Join The Debate

BEVERLEY BLANNING MW

Posted on 22-09-2006

In response to “On Fertile Ground? Objections to Biodynamics” (WFW12, p.108), I should like to present an alternative view to the one put forward there by Jesús Barquín and Douglass Smith and to highlight some limitations to the conclusions they draw from their research.

The main problem with this study is that in subjecting biodynamics to the scrutiny of conventional science, the authors fail to take account of their own preconceptions: first, that everything worth measuring is measurable by these methods; and second, that anything that cannot be explained or measured by these methods must necessarily be dismissed as unproven and, therefore, unworthy of our attention. If one is able to move away from these rather sweeping assumptions, a broader and altogether more representative picture of present-day biodynamics is revealed.

First, a few words need to be said in defense of the founder of biodynamics. Rudolf Steiner is an easy target for ridicule, as shown by the authors of this article. Even the most committed of his followers struggle to understand much of Steiner’s 1924 series of lectures published in Agriculture, the definitive text of biodynamics. But however bizarre Barquín and Smith find his views, they are ill informed to write off as “fruitless” Steiner’s “attempts at founding a crank ‘Spiritual Science.’” Steiner’s views actually appear to be quite enduring: His “crank” movement, anthroposophy, has affiliations across the globe that show no signs of dying out; thousands of children have been educated, and continue to be so, at Steiner Waldorf schools (rather than failing, new schools are opening and now number more than 880 worldwide); Steiner’s many books are still in print (amazon.com lists hundreds of titles on anthroposophy); and, as we know, the
number of wine growers using biodynamic methods is increasing quite dramatically in many countries.

It is also misleading to say that Steiner displayed “antipathy for scientific investigations of the ‘orthodox’ variety.” To quote the same text as Barquín and Smith, Steiner states in Agriculture: “... spiritual science should not act out of a certain fanaticism as something turbulent and revolutionary with respect to the achievements of the modern world in the various fields of practical life. These achievements must be fully acknowledged...We must acknowledge what is legitimate and simply complement it with what can flow from a living conception of the world.” (It is also interesting to note that he recognized at the time that, for many people, a lot of his ideas would sound “quite insane.”)

From my own experience of meeting and talking to biodynamic wine growers from around the world, it is Steiner’s “living conception of the world” that sums up the meaning of biodynamics for those who choose to practice it. This might seem a rather woolly concept, but while the principles may look simplistic, they are far from the “child’s play” that Barquín and Smith suggest its practitioners believe it to be. Any serious biodynamic grower will describe the practice as a subtle, highly complex and all-encompassing philosophy of agriculture - though they will also say that it can be practiced in a very simple way. To quote Steiner again: “In nature, and actually throughout the universe, everything is in mutual interaction with everything else. In this materialistic age of ours, we follow up only the coarser kinds of interplay...” The idea that everything might be related to everything else is a concept far too complex to be dealt with by the confines of modern scientific methods. So, to reduce a study of biodynamics to a “spot the difference” kind of analysis between organics and biodynamics, as is proposed by Barquín and Smith, rather misses the point.

The absence of carefully controlled, published, peer-reviewed research on biodynamics is a recurring complaint of the authors. There are several reasons for the lack of “real” research. The most obvious is funding: There is little commercial gain to be made from any kind of research that shows natural methods to be superior to chemical ones. It is particularly naive of Barquín and Smith to compare testimonials for the effectiveness of
commercial drugs with testimonials about biodynamics. There may be the odd money-grabbing biodynamic consultant out there, but I don’t believe anyone has yet found a way to make serious money from selling dried weeds and cow manure.

Barquín and Smith state that “there is a long road from anecdotal evidence and testimony to anything approaching conclusive proof.” This may be true; but it is not logical to conclude from this that anecdotal evidence is worthless. As with any practical endeavor—be it child-rearing, driving a car, or growing grapes—there is no more persuasive learning tool than personal experience. If the authors were to speak to biodynamic growers, they would discover a wealth of anecdote and experience that, if meaningless as hard scientific proof, is amply sufficient to persuade the individuals concerned. In fact, it is often the case that a skeptical winemaker has been convinced of the virtues of biodynamics not by any occult dogma, but by what he sees before his own eyes. For example, biodynamic growers tell me that, from their own experimentation (and as far as I can see, they all experiment), biodynamic compost looks different, smells different, is easier to use, has a better texture, and ferments at a lower (more even) temperature than organic compost. And it seems to work. One has to wonder what else they need to know to be convinced.

There is a strong suggestion from Barquín and Smith that, as well as being “scientifically illiterate” and failing in their duty to provide evidence for the existence of cosmic energies unproven by physics, biodynamic growers are generally rather foolish and suggestible. My experience suggests the opposite. Biodynamics encourages open-mindedness, curiosity, willingness to learn, and an acceptance that there are still elements of nature that go beyond the scope of conventional science. To use the example of the moon, how relevant is it for winemakers to know that the moon’s gravity exerts a force of less than a hundredth of a gram on a human body, when they can clearly see the effects of racking wine at different phases of the moon? Andre Ostertag is typical in his view when he says: “There are many things in biodynamics I can’t explain, but I believe it because I see the effects. I can’t explain why the preparations have such an impact, but they do—you can see it in one plant against
another.” Olivier Humbrecht MW has been convinced by similar personal experiences. He relates how he discovered the importance of plowing according to the biodynamic calendar. He plowed one row at the recommended time, and the next a few days later. In the second, the weeds grew back right away. Of course, this has no scientific validity whatsoever. And of course, Humbrecht, an intelligent chap, knows this very well. But rather than reject any observed differences as “phantoms in the spectator’s mind” (as Barquín and Smith would have done), he chose to pursue something that appeared to work, even though it seemed illogical.

Naturally, it is healthy for commentators to debate the merits of different philosophies of viticulture. But let us not lose sight of the prime reason for all of this biodynamic “hocus-pocus”: improving the quality of grapes and wine. To quote Steiner yet again, it is pertinent to heed his view that “the only ones entitled to an opinion on agriculture are those people whose judgment derives directly from the field.”

Note: All quotes are from Rudolf Steiner, translated by Catherine E Creeger and Malcolm Gardner, Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture: A Course of Lectures Held at Koberwitz, Silesia, June 7 to June 16, 1924 (Bio-Dynamic Farming
and Gardening Association, Inc; Kimberton, Pennsylvania, USA; 1993).

Beverley Blanning MW
London, England

JESÚS BARQUÍN & DOUGLASS SMITH

Posted on 06-11-2006

Issue 13 of WFW provided quite an arena to biodynamics, contributing to the confusion between the “alternative” science that biodynamics claims to be, and the pseudoscience that it is in fact. It has become something all too normal in wine media to present this mass of faith-based esoterica as a separate form of knowing about the world. We must lament that it seems WFW has not been entirely willing to break from recent tradition.

To start with, we find a passionate letter by Beverley Blanning MW in defense of Biodynamics (“Biodynamics: What is Proof?” WFW 13, pp.37–8). In her letter, a reply to our earlier article (“On Fertile Ground? Objections to Biodynamics” WFW 12, pp.108ff), Blanning informs us that she believes in biodynamics even in the absence of any confirming evidence as to its efficacy. It is interesting to note that her lengthy diatribe does not contain even a single refutation of our objections to geo-acupuncture, dynamized preparations, astrology, nor to any of the other ineffectual biodynamic practices.

Blanning holds Steiner in high estimation, apparently because he still finds adherents worldwide. We are not quite so sanguine, even setting aside certain proto-Nazi elements to his “anthroposophical” program.1 But this is not the space to argue the point; it is enough to note that there are a good number of Steiner’s original texts available for free on the web. We suggest that the interested reader search them out and make up his or her own mind.2

There is, however, one irreconcilable difference of opinion between us, relating to the “preconceptions” about which Blanning complains. For her, there exist other accurate methods of measurement and explanation apart from those of “conventional science”. Further, as if through a surprising stroke of bad luck, conventional science fails to serve as a measure of biodynamics, in contrast, for example, to its clear usefulness in evaluating medicine, food safety, cold fusion, or global warming.

It would appear to us that all that can be argued rationally in trying to convince others has to be done through the “conventional” methods of science. All that remains, that is, faith, personal belief, daily experience, and so on, may well form an inseparable part of our lives (indeed, fundamental and enriching), but it does not serve as evidence. Why not? Among other things, because it is susceptible to neither test nor refutation. It is not repeatable, nor transferable. And it is simply banal to note that for every competent winemaker Blanning trots out who has made himself a personal home in biodynamics, we can trot out a score who have not. Science is not a democratic process, however, so this sort of tally proves precisely nothing.

Blanning also confuses certain issues. For example, even though she suggests otherwise, our article did not include any argument in favor of so-called “chemical” methods of agriculture. Further, there is a certain illicit contradiction between a number of issues she raises: no sooner does she dismiss the utility of the scientific method to evaluate biodynamic practices than she complains about the supposed absence of funds for scientific investigation into “natural methods” of agriculture. In fact, as she no doubt knows well, methods of organic agriculture are widely studied in universities around the world, and are the subject of much first quality peer reviewed scientific literature. The fact that the same is not the case with biodynamics should give pause.

The second article we find is one by Randall Grahm (WFW 13, pp.102ff): “The Phenomenology of Terroir: A Meditation,” previously published on the web in substantially the same form.3 In this article, Grahm extols such esoteric practices as “cosmoculture, which involves stone menhirs and ley lines and is essentially viticultural acupuncture,” “wak[ing] up the vines to the energetic forces of the universe” (p. 103), “viticultural homeopathy” (p. 105), and other methodologies that we argued were ineffective in our previous paper. Grahm does not provide any particular counterargument in favor of these practices; rather, he asserts them as though they were—at least among the certain group of acolytes to whom he was speaking—uncontroversial. To be fair, his article is less a structured argument than a kind of airy encomium to biodynamic practice.

Grahm does, however, talk in a rather sideways fashion about one proposed bit of evidence, a “very practical tool … which allows one to look far more deeply into a wine or vineyard, beneath its obvious sensible presentation.” Here our ears prick up. Has he discovered some particular bit of new evidence? His suggestion, described at some length, and including an impressive full-page color photograph, is so-called “sensitive crystallization,” a technique of which we expect few readers of his article were previously aware.

Just what is sensitive crystallization? It is a technique that originated with Ehrenfried Pfeiffer in the 1930s. Pfeiffer was a student of the occult philosopher and founder of biodynamics Rudolf Steiner. His technique is performed by mixing organic material with a copper chloride solution in a Petri dish. The liquid is then left to evaporate. As the material dries out, patterns remain in the dish. These patterns are supposed to reveal something about the organic material, and thereby the plants themselves. How do the patterns do this? It would appear that they do so by looking pleasant to the investigator: “in the density and symmetry of their pattern,” says Grahm (p.106). There is no attempt to come up with any sort of coherent mechanism that would explain the purported relation between plants and pretty patterns in Petri dishes.

One also finds a discouragingly large number of ways the method is supposed to work. Originally, Pfeiffer intended the method to demonstrate the “vitality” of the plants tested. We also find practitioners who suggest that it may be used to determine whether “companion plants” work well together.4 Others suggest that it shows “variations in food quality.”5 (This cannot be the same as “plant vitality,” since some very healthy plants make poor quality food. Take nightshade for example.) And Grahm believes it shows both “the strength of the relationship between the soil and the vine, as well as the organizational forces of the wine” (p.106), whatever those are. So, which is it going to be? Or does the method rather show whatever the investigator wants it to show at that particular time, a sort of magical assay of a million and one uses?

One wants to know how this method is any different from that of a fortune teller reading tea leaves at the bottom of a cup, of a dowser following a stick, or of a child entranced by a Ouija board. Spoken bluntly, sensitive crystallization is pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience in that it takes on the trappings of scientific experimentation, making use of words such as “crystallization,” “copper-chloride solution,” and the use of Petri dishes rather than teacups. But at base the science is just a stage set, doing the marketing work for whatever the follower of biodynamics wants to sell. There is no legitimate experimental research involved, and the methods of sensitive crystallization have no scientific basis whatsoever. To be fair, Grahm appears aware of this difficulty when he says, “Certainly to many scientists this will seem like utter mumbo jumbo” (p.107). One only has to wonder why, given these grave problems, Grahm nonetheless persists in trumpeting its results. Or is it simply that he has nothing better on offer?

