into the soil.^[3] The prepared substances are numbered 500 through 508, where the first two are used for preparing fields whereas the latter seven are used for making compost. A long term trial (DOK experiment) evaluating the biodynamic farming system in comparison with organic and conventional farming systems, found that preparations have influence on soil structure and micro-organisms enhancing soil fertility and increasing biodiversity.^[31] Regarding compost development beyond accelerating the initial phase of composting, some positive effects have been noted:^[32]

• The field sprays contain substances that stimulate plant growth include cytokinins.
• Some improvement in nutrient content of compost.

Field preparations

Field preparations, for stimulating humus formation:

• 500: (horn-manure) a humus mixture prepared by filling the horn of a cow with cow manure and burying it in the ground (40–60 cm below the surface) in the autumn. It is left to decompose during the winter and recovered for use the following spring.
• 501: Crushed powdered quartz prepared by stuffing it into a horn of a cow and buried into the ground in spring and taken out in autumn. It can be mixed with 500 but usually prepared on its own (mixture of 1 tablespoon of quartz powder to 250 liters of water) The mixture is sprayed under very low pressure over the crop during the wet season, in an attempt to prevent fungal diseases. It should be sprayed on an overcast day or early in the morning to prevent burning of the leaves.

Both 500 and 501 are used on fields by stirring about one teaspoon of the contents of a horn in 40–60 liters of water for an hour, creating vortexes in alternate directions.

Compost preparations

Compost preparations, used for preparing compost, employ herbs which are frequently used in medicinal remedies:

• 502: Yarrow blossoms (Achillea millefolium) are stuffed into urinary bladders from Red Deer (Cervus elaphus), placed in the sun during summer, buried in earth during winter and retrieved in the spring.
• 503: Chamomile blossoms (Matricaria recutita) are stuffed into small intestines from cattle buried in humus-rich earth in the autumn and retrieved in the spring.
• 504: Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) plants in full bloom are stuffed together underground surrounded on all sides by peat for a year.
• 505: Oak bark (Quercus robur) is chopped in small pieces, placed inside the skull of a domesticated animal, surrounded by peat and buried in earth in a place where lots of rain water runs past.
• 506: Dandelion flowers (Taraxacum officinale) is stuffed into the peritoneum of cattle and buried in earth during winter and retrieved in the spring.
• 507: Valerian flowers (Valeriana officinalis) are extracted into water.
• 508: Horsetail (Equisetum)

One to three grams (a teaspoon) of each preparation is added to a dung heap by digging 50 cm deep holes with a distance of 2 meters from each other, except for the 507 preparation, which is stirred into 5 liters of water and sprayed over the entire compost surface. All preparations are thus used in homeopathic quantities. Each compost preparation is designed to guide a particular decomposition process in the composting mass.

One study found that the oak bark preparation improved disease resistance in zucchini.^[32]

Astronomical planting calendar

The approach considers that there are astronomical influences on soil and plant development, specifying, for example, what phase of the moon is most appropriate for planting, cultivating or harvesting various kinds of crops.^[33] This aspect of biodynamics has been termed "astrological" in nature.^[34]

Seed production

Biodynamic agriculture has focused on open pollination of seeds (permitting farmers to grow their own seed) and the development of locally adapted varieties. The seed stock is not controlled by large, multinational seed companies.^[35]

Trademark protection of term biodynamic

The term Biodynamic is a trademark held by the Demeter association of biodynamic farmers for the purpose of maintaining production standards used both in farming and processing foodstuffs.(This is not a trademark held privately in New Zealand) The trademark is intended to protect both the consumer and the producers of biodynamic produce. Demeter International is an organization of member countries; each country has its own Demeter organization which is required to meet international production standards (but can also exceed them). The original Demeter organization was founded in 1928; the U.S. Demeter Association was formed in the 1980s and certified its first farm in 1982. In France, Biodivin certifies biodynamic wine.^[36] In Egypt, SEKEM has created the Egyptian Biodynamic Association (EBDA), an association that provides training for farmers to become certified.^[37]

