Research into Biodynamic Methods is Catching up to Steiner's Lectures
One of the most frequent ways that people dismiss Biodynamic farming is that it originates from pseudoscience or mysticism. This is understandable if a reader of the Agriculture Course given by Rudolf Steiner does not have a contextual foundation like the attendees of the 1924 lecture series. Steiner at the time admitted that some of the things he said may sound fantastic, and these things should not be accepted because he said it. Rather the practices should be implemented, tested, and proven.
Steiner lectured about making our livestock manure, compost, and soil more intelligent with the use of Biodynamic preparations. To me, this at first sounded like a strange way to talk about soil. But with time and emerging research in the last decades, I recognized that the understanding and language we now have about microbes did not exist in 1924. We now know that microbes and plants can have symbiotic relationships in microbially rich soils. The plants communicate a need to the microbes for a soil mineral, and the microbes respond with the mineral in exchange for photosynthesized sugar. Is not communication a sign of intelligence? The aim of Biodynamic preparation use is to stimulate the soil life or, dare I say, raise the intelligence of the soil.
Scientific research has occurred since the original lectures were given, and a body of research is emerging that demonstrates what biodynamic practices can do, what they cannot do, and what needs more examination.
Dr. Jürgen Fritz is one such researcher who has 17 published and peer reviewed studies on the impacts of biodynamic practices. Dr. Fritz presented a workshop in Dornach, Switzerland last February about his recent collaborative research on “Enrichment of putative plant growth promoting microorganisms in biodynamic compared with organic agriculture soils.” The research occurred on three farms in Germany and 21 farms in France covering different crops and soil types. The research team found that “biodynamic preparations can act as biofertilizers that promote soil health by increasing the abundance of plant growth promoting microorganisms.” The study can be found among many others at Dr. Fitz’s University Kassel staff page.
Another research project run by FiBL in Switzerland has compared different farming systems and the impacts on soil fertility, yield, and soil quality since 1978 (48 years), found here at the DOK Trial. The farming systems are biodynamic (D), organic (O), and conventional (K). The study shows that biodynamic management resulted in the highest soil humus content, highest quantity of soil microorganisms, and highest nutrient mobilization. Biodynamic practices also resulted in a lower need for plant protection products, a lower energy/fuel input, and the lowest greenhouse gas emissions. Yields were shown to be 85% of the conventional comparisons across all crops (non-legume crops were lowest but legumes were similar), but the yields required 50% of the nutrient and energy inputs and needed 92% fewer pesticides. Overall, the organic and biodynamic yields were more stable over the long term.
As time moves on, it seems that the research is catching up to what Steiner shared over 100 years ago and what many practicing Biodynamic farmers observe as effective. Modern day scientists are translating what once seemed fantastic or anecdotal stories into controlled, materialistic research that demonstrates impacts of Biodynamic practices on environmental, soil, and food quality.