To finish up, we should make it quite clear that we completely support the right of each person to believe peaceably in whatever he or she wishes, and to organize life and work accordingly. However, so long as practitioners of pseudoscience continue to present their results as more than mere faith, but rather as the sort of thing that has empirically verifiable consequences that can or should be studied scientifically, we as a society must continue investigating their methodology and arguments.


Notes

1. Monty Waldin, Biodynamic Wines (Mitchell Beazley, London; 2004), pp.102–3; http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Staudenmaier.html. Accessed October 18, 2006.

2. E.g., http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/.

3. http://wine.appellationamerica.com/wine-review/Randall-Grahm-on-Terroir.html. Accessed most recently October 18, 2006.

4. E.g., http://www.gardening.cornell.edu/factsheets/ecogardening/complant.html: “No legitimate scientist believes that [sensitive crystallization] can determine compatibility among plant species. … It is this type of bad science that has created a hostility between the scientific community and many proponents of biodynamic gardening.” Accessed October 18, 2006.

5. E.g., Waldin, p. xvii.

Jesús Barquín and Douglass Smith
Granada, Spain, and New York, USA

JAMIE GOODE

Posted on 14-11-2006

As a scientist who has written about biodynamics before (and who was cited by the authors of the original article as a supporter of this practice) I'd like to make a few brief points.

1. I'm a big fan of biodynamic wines, which on the whole taste interesting and are made by people who like wines to reflect a sense of place, which is a good thing.
2. As a scientist, I'd like to know how biodynamics works - what is the key to its efficacy?
3. I'm wary of being a scientific fundamentalist; there's still lots we don't know
4. Some of the biodynamic practices are likely to work, but others - such as dynamization - cannot work by the mechanisms claimed by the proponents, unless much of the basis of our 21st century scientific worldview is flawed (which it can't be, or we wouldn't have iPods and laptop computers, for example)
5. I hope this doesn't come across rudely, but Beverley's letter is essentially content free - she doesn't actually put a case forward for any of her assertions, other than plant a marker down saying that she likes and approves of biodynamics and that science doesn't have all the answers (but this was never implied, nor is it the point under discussion).

BEVERLEY BLANNING MW

Posted on 15-11-2006

Barquin and Smith may have stopped slightly short of saying science has all the answers, but I believe they they did state that it was the duty of those who believed in biodynamics to come up with proof of its superiority compared to organic practices. I disagree.
Jamie, thank you for making point 3.

JONATHAN RUSSO

Posted on 20-12-2006

The biodynamic wine debate taking place on this website reminds me of the movie the "The Ruling Class", especially the scene in The House of Lords when Peter O'Toole sees them all as skeletons. The true discussion is not whether biodynamics is a better method for making wine or if it is measurably so. The discussion should be: Do wine drinkers have the right to poison the earth, the groundwater, destroy animal and plant life, poison farm workers and their families, and put scores of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides into the body tissues of those who enjoy a glass of wine?
Decis, Carbaril, Triclorfon, Zolone, Cuprofix, Gramoxone, Fusilade DX - I could go on forever - are all highly toxic chemicals that can be used in grape growing. I doubt any wine drinker would ever think of pouring himself a cup of these straight, so it is only a question of dilution. Out of respect for the earth, and those who work upon it, not to mention my self-interest, I would rather not drink anything made with them.
Thus the debate to me is not about Steiner, the hocus pocus of biodynamics and its measurability, but the alternative - a world of toxicity and industrial mayhem that surely cannot be good for anyone save the lazy, backward thinking grape growers and the chemical companies that profit from them.
I do appreciate the level of language and writing used in this discussion. Those of us in "The States" just don't have the same erudition.

Jonathan Russo, Publisher
Organicwinejournal.com

JESÚS BARQUÍN & DOUGLASS SMITH

Posted on 22-12-2006

Thank you for your letter, Jonathan.

The alternative to biodynamic viticulture is not limited, as you suggest, to chemical agriculture, but to a coherent organic program of the sort we mentioned in our article. Organic methods of agriculture have been demonstrated to produce measurable improvements over the conventional sort in terms of soil health and biodiversity, for example. The only claim we have made, one that is backed up by experimental research, is that the additional biodynamic rituals and preparations are no improvement over a careful organic regime.

Jesús Barquín and Douglass Smith
Granada, Spain, and New York, USA

BEVERLEY BLANNING MW

Posted on 19-01-2007

In response to Barquin and Smith's response to my letter in WFW, they accuse me of many things I simply didn't say.

Specifically:

'Blanning informs us that she believes in biodynamics, even in the absence of any confirming evidence as to its efficacy'.I did not say any of this.

'Blanning holds Steiner in high estimation'. I did not say this.

'For her, there exist other accurate methods of measurement...apart from those of 'conventional science'. I did not say this.

'She complains about the supposed absence of funds for scientific investigation into “natural methods” of agriculture'. I did not say this.

STEPHEN SKELTON MW

Posted on 20-01-2007

Alcohol is a posion, and to quote Mr. Russo: "I doubt any wine drinker would ever think of pouring himself a cup of (these) straight". Posions - both natural and man-made - are present at many stages of the wine making process - SO2 and blue finings are both fairlly agressive - and to argue that some agrochemicals are dangerous gets us nowhere.

Surely the single question that needs to be answered about biodynamics is "do they work?" and to prove this, surely there has to be a level of scientific experimentation that arrives at demonstrably provable conclusions.

Unfortunately, "taste" - the criteria by which we wine tasters judge wines - is notoriously subjective and what may well be a great wine to one, can be a stinker to another.

The one thing that most (and I did not say all) good wines tend to have in common is that they come from vineyards that are low yielding in the context of their sites and the vintage. My experience is that if you restrict yields, you tend to improve the wine. When the question of yields is raised with biodynamic growers, they tend to go very coy on the subject and I always feel they avoid this aspect.

ARTHUR GRANSTEDT, ANDERS KUMLANDER, CATO SCHIØTZ, TROND SKAFTNESMO

Posted on 22-01-2007

I Introduction

The attack on biodynamic agriculture by Jesús Barquín and Douglas Smith (WFW 12 (2006), pp.108–113) forms part of a long-standing tradition. Biodynamic agriculture, and anthroposophy in general, are on a collision course with the reductionistic tradition in natural science. Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) has always been like a red rag to a bull for natural science fundamentalists. The road from methodological reductionism (we study only what we happen to have the appropriate measuring instruments to see) to ontological reductionism (the only things that exist are what we are able to measure) is dangerously short.

If we open the door even to the possibility that biodynamic agriculture represents a reality, the reductionistic worldview collapses, the consequence of which is that it is impossible for the believers of the reductionistic worldview to accept this possibility, even as a hypothesis. Hence, when confronted with experiments that indeed seem to prove such differences, there is only one thing to do: find an emergency exit. The traditional one is to criticize the methodology of the relevant research.

II Some fundamental questions concerning the criticism

Criticizing methodology may be perfectly legitimate, even if the motivation is rather more suspect. But criticism loses credibility if it is distorted by emotional or irrelevant observations, or wrapped in empty rhetoric. By means of a few simple questions we shall here test Barquín’s and Smith’s article in relation to certain academic minimum standards that must be satisfied in terms of objectivity and reliability.

1. Is the article kept in a style that is objective, or do the authors resort to biased comments and leading statements?

The answer is simple: The article is riddled with irrelevant allegations. The authors use terms such as “quasi religious,” “scientific illiteracy,” “hocus pocus,” “odd foundational beliefs,” “crank Spiritual Science,” etc.

2. The next question concerns the methodogical aspect. Are the authors attempting to ridicule their opponents?

Regrettably, the answer is yes. A number of quotations are taken out of context, where the only purpose seems to be to put the opponent in the worst possible light. In short, the authors are not playing fair when it comes to explaining unfamiliar terminology. They bandy around words such as “astral” and “ethereal,” which are of course alien to most readers, without making any attempt to explain what these terms mean and why they are considered relevant in biodynamics.


3. Are the critics trying to define their own position as basically superior?
Again the answer, regrettably, is yes. The article is steeped in academic arrogance, where the authors repeatedly claim a monopoly on “reason,” “understanding,” “human intelligence,” etc. Steiner and the followers of biodynamics (so the argument runs) are interested only in ”beauty and complexity,” and are in no way able to comprehend the true state of affairs. It is the critics who wish to explain the universe; the supporters of biodynamics do not wish to explain, they simply want to believe in their “quasi-religion.”
These critics are thereby concealing and suppressing the many experiments that have been conducted during the decades since Steiner’s death. The goal all along has been to uncover the real facts of life—which are not necessarily those that can be counted, measured, or weighed.

4. Is essential evidence suppressed?

Yes, unfortunately. The authors fail to mention important scientific reports, such as those from the Darmstad experiments (see below), which show a clear distinction between the results from organic agriculture and those from biodynamic agriculture.

5. Is the opponent being ascribed opinions which the opponent does not have?

Yes, this is done over and over again. For example, Steiner is allegedly opposed to scientific studies. The direct opposite is the truth. Steiner’s course in agriculture concludes with a strong invitation to conduct further tests to verify the results that he presents.
Steiner’s contention that the so-called ethereal forces can be demonstrated through experimental methods—such as biocrystallization or capillary dynamolysis—is not mentioned. Barquín and Smith should surely be aware of the existence of a number of academic papers, including doctoral theses, that prove this.1 Not only are these suppressed, but there is biased reference to “home grown investigative technique” and “antipathy for scientific research.”
Steiner and his successors have all attached great importance to experimental re-examination. There are hundreds of research reports on biodynamic agriculture. Whatever one might feel about the content of these reports, the endeavour—to re-examine and verify Steiner’s direction—cannot be denied.

6. Is Barquín’s and Smith’s line of reasoning tenable?

In no way. They appear to believe that if the effects of a preparation have not been already been proven scientifically, biodynamic agriculture as a whole collapses. This is of course logical suicide. Biodynamic agriculture is not a house of cards that collapses because you remove one card. Logically speaking, there is nothing to prevent a preparation recommended by Steiner from working, even if he might be wrong regarding another. Steiner admits several times that he might be wrong. Barquín and Smith also conceal that biodynamic agriculture is a dynamic movement that has continued to develop since Steiner’s death.

7. Are they criticizing matters that are irrelevant, in the sense that they have nothing to do with biodynamic agriculture?

Yes, several times. The authors criticize so-called “geo-acupuncture”—which has never been part of biodynamic agriculture—and follow this up with several irrelevant and undocumented allegations, such as that the supporters of biodynamics have a “passion for the arcane of ancient Egypt.”
The above questions and answers show that Barquín’s and Smith’s article fails to satisfy general academic minimum standards.

III The requirement for peer-review studies

To Barquín and Smith, it seems, no experience carries any weight unless it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Concerning biodynamic research, they declare: “First, there are studies that have not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Any non-peer-reviewed study lacks credibility and should not be cited as scientifically defensible.”
A current-day equivalent of Copernicus’s research would hardly pass the peer-review threshold, would it? If the scientists of his day had relied on Barquín’s and Smith’s dogma, we would probably still have clung to the Ptolemaic system. In Maciej Henneberg’s words: “It would not be possible today to publish a book full of minor errors and simplifications and arguing something so ludicrous as a complete reversal of a consensus of well-established authorities. Would it also be possible for a modern scientist to obtain a grant for a proposal based on the supposition that the major publications on the subject are wrong and that he will prove it by conducting observations from the roof of his residence? Absolutely not. Peer review protects us against such lunacies.”2 Barquín’s and Smith’s dogma is a sure way to protect mainstream against new or radical worldviews. But it does not promote scientific progress.
Furthermore, it is not correct, as Barquín and Smith claim, that there are no peer-reviewed articles indicating differences between organic and biodynamic agriculture. A list collected by the Institute for Biodynamic Research (www.ibdf.de), which we can forward on request, identifies 38 scientific studies of biodynamic preparations, of which 14 are peer-review-articles, and 24 are doctoral theses.