Studies of efficacy

Studies have compared biodynamic farming methods to both other organic methods and to conventional methods. Most studies have found that biodynamic farms have soil quality significantly better than conventionally farmed soils but comparable to the soil quality achieved by other organic methods; the decisive factor is likely to be the use of compost.^[38]

Reviews

A 2009/2011 review found that biodynamically cultivated fields:^[13]:23[12]

• achieve lower absolute yields but better efficiency of production (relative to energy input)
• impact the environment positively, including increased biodiversity
• had greater earthworm populations and biomass than conventional farms; both factors were similar to the result in organically cultivated fields.
• maintained or slightly improved the organic carbon levels, while both organic and conventional farming techniques resulted in a loss of organic carbon.
• had higher microbial biomass carbon and dehydrogenase activity than those of either organically or conventionally farmed fields.

Individual studies

Individual studies have found:

• A long-term study conducted at a commercial vineyard in California compared vineyard blocks treated with biodynamic preparations alongside those tended with general organic farming methods, to examine effects upon soil and crop quality. "No differences were found in soil quality" during the first six years of the study, and analyses of other indicators including the yield per vine, clusters per vine, cluster and berry weight also showed there were no differences. The study did find a statistically significant (p-value < 0.05) difference in the yield-to-pruning weight ratio, indicating an "ideal vine balance for producing high-quality wine grapes" for the biodynamically treated crop, but noted the control vines had been "slightly overcropped". In one particular year of the study the biodynamically treated wine grapes had significantly higher Brix and notably higher total phenols and anthocyanins. In conclusion, the study found that biodynamic preparations "may affect" the vine canopy and chemistry, but showed no effects on the soil and tissue nutrient parameters measured in the study.^[39]

• Decomposition was significantly faster in plots which received farmyard manure (FYM) treated with biodynamic preparations than in plots which received no FYM, FYM without preparations or FYM with an alternative preparation. "The application of completely prepared FYM led to significantly higher biomass and abundance of endogeic or anecic earthworms than in plots where non-prepared FYM was applied."^[40]

• A 21-year study by Mäder et al for the FiBL Institute in Switzerland compared the agronomic and ecological performance of biodynamic, organic and two conventional systems. The study found that nutrient input in the biodynamic and organic systems was 34 to 51% lower than in the conventional systems but crop yield was only 20% lower on average, indicating more efficient production. The total energy (for fuel, production of mineral fertilizer and pesticides, etc.) to produce a dry-matter unit of crop was 20 to 56% lower for the biodynamic and organic systems, and pesticide input was reduced by 97% (by 100% for the biodynamic system). In regard to soil aggregate stability, soil pH, humus formation, soil calcium, microbial biomass, and faunal biomass (earthworms and arthropods), the biodynamic system was superior even to the organic system, which in turn had superior results over the conventional systems. With the significant increase in microbial diversity in the biodynamic and organic systems, there was a significant associated decrease in metabolic quotient, indicating a greater ability to use organic material for plant growth.^[41][42]
  • The methodology of this study was criticized by two wine writers—philosophy professor Douglass Smith and criminology professor Jesús Barquín—for failing to separate mystical elements in biodynamics from standard organic techniques and for comparing biodynamic farming with both organic and conventional, rather than solely with organic methods. Supplemental materials, found online but not in the published paper, described significant differences between the biodynamic and the organic methodology; for instance, unspecified chemicals were added to the organic farm's compost, possibly leading to its slightly poorer performance.^[43][44]
  • Leading^[45] UK biologist Anthony "Tony" Trewavas criticized the study for poorly representing conventional integrated farm management (IFM) methods, with Mäder et al's reported conventional yields some 40% lower than what he sees routinely.^[46] Trewavas paraphrased Holger Kirchmann's conclusions in saying that Steiner's farming method "with its belief in cosmic forces has no place in any scientific discussion and is considered occult in character."^[46]