IV Biodynamic preparations

The main attack on biodynamics is focused, not surprisingly, on the “alcymist preparations,” since these represent an obvious dividing line between organic and biodynamic agriculture. According to Barquín and Smith: “the Holy Grail for biodynamic supporters would be to establish that the additional biodynamic methods produced soils even healthier than those found in farms that were simply organic. But a thorough search through the cream of this research crop yields little.”
In this connection the authors make two mistakes. First, their reference to the most important experiment is entirely superficial. And second, their criticism regarding methodology is untenable.
Barquín’s and Smith’s “thorough search” must indeed have been conducted with very poor eyesight. The clearest proof in this field of research would be the beneficial impact of biodynamic preparations on the humus content in the soil. Barquín and Smith briefly mention the Swiss DOC experimentsa systematic comparison of biodynamic (BD), organic (O), and conventional (C) cultivation that has been running since 1978. But they make no reference to any of the results. If they had done so, they would have had to divulge that after more than 20 years of testing, the three cultivation methods have produced significant differences in the content of the humus. Based on the same starting value, the average humus content now shows the following differences: C-fields, +2.8 %; O-fields, +3.15 %; BD-fields, +3.65 %.3
Barquín’s and Smith’s answer to this is again to criticize the research methodology: “the biodynamic and organic farms began with composts prepared differently. Certain chemicals were added to the organic fields that were not added to the biodynamic ones.” The entire project is thus, according to Barquín and Smith, poorly designed and untenable, since “all the background conditions” are not identical. What is untenable here, however, is not the design of the DOC experiments, but Barquín’s & Smith’s understanding of them. The objective of the DOC experiments is to compare three agricultural methods as holistic systems, not to study individual factors within each system. This is why each cultivation system uses not only its own fertilizing methods but other related treatments as well. In the C-fields, pesticides were added, and in 1999 even calcium (because of the low pH-value of the soil); in the O-fields, stone meal and potassium-magnesia were added, and copper for the potatoes; in the BD-fields, biodynamic preparations were added, and compost made of cow dung was used as fertilizer. The most striking result, however, is that the greatest increase in humus content was found in the fields that received only the biodynamic preparations. Only in these fields was no decrease in the humus content recorded.
Another important experiment, at Darmstadt in Germany, shows that the Swiss DOC results do not stand alone. In the German experiment, all of the non-biodynamic treatments, including the compost, were exactly the same in the organic and in the biodynamic fields. But the tendency was no less evident in this case, as the humus content was again significantly higher in the biodynamic fields. The highest levels of humus were in the fields where all the biodynamic preparations were used. The average difference in humus content between these fields and the organic fields increased, in favor of the biodynamic fields, by 13% during the period 1980–2003.4 This difference is now so significant that it has become visible to the naked eye.
Results from these experiments are recorded in several doctoral theses submitted to German universities.5 One of the theses records significantly stronger root penetration through biodynamic preparations. In addition to such treatments, observation of lunar phases is also frequently mentioned as an important part of biodynamic practice. Opinions certainly differ on this point, and sowing according to the sidereal lunar rhythm, as recommended by Maria Thun, was not validated by experiments conducted over a long period of time by scientist Hartmus Spiess and presented by him in his doctoral thesis in 1994.6 On the other hand, sowing according to the synodic lunar rhythm was validated. After three years of experiments, Spiess proved that there is a bigger harvest when carrots are sown three days before the full moon.

V Conclusion

We have shown that there is a scientific basis for what Barquín and Smith rather contemptuously call the Holy Grail of biodynamics.There are indeed important experiments indicating clear differences between organic and biodynamic agriculture. What this research shows is precisely what Barquín and Smith are looking for—“soils even healthier than those found in farms that were simply organic.”
In Scandinavia we have a saying: “The fox has many exits.” We don’t know which emergency exit Barquín and Smith will seek next. But we recommend a new one. The experimental design and peer-review exits seem firmly shut, and there seems little option but to try the old rhetorical one.

Notes
1. J-O Andersen, Development and Application of the Biocrystallization Method. Biodynamic Research Association, Herskind, Denmark; 2001. (KVL University, Copenhagen dissertation, 2001.)
2. M Henneberg, “Peer Review: The Holy Office of Modern Science,” Natural Science, 1:2 (1997). http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-02/ns_mh.html.
3. P Mäder, A Fliessbach, D Dubois, L Gunst, P Fried, and U Niggli, “Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming,” Science (2002), pp.1694–1697.
4. J Raupp and M Oltmans, Unterschiedlich aktive C-Pools im Boden: Corg, POS, CO2. 1. Effekte von Rottemist, biologisch-dynamischen Präparaten und Mineraldüngung. Beiträge zur 7. Wissenschaftstagung Fachbereich 14 der TU Berlin Landschaftsentwicklung und Umweltforschung, 67, Berlin (Berlin dissertation, 2003.)
5. H Meuser, Einfluß unterschiedlicher Düngungsformen auf Boden und Pflanze. Untersuchungen zum Wasser- und Nährstoffhaushalt des Bodens und zum Pflanzenwachstum. Fachbereich 14 der TU Berlin Landschaftsentwicklung und Umweltforschung 67, Berlin, 1989. (Berlin dissertation, 1989.) J Bachinger, Der Einfluß unterschiedlicher Düngungsarten (mineralisch, organisch, biologisch-dynamisch) auf die zeitliche Dynamik und die räumliche Verteilung von bodenchemischen und -mikrobiologischen Parametern der C- und N-Dynamik sowie auf das Pflanzen- und Wurzelwachstum von Winterroggen. Institut für Biologisch-Dynamische Forschung Schriftenreihe 7, Darmstadt, 1996. (Gießen dissertation, 1996.)
6. H Spieß, Chronobiologische Untersuchungen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung lunarer Rhythmen im biologisch-dynamischen Pflanzenbau. Habil. Schrift Witzenhausen. Schriftenreihe IBDF, Darmstadt, Bd.

Arthur Granstedt, Anders Kumlander, Cato Schiøtz, Trond Skaftnesmo

VICENTE SANTOS

Posted on 28-01-2007

Mr. Skelton makes an excellent point with his rhetorical question “does it work?”. That indeed is the crux of the conversation, and to prove that topic there “has to be a level of scientific experimentation that arrives at demonstrably provable conclusions”. Bull’s eye. BioD(ynamic) proponents will need to step out of the twilight region between science and fantasy they seem to want to hang about in and actually back up their claims, otherwise they can stop crying “foul” when nobody believes them. Alas, this demonstrable proof hasn’t come to pass in the last four score and three years of argument.

In that regard, Ms. Blanning’s obstinately glacial reply above (“I disagree.”) is, in a word, unsatisfactory. While a valid position to hold, the reply obviously does nothing to persuade and establishes a double standard which serves no one.

She has made note of the difficulty “even the most committed of [Steiner’s] followers” experience when trying to reconcile and practice his 1924 agricultural lectures. I would submit that it is not altogether unreasonable for a bystander to take that in itself as proof that the system is flawed. Is it not the very definition of “unintelligible” that others cannot rationally decipher? Why then be surprised that people request proof of the system if even its most ardent supporters can’t come to grips with it?

The authors are right to point out the dubious quality of anecdote and testimonials. The whole point of the scientific method is to decrease the possibility of pursuing the wrong avenue by removing bias from our conclusions by proper experimental design. Anecdote and testimonial are potentially just that - biased. That greater standards of proof are required that those offered to date is not surprising: Steiner’s claims are unsupported by evidence (BioD was after all his creation), and run contrary to many things we take for granted which have themselves been proved via scientific analysis and experimentation.

Steiner is indeed an easy target for ridicule and derision. I should know, I’ve posted many times on the absurdity of some of his claims, and claims by his adherents (see www.zinquisition.blogspot.com) or those who claim to be following BioD. Yet while I remain open to the notion that one day there may be proof of at least some of his ideas, I can cast some other of his propositions out as pure fantasy. His explanation of “peppering” for pest control is probably the biggest flaw of his system, and is downright dangerous for our civilization. On pages 113~114 (Agriculture Course, Rudolf Steiner, 1924 [Greg Adams translation, 1958], published by Rudolf Steiner Press, 2004), Steiner lays out a system for the eradication of field-mice by catching them, skinning them, and then burning the skins all while Venus is in Scorpio. Thus, he coos, you can be rid of the mice by sprinkling the ash over the fields.

I would reject this out of hand for two reasons: first, it is self-fulfilling in that there would be an obvious decline in the population of the beasts due to catching and skinning them. Second, what is one to do when Venus isn’t in Scorpio, which is the case for 2007. Venus will not be in Scorpio this year I believe, and I pray there isn’t a catastrophic population explosion of field-mice as we would be without means to combat them without the right astrological configuration.

As far as racking wines is concerned, in my 30 years in the wine profession I have never witnessed such a phenomenon as Ms. Blanning states with such certainty. Perhaps by some misfortune California suffers from some gravitational anomaly that prevents it from being detected here. There is no such effect in my experience, and I wonder out loud if perhaps Ms. Blanning has racked more wines than I have.

There does seem to be a bit of money to be made with BioD – in fact quite a cottage industry has sprung up around it, and continues to grow. These entrepreneurs supply certification, preparation ingredients, cow horns, stag bladders, consultations, dynamization apparatus, etc. – and all for a fee, of course.

For the Scandanavian group, I think it somewhat presumptive to insinuate that research was specifically omitted to suppress it. I have been reading about BioD for the past dozen years and haven’t seen any reference to the Darmstadt experiment you mention. And, if Herr Heiß’ study is well published, I haven’t seen it yet either, and have somehow missed it. Perhaps you could post both of those studies at the website you brought up? That might go a great length towards easing the debate between adherents and critics.

Also, if you found the style of the article and it’s points somewhat egregious, it would have solidified your position more if you could have avoided some of those same pitfalls in your response.

Having read Steiner, I can only classify it one of two ways: fiction, or quasi-Gnostic religion. Due to the amount of dogma used in the work, I find the latter category to be more apt.

DOUGLASS SMITH & JESÚS BARQUÍN

Posted on 28-01-2007

Beverley Blanning claimed we put words into her mouth in our recent letter to World of Fine Wine ("Biodynamics: the empirical imperative", WFW 14, pp. 43-5). Now that her original (22-09-2006) letter is online, we believe it will be apparent that we have not taken liberties with her views. However, donning belt and suspenders (braces?), we will go through some of the reasoning that led us to the four descriptions she picks out. Taking them in order:

(1)'Blanning informs us that she believes in biodynamics, even in the absence of any confirming evidence as to its efficacy'.

In her letter, Blanning gave no examples of 'confirming' evidence in biodynamics, which we take to be of the controlled, published, peer-reviewed variety. She only referred to anecdotal evidence from committed practitioners, which she said "it is not logical to conclude ... is worthless". However, she gave no argument as to why this might be so.

As to her own opinion about biodynamics, she tells us that she has been told by biodynamic farmers that they believe their techniques work, and then adds, "One has to wonder what else [Barquín and Smith] need to know to be convinced." Presumably, she must herself be convinced, otherwise why wonder? At any rate, we gave something of an argument in our paper as to how even otherwise intelligent and well-intentioned people can come to believe in ineffective, pseudoscientific processes such as quack medicines or cold fusion. So, in the face of a mass of contradictory evidence, we have no reason to find such stories convincing.

(2) 'Blanning holds Steiner in high estimation'.

Her letter stands on its own as a long support of Steiner, his followers and methods. She begins with a couple of paragraphs "in defense of" Steiner, which includes the claim that we are "ill-informed to write off as 'fruitless' Steiner's 'attempts at founding a crank 'Spiritual Science''". She points out that his views are "enduring", that his movement "has affiliations across the globe that show no signs of dying out", and so on. If this is a "defense" of Steiner, it can only be so if she actually believes there to be something to the movements she cites. Otherwise it would be more of a lament than a defence.

At any rate, the fact that Steiner's methods have adherents does not show that they were fruitful, except in drawing adherents, which of course we agree they have. Many fruitless ideas are quite popular in society. Even governments entertain them.

Blanning also finishes her letter with a quote from Steiner, to the effect that only farmers have any right to an opinion on agricultural methods. (Itself a questionable opinion, and one that sounds decidedly odd coming from Steiner). Are we then to take it that she does not agree with Steiner, even though she quotes him so approvingly?

(3) 'For her, there exist other accurate methods of measurement...apart from those of 'conventional science'.

First of all, the proper quote from our letter is that "For her, there exist other accurate methods of measurement and explanation apart from those of 'conventional science'.

In the second paragraph of her letter she says that the "main problem" with our paper lies in "subjecting biodynamics to the scrutiny of conventional science". Why does she believe this to be a problem? Because of our "preconceptions: first, that everything worth measuring is measurable by these methods; and second, that anything that cannot be explained or measured by these methods must necessarily be dismissed as unproven and, therefore, unworthy of our attention."

Now, we ask ourselves, why should this be a problem, unless Blanning believes there to be other methods of accurate explanation and measurement apart from those of "conventional science"? Indeed, based on her statement of our first "preconception", she must believe that not everything worth measuring is measurable by scientific methods. If, in fact, there aren't any such non-scientific evaluative methods, then it would seem that the "problem" she evinces would simply evaporate.

(4) 'She complains about the supposed absence of funds for scientific investigation into “natural methods” of agriculture'.

From her letter: "There are several reasons for the lack of 'real' research. The most obvious is funding: There is little commercial gain to be made from any kind of research that shows natural methods to be superior to chemical ones."

But, as we said, there is plenty of "real" research into organic methods of farming. And organic farms utilize "natural methods" of agriculture. Hence the lack of such "real" research into biodynamics should give pause.

In sum, it is clear that Blanning's letter "Biodynamics: What is Proof?" (World of Fine Wine, 13, pp. 37-8) makes, or at the very least strongly implies, all the claims that we asserted previously. That said, we do not seek to enter into a sterile debate about who said or did not say what. Nor do we want to deny the astute readers of this magazine the work of reading these texts for themselves and taking whatever conclusions appear to them opportune. And this is so even for those who prefer to stick to the stubborn illusion that the signs of the zodiac influence the quality of the vine and its grapes, as appears to be the case with the majority of the believers in biodynamics.

Douglass Smith & Jesús Barquín
New York, USA, and Granada, Spain

DOUGLASS SMITH, LINDA CHALKER-SCOTT & JESÚS BARQUÍN

Posted on 15-02-2007

We will respond to the letter by Arthur Granstedt, Anders Kumlander, Cato Schiøtz and Trond Skaftnesmo (Granstedt et al.) in two parts.

I. Scientific Method

Granstedt et al. attack scientific peer-review as “a sure way to protect mainstream against new or radical worldviews.” They claim, “it does not promote scientific progress.” We wonder what sort of mechanism they would have us put in its place. The point of ensuring anonymous review of articles in scientific publications is to allow competent, disinterested readers to evaluate the methodology of the study in question. Anonymity is important so as to avoid any appearance of a quid pro quo. Peer-reviewers have the task of determining whether or not the study has been properly designed and performed, without biases that favor the investigating team's preferred result. They help ensure that the conclusions reached are, in fact, supported by the evidence. They help insure that that nobody's finger has been left on the scales. Publication, in this context, is itself the stamp of approval.

Clearly, no such methodology can ever be perfect. Peer-reviewed articles may themselves be faulty, and some that fail peer-review may be worthwhile. However, in the latter case, if the phenomena studied are nevertheless real, they will be capable of eventual demonstration in a well-designed experimental setup. By attacking this methodology, Granstedt et al. call into question their own interest in scientific objectivity.

Peer-review is a cornerstone of the modern scientific method; it is particularly crucial when the research in question involves demonstrably pseudoscientific elements, such as astrology or homeopathy. However it does require the existence of a community of competent scientists to do the reviewing. This was not the case in Copernicus's day, so reference to his work in this context is entirely beside the point.

II. Scientific Evidence

Having made this attack, Granstedt et al then go on to argue that biodynamics has in fact been supported by careful peer-reviewed scientific evidence. They cite various examples.

First, they cite “a list collected by the Institute for Biodynamic Research” that includes 14 peer-reviewed studies “indicating differences between organic and biodynamic agriculture”. We find it odd that none of them are cited or discussed in their letter. However, that said, we did not claim that there were no peer-reviewed studies indicating such differences; indeed, we cited three in our original paper (Carpenter-Boggs 2000a-c). The problem is that they did not demonstrate that the resulting differences were relevant differences. Although the biodynamic preparations did make some chemical difference to the composts tested, they were no better for the soils than were the composts that lacked them. And that, after all, is the point.

The editors of this magazine have always had our addresses, and we would be more than happy to receive copies of any papers for perusal. Digital format would be most appreciated, along with citation details.

Second, Granstedt et al. bring up the article in Science (Mäder et al.) (1) that we discussed in our original essay (Barquín and Smith "On Fertile Ground?" WFW 12). As we said, poor experimental design nullifies any firm conclusion from these results. Taking one example, in the DOC system (DOK in the article) there are many differences in what the biodynamic and organic systems received. More nitrogen and potassium was applied to the biodynamic field every year. Why? Nitrogen is always the most limiting nutrient in any agricultural system. If the point were really to compare biodynamic and organic, then all inputs would have to have been identical except for the biodynamic preparations. No amount of waffling can controvert this particular demand. And pesticides were added to the organic field, but not the biodynamic. Again, why? What kind of pesticides? In fact, they appear to have been copper pesticides (2), which are extremely toxic. (3) Even if copper pesticides were not used extensively in the DOK system, any such usage could account for at least some of the claimed difference between the biodynamic and organic plots. How much, we can't tell; that is part of the problem with the design of their experiment. More recent research has raised additional methodological problems. (4)

Further, looking at the commentary that accompanies the Science article, (5) one finds virtually no discussion of biodynamics. It is clear from the thrust of the commentary that the article was published because it "gives more credibility to organic systems", as pro-biodynamic scientist John Reganold put it, not for its questionable biodynamic results in particular.

Third, Granstedt et al. refer to an experimental result from Darmstadt, Germany. However, in support of this claim they do not cite any peer-reviewed evidence. The only evidence they provide about this experiment are various Ph.D. dissertations “submitted to German universities” in 1989, 1996 and 2003. To go through this again, Ph.D. dissertations are not the same as peer-reviewed materials. If a doctoral graduate's work is of a high enough caliber, he or she will be able to publish parts of it in the peer-reviewed literature. A doctoral committee, almost by design, will end up having similar biases as the student, and their review is neither anonymous nor completely objective. Therefore, unpublished Ph.D. dissertations should not be used as substantial evidence in support of otherwise unsupported ideas. The fact that two of these dissertations are now eighteen and eleven years old respectively, and yet apparently remain unpublished, is itself suspect.

Fourth, Granstedt et al. refer to studies carried out by H. Spieß in 1990 (6), which investigated relationships between plant growth and lunar cycles. Part of the argument put forth concerns the impact moonlight has upon a plant’s response to photoperiod. As a matter of fact, current plant scientists generally believe that moonlight does not influence the photoperiodic response of plants. The light is not intense enough to disrupt plant perception of daylength. It would be bad for plants if it did, since day length perception is the first signal plants have of seasonal change (temperature is only secondary). At any rate, the two papers by Spieß show a consistent lack of statistical significance for the purported lunar effects, and a disturbing tendency to cherry pick the few successful hits out of a mass of clear misses. (One should expect a few such correlations by sheer chance). Of course, we all agree that lunar patterns influence tides, and these may have an impact on weather. So there may be indirect lunar effects on plant growth. However, testing for this should be done in a completely controlled environment. These papers involve field trials, and most serious scientists start out with tightly controlled lab trials to determine if there is anything discernable in lab.

We should add that since the publication of Spieß's papers in 1990, they have only been cited once, in a thoroughly shoddy review of the literature a year later. (7) This is an additional red flag. Given the dicey background of other lunar-cycle effects which we outlined in our original paper, the large amount of both theoretical and empirical data which call their result into question, these amount to simply null results.

Fifth, Granstedt et al. do not mention or rebut any of the evidence that we cited as contrary to the effectiveness of biodynamic agriculture. They also fail to rebut any of the evidence that techniques such as pest ashing, homeopathy or geo-acupuncture are themselves ineffective. These are extolled by committed and high profile followers of biodynamic agriculture like Joly, Chapoutier and Grahm, and it will not do to pretend that they are not part of the biodynamic practice today.

We should add that in our search of the literature we have turned up other studies that found no benefit from biodynamic practice over organic. Indeed, the preponderance of this evidence shows that the crucial feature of healthy soils is simply the regular addition of sufficient high quality organic matter, e.g., manure. (8)

Last, Granstedt et al. claim that the inventor of biodynamic agriculture, Rudolf Steiner, was actually interested in scientific research into his system; that he contended “that the so-called ethereal forces can be demonstrated through experimental methods—such as biocrystallization or capillary dynamolysis.” Perhaps they will be so kind as to tell us what Steiner meant by “biocrystallization”. If he meant “sensitive crystallization”, it is no more scientific than reading tea leaves, as we have already observed in a prior letter. Capillary dynamolysis is a technique that is unfamiliar to us, however, it appears to be of entirely the same caliber, if not worse in that it involves astrological forces. We recommend interested parties to investigate on their own. (9) These appear to amount to nothing more than investigation by Ouija board. At any rate, it is clear from his writings that Steiner saw himself as on the vanguard of a “spiritual science” which was opposed to the conventional science of his day. He stated his beliefs on this matter quite clearly. “Spiritual-scientific truths are true in themselves, we need not have them confirmed by other circumstances or by external methods.” (10) We do not see how any of this is consistent with a serious interest in experimental confirmation or disconfirmation.

So, in summary, Granstedt et al. have failed to present any relevant further evidence for their claims as to the effectiveness of biodynamic agriculture. The articles by Mäder et al. and Spieß are, we have shown, too poorly designed and inconclusive to hold the weight they wish to give them. Their other evidence consists either of unnamed articles (in themselves unconvincing) and doctoral dissertations, two over a decade old. Neither do they account for the variety of published, peer-reviewed evidence that shows these practices to be ineffective. Their opening attack on peer-review itself is either a smokescreen or, perhaps more likely, should be viewed as a species of 'sour grapes'. We will leave to one side their grotesque accusations of evidence suppression, in the expectation that this was simply ill advised rhetoric on their part.

Douglass Smith
New York, NY, USA

Linda Chalker-Scott
Associate Professor of Horticulture
Washington State University
Puyallup, WA, USA

Jesús Barquín
Granada, Spain




Footnotes

(1) Paul Mäder, A. Fliessbach, D. Dubois, L. Gunst, P. Fried, U. Niggli. “Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming”. Science. 296 (2002) pp. 1694-1697.

(2) Oehl, F; Frossard, E; Fliessbach, A; Dubois, D; Oberson, A
“Basal organic phosphorus mineralization in soils under different farming systems.” Soil Biology and Biochemistry (2004), 36 (4): 667-675.

(3) E.g., http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/coppersu.htm: “Most animal life in soil, including large earthworms, have been eliminated by the extensive use of copper containing fungicides in orchards.” See: Pimentel, D. “Ecological Effects of Pesticides on Nontarget Species.” Executive Office of the President's Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1971) pp. 10-29.

(4) The Shannon index, used in the Science paper, is not a good method for discovering differences between agricultural management practices. See Martin Hartmann and Franco Widmer. “Community Structure Analyses Are More Sensitive to Differences in Soil Bacterial Communities than Anonymous Diversity Indices”. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Dec. 2006, pp. 7804-7812.

(5) Erik Stokstad. “Organic Farms Reap Many Benefits.” Science. 296 (2002) p. 1589.

(6) Hartmut Spieß. “Chronobiological Investigations of Crops Grown under Biodynamic Management. I. Experiments with Seeding Dates to Ascertain the Effects of Lunar Rhythms on the Growth of Winter Rye (Secale cereale, cv. Nomaro).” Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, Vol. 7 (1990), pp. 165-178. Hartmut Spieß. “Chronobiological Investigations of Crops Grown under Biodynamic Management. II. Experiments with Seeding Dates to Ascertain the Effects of Lunar Rhythms on the Growth of Little Radish (Raphanus sativus, cv. Parat).” Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, Vol. 7 (1990), pp. 179-189.