• Biodynamic preparations increase the soil organic matter content.^[47]

• A further study investigated whether biodynamic preparations had any effect on the yield and growth of lentil and wheat crops, weed populations and soil fertility in the short term. The study found that "[i]n general, soils and crops treated with biodynamic preparations showed few differences from those not treated". Plots tended with biodynamically treated compost produced results for yield, crop quality and soil fertility that were the same to those tended with non-biodynamic composts and NPK fertilizers. Some alteration was observed in the nitrogenous chemistry of the soil and grain where biodynamic field sprays were applied, however the study did not ascribe or discern any biological significance to the difference. Among the variables considered by the study, some measured outcomes correlated with biodynamic field spray usage, including a higher per-unit biomass yield ratio for lentils and a lowering of carbon and crude protein contents in wheat grains. The study's conclusion remarked that "any additional short-term benefits from biodynamic preparations remain questionable."^[48]

• Minor effects for the field sprays on the carbon content and soil microbial fatty acid profile, but no effects for the compost preparations^[49]

• A 1993 study compared soil quality and financial performance of Biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand. The study reported that, "The Biodynamic farms proved in most enterprises to have soils of higher biological and physical quality: significantly greater in organic matter, content and microbial activity, more earthworms, better soil structure, lower bulk density, easier penetrability, and thicker topsoil."^[50] The biodynamic farms were just as financially viable on a per hectare basis.^[50] The study compared biodynamic farms with adjacent conventional farms, but didn't attempt to compare farms of similar size, or with similar crops.

Criticism

Biodynamic agriculture has been criticized as pseudoscience by scholars. In a 2002 newspaper editorial, Peter Treue, a researcher with the University of Kiel, characterized biodynamics as pseudoscience and argued that similar or equal results can be obtained using standard organic farming principles. He wrote that the biodynamic preparations more resemble alchemy or magic akin to geomancy.^[51]

In a 1994 analysis, Holger Kirchmann, a soil researcher with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, concluded that Steiner's instructions were occult and dogmatic, and cannot contribute to the development of alternative or sustainable agriculture and that many of Steiner's statements are not provable because scientifically clear hypotheses cannot be made from his descriptions (for example, it is hard to prove that one has harnessed "cosmic forces" in the foods). Kirchmann asserted that when methods of biodynamic agriculture were tested scientifically, the results were unconvincing.^[52] Further, in a 2004 overview of biodynamic agriculture, Linda Chalker-Scott, a researcher at Washington State University, characterized biodynamics as pseudoscience, writing that Steiner did not use scientific methods to formulate his theory of biodynamics, and that the later addition of valid organic farming techniques has "muddled the discussion" of Steiner's original idea. Based on the scant scientific testing of biodynamics, Chalker-Scott concluded "no evidence exists" that homeopathic preparations improve the soil.^[53]

In Michael Shermer's two-volume work, The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, biodynamic agriculture is described as relying on astrological conditions, cosmic influences and magical rituals.^[54] Skeptic Brian Dunning writes "the best way to think of [biodynamic agriculture] would be as a magic spell cast over an entire farm. Biodynamics sees an entire farm as a single organism, with something that they call a life force."^[55]

See also

• Agroecology
• Alan Chadwick
• Biodynamic wine
• Ehrenfried Pfeiffer
• Homeodynamic agriculture
• List of Biodynamic Farms
• Permaculture
• Sustainable agriculture
• The Real Dirt on Farmer John - documentary on a conventional farm which converted to biodynamic and community-supported agriculture.
• Veriflora
• Wild farming

Notes

References

External links

• "The methods behind biodynamic bounty", Telegraph, July 11, 2008
• Biodynamics Section at the Rudolf Steiner Archive, An Online Library