(7) It is cited in Nicholas Kollerstrom and Gerhard Staudenmaier, “Evidence for Lunar-Sidereal Rhythms in Crop Yield: A Review”. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, Vol. 9 (2001), pp. 247-259. This is a paper that includes a number of unpublished studies, leaves out relevant data, improperly combines data from unrelated trials, and cites as supporting evidence commentary by one Alex Dubrov, author of books on parapsychology, friend of dowsers (http://apdubrov.inc.ru/opin.html) and Uri Geller (http://apdubrov.inc.ru/opin1.html). As an aside, we wonder if one of the authors is the same Nicholas Kollerstrom who is so devoted to crop circles online, and who wrote a Holocaust-revision paper entitled “The Auschwitz 'Gas Chamber' Illusion”, http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrillusion.html . Accessed 2/14/07.

(8) E.g., M.A. Shepherd, R. Harrison, J. Webb. “Managing soil organic matter - implications for soil structure on organic farms.” Soil Use and Management. 18 (S) 2002: 284-292. F. Widmer, F. Rasche, M. Hartmann, A. Fliessbach. “Community structures and substrate utilization of bacteria in soils from organic and conventional fanning systems of the DOK long-term field experiment.” Applied Soil Ecology 2006, 33 (3): 294-307. M. Hartmann, A. Fliessbach, H.R. Oberholzer, F. Widmer. “Ranking the magnitude of crop and farming system effects on soil microbial biomass and genetic structure of bacterial communities.” FEMS Microbiology Ecology 2006, 57 (3): 378-388. C. Zorb, G. Langenkamper, T. Betsche, K. Niehaus, A. Barsch. “Metabolite profiling of wheat grains (Triticum aestivum L.) from organic and conventional agriculture.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2006 54 (21): 8301-8306.

(9) E.g., http://www.levity.com/alchemy/kolisko.html ; http://www.anth.org.uk/Science/capillary_dynamolysis.htm. (Accessed Feb. 2, 2007).

(10) Rudolf Steiner. Trans.: George Adams. Agriculture Course: The Birth of the Biodynamic Method (Rudolf Steiner Press, Forest Row, UK; 2004).

MORTON LESLIE

Posted on 22-02-2007

Philip Johnson, a law professor who converted to fundamentalist Christianity late in his life, was troubled by the fact that millions of children in public schools were not being taught his Christian beliefs. It galled him that Darwin and natural selection, ideas that were at odds with his literal reading of the Bible, were being taught as science, so Johnson set his goal to get creation back into the curriculum. But it was an uphill battle: not only were their issues of separation of church and state, but the evidence for and power of the principles of evolution were formidable. However, Johnson had an idea that had been successful before; instead of arguing the facts, all he needed to do was infer that scientists claimed to understand everything, and point out that they didn’t, and then create an alternate explanation, giving it a scientific gloss to avoid the accusation that it would impose a religious viewpoint on school children. He would throw in a lot of scientific terms and give it a secular sounding name like “intelligent design.”

Johnson found a receptive audience. In America, about a third of adults believe the Bible is the actual word of God to be taken literally, word for word. Nearly half of Americans believe that God created humans pretty much as they are today sometime in the last 10 millennia. The current U.S. President believes in “intelligent design” and supports teaching it. Johnson found tens of millions of Americans whose beliefs were threatened by a science that says that all species, their anatomy, their instincts and their behaviors originated in random purposeless mutations.

For many of these people it is more than just natural selection attacking their beliefs; it is science itself. How do they feel when they see scientists pinpointing the location of spirituality in the brain as nuns and monks pray and meditate? How do they react to a science that suggests that you can turn a skeptic into a believer and a believer into a skeptic by altering brain chemistry? And what about a scientist who presents evidence that a genetic mutation gave us spirituality tens of millennia ago and postulating the advantage that it gave mankind in survival and civilization? They see their very own faith questioned and they fight back. That is just what Johnson did.

Rudolf Steiner and his concept of biodynamics found a similar group of people decades earlier. Around the beginning of the twentieth century, scientists had developed an understanding of nitrogen fixation. They knew that ammonia (NH3) was the key nutrient that roots took from soil giving plants vitality. They knew that plants couldn’t make it and bacteria could. It was obvious to any scientist that farmland productivity was limited by the small amount of fixed nitrogen in compost and manure. Growing hay to raise cows to get manure to, in turn, grow hay to raise cows didn’t work unless you left a greater amount of soil fallow for extended periods of time to let the bacteria do their work.

So, a couple scientists used temperature and pressure to create ammonia identical to that made by bacteria. They also invented an industrial process to produce it in large quantities. The impact of their achievement is so remarkable that today about half the nitrogen in all human bodies and farm animals was created by this industrial process. Without man-made ammonia half the human population would starve to death. If mankind were to try to replace it with manure and compost it would require the removal of remaining forests, doubling animal husbandry, huge releases of ammonia and greenhouse methane into the atmosphere, and, dare I say, massive piles of excrement. Appropriately, for their contributions to mankind, the two scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize.

Unfortunately, many turn-of-the-century European farmers were slow to adapt to this new technology. New, highly efficient, large scale farms and better transportation into markets threatened their existence. Their small farms were hard enough to make self-supporting when diversified; how would they survive with monoculture? They didn’t know what to do in the face of these economic issues and an industrial and scientific revolution that was transforming society. (It is important to remember this is well before modern pesticides, Silent Spring, or the environmental issues of today’s agriculture.) The small farmers didn’t have a plan, until Steiner came along with his scientific sounding argument for the superiority for their traditional agrarian practices.

Steiner was an intensely spiritual man, as you know. If you believe as he did and his followers do today, spirits appear and act as forces that operate on inorganic objects to give them life. To Steiner, spirits had three components: plant, animal and human. If you could do what Steiner claims to have done for himself, you could open a pathway to all other spirits who have ever existed in the past or present universe. As Steiner related to his followers, he looked deeply inside his own spirit and found that human beings evolved from primitive beings that lived on the surfaces of the sun, Mars, Jupiter and Mercury.

It should be apparent to anyone that his beliefs were far from the mainstream. More important his beliefs were in conflict with the urban, secular intellectuals of the German high society to which he aspired. His peers and contemporaries, most of whom were from more privileged backgrounds than Steiner’s poor origins, scoffed at his beliefs. With scientists like Einstein around shaking up thought about time and space, you can see how Steiner thought their scorn unfair. This may be why he formed his own parallel “scientific” positions and looked for a new audience.

Desperate European farmers were a lot more receptive. So Steiner, despite little experience in farming, mounted a concerted campaign to apply his own “divine science” to farming. Steiner spread the idea to this archaic rural community that they actually had it right, and modern farmers had it wrong. He lectured that “natural” was the way things were intended to be and, of course, he labeled modern farming as unnatural and medieval agricultural as natural. He reminded his flock that conventional science couldn’t explain everything, and proposed that his “science” could. Unfortunately, the only real difference between the “old” way and the “new” way was the use of ammonia manufactured by man so Steiner needed to add some hocus pocus, a little of his “divine science”, to argue different properties exist between the two sources of ammonia.

This was necessary because most people then, even uneducated farmers, saw evidence that science was powerful. He had to wrap his beliefs in pseudo scientific language. Nitrogen’s role, he explained, was “to mediate between life and the spiritual essence.” Steiner included astrology and the “influence” of the positions of the sun, moon and planets (though he was particularly troubled by the zigzag motion of Saturn across the sky, showing his pre-Copernican notion of the solar system.) Steiner attached quite a bit to forces between the earth and the moon, and in doing so he rejected Isaac Newton. If Newton’s gravity was the only force between the moon and the earth, why wouldn’t the moon fall down on us, he asked his flock? Though most scientists of his day could tell you why the moon stays in orbit, most rural peasants couldn’t and they accepted his “natural science” argument for “unknown” forces.

But it should be clear to all of us today that Steiner’s “biodynamics” was not a science. It was nothing more than a description of turn of the century, European farming with some magic thrown in. Of course, “biodynamics” worked, just as all nineteenth century agriculture worked. The only thing Steiner brought to agriculture beyond what existed at that time was spin. His beliefs come back today, masked as science, only because there is money to be made by capitalizing on the power of the spiritual concept of “natural”.

Steiner’s real importance is that he pioneered a technique to use scientific sounding words to manipulate people. He targeted people who understood the legitimacy of science, feared the implications it might have on their lives, and were gullible from their spiritual instincts. What Steiner did was invent the technique that Philip Johnson used decades later with “intelligent design.” Both men cloaked and sold a spiritual belief with scientific sounding language to a threatened group.

Today, at their core, there is commonality between the Republican Christian fundamentalist that believes the Bible is the written word of a stern, vengeful god and the Green party, secular Marin county intellectual who believes in a soft, harmonious, and feminine Mother Nature. They reflect the same innate spirituality and an idea that goes back to Aristotle and has been promoted for two millennia by Western religion. It is called natural law, the belief that everything has a specified role to play in a grand scheme of things.

At the core of natural law is the idea that humans can see the true natural purposes of things and can determine what is good and what is bad. The Catholic Church uses natural law today to define morality and label things, like heterosexuality as natural, homosexual as unnatural. Good and bad invariably follow. Intuitively, it is an attractive concept that has been hard for man to shake. It remains with us today underlying how we want to feel about “natural” foods or “natural” fabrics, as examples. It is the idea that draws many of us to anything labeled “organic.”

But not everyone bought into it. Beginning in the eighteenth century Scottish philosopher David Hume stirred the pot by rejecting natural law as a basis for ethical behavior. His point was that human reason is wholly inadequate to make any assumption about the divine, whether through implied reasoning or an observation of nature. Simply put, we can’t say just because something is a certain way, it supposed to be that way. (Note that Hume was tried for heresy.) Darwin followed, adding weight to Hume. He argued that science can show us evolutionary forces that cause something to be the way it is or the way it was, but that science does not imply that something is better the way it is or better as it once was.

In contrast, it is this sort of moral judgment that Steiner proposes with his “science.” Biodynamics is a restatement of natural law in the guise of science. We are receptive to it not just because of our intuition and our spiritual instincts; it is also what we have been taught. Some of us are so receptive that we believe the horn of a steer confers a magic and unknown power to animal excrement which can be transferred to a plant. Even more are ready to believe that unknown properties in the bonded hydrogen and nitrogen in bacteria made ammonia make it different than the same bonded elements in man-made ammonia. With spirituality on one side and science on the other, there cannot be a rational debate.

While we can waste our breath trying to make sense (or nonsense) out of the irrational, no one can question that biodynamic farming is effective marketing. Wine is widely recognized as a natural product. It already sparks our imagination, so it is suitable for adding in a little magic. With global warming and other environmental worries, anything we can claim as more natural or beneficial to Mother Earth is welcomed by a fearful consumer. We are receptive to anything that suggests we can turn back the clock a hundred years to a time that was much simpler (and better) than it is today. We market to our customers' emotions and biodynamic farming story is a perfect fit.

I wonder, has any vineyard converted to biodynamics and not immediately written a press release? Or let me put it another way; what would happen if wine critic Robert Parker were to suddenly change his opinion and decide that biodynamics was the wrong way to go in the vineyard and was detrimental to wine quality?

Bio What?

Morton Leslie

TROND SKAFTNESMO

Posted on 12-05-2007

TROND SKAFTNESMO
SCIENCE & BIODYNAMICS
- a respond to the letter of 15-02-2007 by DOUGLASS SMITH, LINDA CHALKER-SCOTT & JESÚS BARQUÍN

1. Scientific Method
In our letter of 22-01-2007 (Granstedt et al.) we discussed which emergency exit Smith et al. would try next, considering the fact that their preferred exits – namely “bad experimental design” and “not been peer-reviewed” – seemed to be firmly shut. We concluded there seemed to be little option but to try the good old rhetorical one. Smith et. al. have cleverly followed our advise.

Already in their first two sentences they fall into the rhetorical pitfall: “Granstedt et al. attack scientific peer-review as ‘a sure way to protect mainstream against new or radical worldviews’. They claim ‘it does not promote scientific progress’.” The quotations they present give the impression that we have attacked “scientific peer-review”, and the rest of their first paragraph is founded on this claim. Thus, their conclusion: “By attacking this methodology, Granstedt et al. call into question their own interest in scientific objectivity.”

But Smith et al. have been clever to extract out just a part of the first quoted sentence, in order to reach their rhetorical goal. Here is the whole quotation: “Barquín’s and Smith’s dogma is a sure way to protect mainstream against new or radical worldviews. But it does not promote scientific progress.”

As we pointed out in our letter, Barquín’s and Smith’s dogma is clearly expressed in their strong declaration: “First, there are studies that have not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Any non-peer-reviewed study lacks credibility and should not be cited as scientifically defensible.”

We have nothing against the peer-review method as such, even though there may be many other methods that could complement it. What we do oppose is to use the peer-review method as an excuse not to have a serious look at any other studies… or even at firsthand reality as such. There may be many reasons why a study is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Even the fact that the “community of competent scientists”, referred to by Smith et al., as a rule is populated by mainstream researchers that have a shared paradigm to protect, might – grotesque as it may be – sometimes be an explanation.

2. Scientific Evidence
In their response to the scientific evidence we offered, Smith et al., follow two strategies: First, they refuse the results from the DOK-research, claiming there were many other differing factors – besides the biodynamic preparations – which may explain the better humus-development in the biodynamic fields. Confronted with research where the only difference indeed is the use of preparations, and where the same effects nevertheless are evident, they retract to the “no peer-review” argument.

As for the DOK-research, we have already explained that the objective in this case was to compare three agricultural methods as holistic systems, not to study individual factors within each system. Thus, the better humus-development in the biodynamic fields was due to the combination of biodynamic compost and preparations. But in the Darmstadt-studies the objective was limited to observe the effects of the biodynamic preparations. And these effects were just the same as in the DOK-studies. The outcome was, to use the words of Barquín & Smith “…soils even healthier than those found in farms that were simply organic.”

Now, these results may be met with different attitudes. The unprejudiced and scientific one is to meet them with an open interest, and give them a fair and critical assessment. After all, if the biodynamic preparations can be demonstrated to have any kind of positive effects, this would indeed be a sensational outcome… considering that these effects seem to be impossible to explain within the boundaries of mainstream natural science. To disprove the claim that unicorns do not exist, it is enough to find one unicorn.

Besides this scientific attitude there is also, alas, the ideological attitude, where the major interest is not to examine the results, but to find excuses not to do so. We are sorry to say that this is the stance of Smith et al. Confronted with the research just mentioned, they give an open demonstration of what we earlier named ‘Barquín’s and Smith’s dogma’: Any non-peer-reviewed study lacks credibility, not even Ph.D. dissertations have any weight, scientifically speaking … and, as a consequence, neither do firsthand reality as long as it is not peer-reviewed. This dogmatic stance is most clearly expressed in their evaluation of the biocrystallisation method and the capillary dynamolysis method for assessment of qualitative features of food products. Comparing these methods to “reading tea leaves” or “investigation by Ouija board” is far beyond a serious debate. Both of these methods have been examined and found valuable by several researchers, who have also developed methods for quantitative and computer based analysis. Thus, these methods have recently been validated at the University of Kassel. We recommend a view on their web-pages, especially on the research done by Dr. Johannes Kahl.

As already mentioned, the Darmstadt-research has shown evidently positive effects for the biodynamic preparations on the humus-development (Bachinger, 1996; Scheller & Raupp, 2004). But, these results do not stand isolated. Goldstein & Köpf, 1982, demonstrated direct effects for the preparations on the root-development. Spiess, 1978, Samaras 1978 and Raupp, 1995, demonstrated effects for the preparations on crop-yield and quality. Finally, there has been going on a research-project since 2003, by the Swiss Research Institute for Organic Agriculture (FiBL), aiming to investigate the impacts of biodynamic preparations on the soil-development and the crops, under different growth systems (Berner et al. 2003 & 2006). This research-program is supposed to be running over a decade, and it is still too early to draw any firm conclusions. There have so far not been any detectable effects on soil-development for the biodynamic preparations. However, there have been some remarkable and unexpected results showing positive impacts of the preparations on the toxin-content in wheat.

So, the research is going on. Time will show if the rumours about the unicorn do have some basis in reality, after all.

References
Bachinger J. (1996): Der Einfluß unterschiedlicher Düngungsarten (mineralisch, organisch, biologisch-
dynamisch) auf die zeitliche Dynamik und die räumliche Verteilung von bodenchemischen
und mikrobiologischen Parametern der C- und N-Dynamik sowie auf das Pflanzen- und Wurzelwachstum von Winterroggen. Diss. Universität Giessen. Schriftenreihe Bd. 7, Institut für bio.-dyn. Forschung, Darmstadt
Berner, Alfred; Frei, Röbi and Mäder, Paul (2003): Effects of biodynamic preparations, fertilisation and soil management on soil fertility and yields. Projektbericht, Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau Frick. http://orgprints.org/2815/
Berner, Alfred; Frei, Robert and Mäder, Paul (2006) New long-term trial on soil management, fertiisation and preparations. bio aktuell (5/2006):pp. 4-6. http://www.orgprints.org/9269
Goldstein und Koepf (1982): A Contribution to the Development of Tests for the Bio-Dynamic Preparations. Elemente der Naturwissenschaft, Nr. 36, 41-53.
Kahl, J. (2005): Standardisierung – ein Instrument für die Lern- und Lehrbarkeit von Labormethoden. Arbeitstreffen Bildschaffende Methoden, Dornach, March 18-19.
Kahl, J.; Busscher, N.; Mergardt, G.; Andersen, J.-O.; Doesburg, P.; Paulse, M.; Huber, M. and Meier-Ploeger, A. (2005): Potential and limitations of the biocrystallization method for different food samples. DGQ-Jahrestagung, Karlsruhe, March 14-15.
Kahl, J.; Huber, M.; Busscher, N.; Kretschmer, S.; Andersen, J.-O.; Mergardt, G.; Paulse, M.; Doesburg, P. und Meier-Ploeger, A. (2005): Entwicklung der Biokristallisation für die Unterscheidung von Proben mittels computerunterstützter Texturanalyse und visueller Bildauswertung. 8. Wissenschaftstagung zum Ökol. Landbau, Kassel, March 1-4.
Kahl, J.; Busscher, N. und Meier-Ploeger, A. (2005): Validierung: Charakterisierte Methoden für klare Fragen. 8. Wissenschaftstagung zum Ökol. Landbau, Kassel, March 1-4.
Kahl, J.; Busscher, N.; Huber, M.; Andersen, J.-O.; Kromidas, S. and Meier-Ploeger, A. (2005): FoodPicture a new screening method for the characterization of organic food. 17th Soil Association Annual Conference, Newcastle, UK, January 6-9.
Raupp, J. (1995): Main effects of various organic and mineral fertilization on soil organic matter turnover and plant growth. Fertilization Systems in Organic Farming (concerted action AIR3-CT94-1940). Proceedings of the first meeting in Darmstadt (Germany), May 8th to 10th, 1995. Publications of the Inst. for Biodynamic Research, vol. 5.
Samaras, I. (1978): Nachernteverhalten unterschiedlich gedüngter Gemüsearten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung physiologischer und mikrobiologischer Parameter. (Diss. Giessen) Schriften-reihe Lebendige Erde, Darmstadt.
Scheller E, Raupp J (2004) Amino acid and soil organic matter content of topsoil in a long-term
trial with farmyard manure and mineral fertilizers. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 22, 379-397
Spiess, H. (1978): Konventionelle und biologisch-dynamische Verfahren zur Steigerung der Boden-fruchtbarkeit. (Diss. Giessen) Schriftenreihe Lebendige Erde, Darmstadt.

DOUGLASS SMITH, LINDA CHALKER-SCOTT & JESÚS BARQUÍN

Posted on 24-10-2007

In his letter of May 12, 2007, Trond Skaftnesmo raised a number of issues that we have already dealt with previously in World of Fine Wine. So as not to try the patience of the reader, we will leave aside the bulk of his response and go to its heart, which is the particular scientific data he presents.

Sensitive crystallization and capillary dynamolysis
Skanefsmo suggests we pay attention to the work done at the University of Kassel by Dr. Johannes Kahl. Unfortunately Dr. Kahl's relevant English publication (Andersen et al., 2003) does not appear in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal, but rather in a publication arm of Rudolf Steiner's spiritualist anthroposophy group, the Goetheanum Institute. Others of his relevant publications are "posters and lectures", which is to say, not properly published or peer-reviewed studies. Further, none of this appears in standard scientific databases, and the abstracts do not contain any of their data or methodology so they are impossible to analyze.

DOK research
This is the long-baseline study done in Switzerland that we discussed in our original paper for WFW, and again in our letter of February 15, 2007. As we have argued at some length, it is based on flawed experimental design. No particular conclusion about biodynamic versus organic can be derived from a bad experimental setup. To take one additional problem that we did not discuss before, the organic plots were fertilized with "slightly rotted" manure while the biodynamic plots were fertilized with "aerobically composted" manure. This alone would yield a significant difference in soil chemistry, unrelated to the issue of whether organic or biodynamic systems are better. Perhaps the differences they found were simply due to composting the manure. Perhaps they were due to the higher levels of potassium and nitrogen applied to the biodynamic fields (Mäder et al. 2002, Table 1, p. 1695), or to the copper fungicides applied to the organic fields, all of which we have already mentioned.?

Darmstadt studies
Once again, none of this is peer reviewed, and much of it has been in existence for over a decade without any conclusive results published in the literature. Skaftnesmo suggests two articles relating to Darmstadt: Bachinger (1996) and Scheller & Raupp (2004). (It should read "2005"). Bachinger (1996) is a dissertation, not peer reviewed. Scheller & Raupp (2005) do not adequately describe the treatments applied, and at any rate only managed to come up with differences in "amino acid metabolism in the soil." What does this mean in terms of plant performance? Further, if this was done on the DOK plots, it suffers the same fatal design flaws mentioned before.Spiess (1978) and Samaras (1978) are also dissertations, already almost thirty years old. Have they still not been able to get anything into the peer-reviewed literature? Is this really a promising sign?

Berner et al. (2003) and (2006), Goldstein & Koepf (1982) and Raupp (1995) do not show up in any scientific literature databases, and are not peer-reviewed.

Perhaps the most serious problem we have found repeatedly with the biodynamic literature is a lack of proper statistical analysis of the data presented. When making multiple comparisons among treatments, an investigator is bound to find a difference somewhere, if only by chance. The way to reduce this sort of systematic error is to use a correction factor, which sets a higher bar for what is considered "significant". First tier journals employ these sorts of statistical corrections, but one does not find them in the literature discussed here, and once again this makes one wonder if the authors are engaged in cherry picking.

When we look at the peer-reviewed literature we find no particular support for biodynamic practices over organic. We have already detailed this literature in our paper and previous letters. It should come as no surprise that when organic and biodynamic practices are fairly compared, they come out a draw. The rituals that mark biodynamic practice have no clear method of action. We suggest that they are almost certainly a waste of everybody's time and energy.

Douglass Smith, New York, NY, USA
Linda Chalker-Scott, Associate Professor of Horticulture, Washington State University, Puyallup, WA, USA
Jesús Barquín, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain

References
Andersen, J.-O.; M. Huber, J. Kahl, N. Busscher, A. Meier-Ploeger (2003): A concentration matrix procedure for determining optimal combinations of concentrations in biocrystallization. Elemente der Naturwissen, 79, 97-114.
Bachinger, J. (1996): Der Einfluß unterschiedlicher Düngungsarten (mineralisch, organisch, biologisch-dynamisch) auf die zeitliche Dynamik und die räumliche Verteilung von bodenchemischen und mikrobiologischen Parametern der C- und N-Dynamik sowie auf das Pflanzen- und Wurzelwachstum von Winterroggen. Diss. Universität Giessen. Schriftenreihe Bd. 7, Institut für bio.-dyn. Forschung, Darmstadt.
Berner, Alfred; Frei, Röbi and Mäder, Paul (2003): Effects of biodynamic preparations, fertilisation and soil management on soil fertility and yields. Projektbericht, Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau Frick. http://orgprints.org/2815/
Berner, Alfred; Frei, Robert and Mäder, Paul (2006) New long-term trial on soil management, fertiisation and preparations. bio aktuell (5/2006):pp. 4-6. http://www.orgprints.org/9269
Goldstein & Koepf (1982): A Contribution to the Development of Tests for the Bio-Dynamic Preparations. Elemente der Naturwissenschaft, Nr. 36, 41-53.
Mäder, P.; A. Fliessbach, D. Dubois, L. Gunst, P. Fried, U. Niggli. 2002 “Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming”. Science. 296, pp. 1694-1697.
Raupp, J. (1995): Main effects of various organic and mineral fertilization on soil organic matter turnover and plant growth. Fertilization Systems in Organic Farming (concerted action AIR3-CT94-1940). Proceedings of the first meeting in Darmstadt (Germany), May 8th to 10th, 1995. Publications of the Inst. for Biodynamic Research, vol. 5.
Samaras, I. (1978): Nachernteverhalten unterschiedlich gedüngter Gemüsearten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung physiologischer und mikrobiologischer Parameter. (Diss. Giessen) Schriftenreihe Lebendige Erde, Darmstadt.
Scheller, E.; Raupp J. 2005 "Amino acid and soil organic matter content of topsoil in a long term trial with farmyard manure and mineral fertilizers" BIOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE & HORTICULTURE 22 (4): 379-397

Smith, D.; Barquín, J. 2007 "Biodynamics in the Wine Bottle". Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 31 No. 6 (Nov/Dec), pp. 44-48.
Spiess, H. (1978): Konventionelle und biologisch-dynamische Verfahren zur Steigerung der Boden-fruchtbarkeit. (Diss. Giessen) Schriftenreihe Lebendige Erde, Darmstadt.

GRAHAM REDDEL

Posted on 04-11-2007

Having read the clash of biodynamic believers versus the opinions of the classical scientists, I am reminded of the confusion faced by biochemistry students as they alternately study the core subjects of inorganic chemistry and biochemisty. The difference between the two fields is that organic chemistry is a study of clearly understood molecular substances, structures mechanisms and results, whereas biochemistry (the science of living chemistry) is a study of incredibly complex chemical mechanisms (the vast majority still not properly understood) that happily reverse themselves if given a slight change in temperature, acidity, or presence or absence of an enzyme co-factor. Even the surface of the container may have an influence (bottle shock ring a bell?). In fact my biochemistry Professor, in my very first lecture that I attended, stated that he was an agnostic, but regularly wondered how all these amazingly complicated chemical reactions could have developed by accident.

But I am wandering from the point I want to make. Biochemistry is the world of chemical balance, where a given result can be driven in one direction or the other, by a minor adjustment to environment. People who believe in unknown cosmic energies, crystals, taro cards etc are often extremely committed individuals. A winemaker's biggest enemy is laziness and boredom. I can well imagine that the main contributor to the quality of biodynamic wines is the winemaker's energy and enthusiasm, which usually always brings a sparkle. BUT I do not adhere to the idea that man-made chemicals are automatically bad and poisonous, and Nature is somehow inherently good or superior. So called natural fertilizers are a cocktail of thousands of different chemicals, not all of which may be beneficial to a grape vine, and certainly have never been properly studied in double blind tests. Biochemistry is all about concentrations of chemicals. Concentration is often much more important in living systems than reactive characteristics. Take your average multivitamin pill. Small amounts of vitamin A are beneficial. Large amounts are poisonous! I have no problem with artifical fertilizers or herbicides if the traces found ultimately in the wine are not either toxic or accumulative in the human body. (which of course they could be). No real studies have been done!Just for fun I have copied a summary on the potential toxicity of some average fruits and vegetables below, so that the nature freaks amongst you will get a shot of reality. Be careful of that average potato. If a certain chemical present therein (solanine) was concentrated by a factor of 10 then we would all die a painful death after just a single swallow of bangers and mash:

A cyanogenetic glycoside called amygdalin occurs in the pits and leaves of stone fruits of the genus Prunus (Rosaceae). Crushed leaves of cherries and apricots release hydrocyanic acid (HCN) which has a faint almond odor. Cyanogenetic glycosides are quite poisonous because they inhibit a key respiratory enzyme that can result in death if ingested in sufficient quantities. The anti-cancer drug Laetrile is essentially a cyanogenetic glucoside obtained from amygdalin in apricot pits. Salicin is a glucoside (sugar + phenolic) found in the bark of willow species (Salix). Willow bark contains salicylic acid (the key ingredient of aspirin) and was chewed by native Americans for headaches.

Species of nightshades (Solanum) in the tomato family (Solanaceae) contain a complex of toxic alkaloidal glycosides (sugar + steroidal alkaloid). One of these is called solanine, which is now known to consist of six different glycosides, each composed of a particular sugar and the steroidal alkaloid solanidine. [The steroidal alkaloid without its sugar component is called an aglycone.] Similar steroidal alkaloids are found in certain members of the lily family (Liliaceae) including the corn lily or false helibore (Veratrum) and death camas (Zigadenus). Some steroidal alkaloids are very toxic, causing severe gastroenteritis that may be fatal. Because many species of nightshades contain solanine, the closely-related tomato was once thought to be poisonous. Potatoes also belong to the genus Solanum (S. tuberosum). The leaves, stems, sprouts on tubers, and green skin on old potatoes contains the toxic solanine. In fact, this toxic alkaloidal glycoside is not destroyed when green potatoes are cooked. The potatoes must be carefully peeled first. Bon appetit!!!!

SAVERIO PETRILLI

Posted on 30-04-2008

I came into this site because I wanted to subscribe and since I am a biodynamic farmer my eye has been caught by this debate.

I have read it all. Interesting to read many things I didn't know but overall it has been very boring. Everybody trying to show that he is superior to the other, that he knows more. I am a farmer and usually when I meet or talk with other farmers I listen to what they say, and always find something to learn. Never meet anybody totally wrong or right. So even if it is an old debate I would like to post my comments.

I cannot understand why someone has to be so bad with Steiner and the people who believe in what he said about agriculture. Is there a real need to be so factious? Yes, there are "believers," but I guess there are "believers" also in the other party. After all, the farmers that fed their cows with dead sheep "believed" in the scientific work of the British university that suggested to do so. And probably did so because it was economically convenient. While, in this case, the "believer" of Steiner would have not done that, since the result was somehow predicted (but not demonstrated).

In farming we tend to consider facts more important than research. Research can be interesting to read, but than the only way to judge the effectiveness of a method is through its application and the observation (empirical) of its effects.

I have started as conventional farmer, had lots of problems, turned to organic and still had to manage problems. When I finally turned to Biodynamic I didn't do it for marketing; wine is not yet labelled as Biodynamic, not even as organic. I didn't do it for religion or ideological reasons. At the beginning the agricultural conferences of Steiner didn't make any sense to me, nor his antroposophical works. But I tried it, even if I didn't have any "scientific evidence".

I have been lucky! In only two years it worked out so much better that I would never go back.

I do believe in cosmic energy, since the sun is a cosmic energy, the moon doubtless has an action on water and maybe one day we will discover the action of the other planets as well. I do not go backward, but I believe Biodynamics to be a very modern approach, easy to apply in big dimension, and even If I am not so big I manage 25 hectares of vineyards, hence I do not plough with a horse. I have twice sent samples for some crystallization but sincerely didn’t find them so useful or accurate compared with my knowledge of the place. I have seen (and tested) without any doubt the effect of the Biodynamic preparations on the rapid development of soil structure. When that happen, vines become healthier and more vigorous, yield can increase with no reduction of quality.

Since then, between farmers in my region and beyond, I became an example of how Biodynamics work. I have always been very practical and found the typically practical Australian approach to Biodynamics easier for me. Of course I still have to work and respond to minor problems, but everything became easier. In most of my vineyards I do not have to use any chemical pesticides, plants grow vigorously and healthy without any fertilizer of any sort apart from the 200 grams of Biodynamic preparations. I am very open to other farmers and most of the farmers who visited Valgiano and could observe the objective reality have later started to apply the same method with success.

And this is to me the best evidence. After all why, a scientist or a researcher, should know if a farming method works better than a farmer?

Saverio Petrilli
Tenuta di Valgiano

DEJAN TESIC

Posted on 29-06-2008

Mr Petrilli, in his letter of 30 April 2008, is spelling out that essentially, to him, science does not matter. Many other writers who believe in Rudolf Steiner's concepts and in biodynamic agriculture wouldn't be as straight forward and plain-speaking as Mr Petrilli. He has, in the last sentence of his letter, made it explicit that the position of biodynamic believers is in fact anti-scientific.

It is not possible to outdo Mr Morton Leslie in his clearly presented description of what the fad of biodynamics is all about, so I will not be attempting to do that. I wish, however, to try to explain to Mr Petrilli what is the position of a scientific researcher in viticulture, a professional he thinks inferior to a farmer when it comes to understanding of the production practices.

One thing that seems to be unknown to Mr Petrilli is that much of agricultural research does observe the crops as they perform in commercial situations (exactly such as his vineyards). In fact, in my two decades of viticultural research all trials I was involved in took place in commercial vineyard properties. I was observing the vines as they were growing and producing the crop for the owners, exactly as he watches his vines every day.

The only real difference between us is that my colleagues and I not only take measurements and samples from the vineyard, but we ensure that we do that in a manner that is completely documented and reproducible by any other researcher, anywhere in the world. We also make sure that we take measurements and samples without prejudice - not unlike blind tasting of wines.

What several scientists who argued on this page have done, was not trying to prove that they are "superior" to anyone else, but to demonstrate that there exists no evidence for the alleged values of biodynamic production that would be acceptable by the scientific community. While anyone should be free to choose to engage in such a production practice according to their personal preference, they are misrepresenting themselves when they speak of "having evidence" for their claims.

I do not have a problem with the existence of biodynamic production practices. However, I do not accept that their claims are based on what I would consider as good and solid (in other words, scientific) evidence. I also think that, to paraphrase Mr Petrilli, scientists - and not, for example, farmers - get to say what is scientific evidence.

DAVID MATZDORF

Posted on 18-08-2008

Such a lot of verbiage, so many entertaining jousts, so little illumination. So much of this extremely long thread consists of people parading their prejudices, each ploughing his or her own pre-determined intellectual furrow. So much more of it consists of increasingly convoluted refutations of other people's refutations. There is a great surfeit of posturing. The pro-science people call the faith-based people derisive names. The faith-based people accuse the scientists of reductionism. All to one end: to obscure the point.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the point. There is a very large amount of - so far - anecdotal evidence that biodynamic farming "works", if the word "works" is taken to mean that the products of a bio-dynamic farm or vineyard are repeatedly judged in subjective comparative tests to be of a higher quality than those of an otherwise similar, but non-biodynamic farm.

Why isn't all of the argumentative energy on this thread being devoted to finding out HOW and then finding out WHY?

First we need rigorous tests between otherwise identical farming regimens, some bio-dynamic, some not, to ascertain whether it really does "work" in the terms outlined above.

Then, if it does, we need to test permutations of the different bio-dynamic practices and treatments, alone and in varying combinations, to find out which ones are having significant effects and which are moonshine (sorry).

Then we need to see if the "holistic" combination of treatments has a measurably greater beneficial effect than the treatments used in isolation.

Assuming that bio-dynamics gets through this set of scientific hoops and that the conclusion is that it does produce a superior product as well as a romantically attractive process, then we can turn our attentions to finding out why it works. What is it about the individual treatments that produces the effects? What, if applicable, is it about the combination of treatments that makes them more effective than the sum of the same treatments used individually.

We already have some hints. We have increased humus content and we have increased microbial activity. But hints, based on a few isolated studies, are not much more use than anecdotal evidence in reaching a useful conclusion.

Perhaps the only useful, practical point in all of the stylised point-scoring above is the contention that scientists who want to carry out proper investigations into bio-dynamics find it difficult to obtain funding. Until that is rectified, the taunts of the science-only-lobby and the defiant proclamations of the faith-lobby are just a waste of wind.

Someone with a scientific bent, but without the prejudices that so often seem to come with it, must go out there and find out whether the bio-dynamic system works, which bits of it work and why the bits that work do work.

Then there will be something worth reading about.

KEN GILLMAN

Posted on 23-09-2008

Methodical thinking, and use of logic, are processes within the capacity of most of us, as is physical fitness. Hopefully, trained scientists tend to be more familiar with such processes and better at them: and that is an essential part of what the ‘scientific method’, with all its hiccups and failings, is all about.
The correspondent above says, “As far as I'm concerned, this is the point. There is a very large amount of - so far - anecdotal evidence that biodynamic farming works.”
Indeed, and also there is much ‘anecdotal evidence’ that a hundred and one other similar, and not necessarily compatible, notions also ‘work’. But life is short and toil is hard, so you only have time to try a few different ideas before getting tired out, or going bust. Those who apply a system of logical thinking and analysis to their endeavours will probably benefit as a result.
“Biodynamic compost looks different, smells different, … One has to wonder what else they need to know to be convinced.”
‘Smells different’, prove it. This is a simple and easy notion to substantiate or refute: do a double-blind ‘tasting’; simple, quick and cheap. But I doubt if any of the many who espouse the difference have done it, nor will they. They do not have (or exercise) the intellectual discipline that good thinking and science require: believing what one wants is easier than thinking, and it is easy to be lazy.
“He plowed one row at the recommended time, and the next a few days later. In the second, the weeds grew back right away. Of course, this has no scientific validity whatsoever.”
I am not sure if “Of course, this has no scientific validity whatsoever” is to be read literally, or whether it has a touch of sarcasm or some similar sentiment. No, it has no validity (in that form), but only because the procedure, and the outcome predicted and to be measured, were not specified in advance and recorded contemporaneously, reliably and objectively. A little intellectual discipline could easily make it ‘scientifically valid’. It would be simple, quick and cheap to perform repeated independent replications of such a trial: the results could constitute good evidence. But I doubt if any of the many who espouse the hypothesised differences have done it, nor are they likely to. Olivier Humbrecht, even though he is an MW, and an ‘intelligent chap’, has not (no sarcasm intended). The MW seems be more an arts, than a science, degree. BB says (para 2) “.. the scrutiny of conventional science… that everything worth measuring is measurable by these methods …”. One is only asking for a few weeds to be counted in order to back up the interesting assertion involved, there is nothing meta-physical to debate there.
There is an ‘Olympic’ theme running through this debate: if we were talking about sports it would not be regarded as logical to deny the superior ability of gold medal winners who train over many years to achieve excellence. However, the moment one enters the intellectual arena it is suddenly different: accusations, as above, of superiority and such-like are made against those who achieve and demonstrate greater intellectual application and skill.
Thank you to Jesús Barquín and Douglass Smith, for their considerable effort of research, it is much appreciated, and to Morton Leslie.

SAVERIO PETRILLI

Posted on 26-11-2008

All this post are actually talking about the methodology of science, if that, is the correct english name. But they are discussing under the title of Biodynamic agriculture!

Dear Mr Tesic what I intended when comparing farmers and scientist (and I didn't say farmers are superior, I only affirmed that farmers opinion should not be inferior on agriculture matter) is precisely that if Biodynamic agriculture cannot be proven scientifically is a science problem, not an agriculture problem.
So let the farmers do their choice comparing their farm with neighbours or other, freely and put yourself to work without trying to state that since has not being proven yet is not working.

I like and respect Science a lot and that is why I don’t like the use that is often made of Science.
In agriculture so called “scientist” have told us to use in the ’50 and ’60 huge quantities of fertilizer. Now with a quarter of those quantities we can crop more and better. They suggested the use of insecticides or pesticides which proved to be very dangerous for human and the earth. Farmer tend to have a good memory and that is why some of us do not trust anymore the so called “science”.
We don’t believe in Science but we expect it to be useful for us.

And here we arrive to what I consider very important: my decision on the method of agriculture is only based on TRUST, I have no FAITH.
I have no faith in science but when I find an interesting research I read it and learn what I can. I have no faith in Steiner words as well as in other people who try to tell me what is good and what is not, scientist or philosopher, but when I see that they advise works well I learn it. Every year, and the last was not an easy one, I analyse what I am doing and what I have to change. My life earnings are based on this and not on ipothesis, proven or not!

When you all put under process the method of agriculture I am using only because your methodology is not being able to prove it, and you do it, not in a class or committee of scientist, but publicly on the web, on the blog of a wine magazine directed to consumers, you are actually attempting to my credibility as a producer. And if you consider yourself man of Science you shouldn’t do that because that is going a long way away from Science, sorry I have no words to describe it in English but I believe you can understand.
Sincerely
Saverio Petrilli

JOHN HILLIARD

Posted on 08-12-2008

In order to test whether Steiner's preparations work, I suggest half of the preparations be made incorrectly and others correctly. And the Biodynamic farmers not told whether they have real preparations or incorrect preparations. Then we have what is called a double blind test: noone knows whether a farmer is using a real or a fake preparation. Then tests are conducted by people who still do not know which preparations were used. Then we compare the results.

However, I would like to ask if Steiner has any proven scientific fact to his credit?

DAVE GODFREY

Posted on 25-12-2008

I am afraid that at the moment SAVERIO PETRILLI is winning this debate hands down. It is rather hard to deny that organic farming is doing very well in terms of consumer acceptance and that the distrust of "science and technology" Saverio recounts from his own experiences shows a similar growth curve.

Unfortunately, in terms of science and technology during the 20th century, all the purity of science and the miracles of the "peer review" process did very little to hinder and much to help the growth of large firms whose raison d'etre was to sell larger and larger quantities of fertilizer and pesticides and herbicides and, eventually, GMO seeds to farmers. Some farmers prefer to listen to bankers, accountants and economists and get off this treadmill. If your neighbour is producing ten tons an acre with a net return of $100 a ton and you are only getting 5 tons an acre but have a net return of $300 a ton and can see that your farm is getting "healthier" year by year, then you really need neither Steiner nor Science to tell you which path to take.

Objectively, it appears that the rebirth of both organic and sustainable vineyards is quite measurable. Joly's vineyard, after all, only became fully "biodynamic" in 1984, but the Cistercian winemaking on this property goes back to 1130, and so for many, many centuries it produced very fine (and well-priced) wine that would have passed any modern certification as organic. Joly's white wines appear to sell for a minimum of $60, which is well above average but certainly not a peak. His costs per acre, however, are likely to be well below those of a highly mechanized spray-and-feed type operation. Many very substantial vineyards now assert their organic nature.

It might be well to review this debate a decade from now and in the meantime invite some reputable body to examine the economic health of organic vineyards versus pro-technical vineyards on an annual basis.

Dave Godfrey

GRAHAM REDDEL

Posted on 06-02-2009

I really don't think anyone can "win" this debate (see Dave Godfrey above) based on flawed arguments on both sides eg Biodynamics - a single vineyard, a biased partial observer of faith and subjective opinion on one side, versus scientific arguments where the fundamentals of science eg verify the theory by actual evidence, are also sadly lacking. What matters is that Vignerons are passionate about producing grapes of perfect ripeness free from rot and deseases. To repeat the point I made above:- is it Biodynamics or a passionate vigneron in pursuit of quality, that makes the difference?

DOUGLASS SMITH

Posted on 24-02-2009

To be clear to Mr. Godfrey: as we have stated before, in our original paper (linked above) and discussion in this thread we have never supported "pro-technical vineyards" as superior to organic or low-impact farming. What we have done is to request evidence for claims made on behalf of Biodynamic as versus organic farming, e.g. that the Biodynamic practices and preparations make a meaningful difference to vines, grapes or wines, over and above the practices of organic farming that we all agree are beneficial. So far, the evidence is that they don't.

Insofar as there is a debate here, it is not one that has to do with organic farming. The argument we have put forward assumes that organic farming is beneficial. The debate is about the Biodynamic additions, and their purported efficacy.

MARCELLO FABRETTI

Posted on 24-03-2009

To suggest that any biodynamic preparation or special "stirring" technique actually benefits a vine is beyond stupid. Anyone in a first year undergraduate science degree would be able to spot that as a complete fantasy.

Organic viticulture on the other hand has real, positive applications in the vineyard and these HAVE been proven. Personally, I like to employ organic techniques where and when I can, but I always keep a salvo of chemical interventions "just in case".

Steiner was a Nazi party member, and I've taken kids to Steiner Kindergartens and I consider them to be just as loony, and probably more of a social danger. Steiner was a phony, and so is everyone who subscribes to his teaching.

Organics is Biodynamics without all the irrelevant, spiritual mumbo-jumbo. Organics is what Biodynamics should be in the modern world. Organic producers actually embrace science and modern technology. That's it's greatest asset. It's not closed-minded like the proponents of Biodynamics.

TOM LISTER

Posted on 05-05-2009

Interestingly, in only the second paragraph of the very first page of the article by Barquin and Smith, which led me to follow this discussion, it states

'Stephen Jay Gould distinguished two basic ways we may
approach the natural world: the Franciscan, charmed by the
beauty and complexity of natural phenomena; and the Galilean,
impassioned by the ability of human intelligence to comprehend
the hidden mechanisms working behind the appearances.'

This fairly astute and simple observation has relevance to this discussion in no small manner and yet it would appear that many of the participants may have missed it altogether.

As was also pointed out in the same article, there are a great many good things about Biodynamics and we should leave it at that. Who knows why my mother used to walk around her purse three times on the full moon, but a more enchanting and mysterious ritual one cannot imagine!

I must however say that I do not entirely agree with Steiners proposals with regard to field mice as, whilst he would undoubtedly endear himself to my wife on this score, my dogs would be mortified by the eradication of this most elusive and amusing quarry.

As another old hippy said, not so very long ago, 'Life is what happens when you are making other plans'; which I often recall when overburdened with thought.

Happyness and sunshine is what makes good wine, amongst other things. The latter being to a certain extent in the hands of a greater entity than ourselves, we are left to aspire to the former in whichever way each of us sees fit, bar the fieldmouse thing.

Cantina Plaie,
Catignano, Italy.

DANIEL VEJARANO

Posted on 22-09-2009

It would be helpful and relevant if the authors were scientists themselves. Seeing that they are not, their comments are pure observations from the sidelines. Little need then to pay them any serious attention as they analyze and criticize from a scientist's esoteric point of view. Any of us could have done the same. A lack of credibility here. Funny that some of their inky rants are also sold to skeptics' magazines.

MARIUS VANDERLUBBE

Posted on 03-12-2009

Biodynamics applications are every bit as effective as sacrificing a virgin to the gods of the field to ensure a bountiful harvest, cutting the hearts out of young men to ensure the sunrise, dancing for rain or parting large bodies of water with a mere gesture of the arms.

I would inform any readers still left of a period of human history called "The Enlightenment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
This is when we realized that reason and science could be used to combat ignorance, lies, fear, superstition, and tyranny and to build a better world.

Biodynamics is a primitive, simplistic and wholly scientifically illiterate practice. It has no place in todays world. We are not medieval peasants anymore.

To continue to suggest it has an iota of efficacy is degrading to every one of us who has survived to adulthood, and perpetuating the blatant ignorance and frankly, idiocy, that the belief in a system such as BD requires.

MARISKA

Posted on 02-02-2010

I am a scientist as well as a professional organic/ biodynamic gardener. During my studies (Plant and Soil Science, at the University of Aberdeen, UK), I attempted a verification research into Maria Thun's sowing calender (yes indeed, with radishes!)
Results: no result. There were perhaps some flaws in my research set-up, but the tests and analysis were done in a proper scientific manner, as you would expect of any University research.
I have never seen any scientific proof of the claims of the above mentioned calendar, nor in any of the other anthroposophic (biodynamic) measurements (horn and compost preparation, and others).
When reading Steiner's Agricultural Course these days I put question marks at very many passages, as they don't seem to be scientific at all. The bits where I fully understand what he is on about, I mostly disagree with. For example where he advises how to get rid of mice (with 'peppers'). Ecology as a science did not exist in Steiner's time and it shows. Frankly some of his ideas are now totally outdated. So much for Steiner's 'clairvoyance'.
Still I give him the benefit of the doubt, my doubt, because the practical outcome of anthroposophy is often very good, as can be seen on many biodynamic farms, gardens and therapeutic centers. But scientific??? I don't think so.