> not stringent. Those predictions that can be tested scientifically
> been found to be incorrect. It was concluded (in the article) that
> Steiner's instructions are occult and dogmatic and cannot
> to the development of alternative or sustainable agriculture."
> Jonathan Haskett
What a pity the author of this article did not do some up-to-date
research. Here in New Zealand many farmers are farming
biodynamically. They are successful and sustainable. The farm I am
involved with of 1,000 acres supports sheep, beef cattle and is
involved in building up a sizeable dairy herd as a source for its
planned milk products programme. They also run small scale pig and
poultry operations, plus grazing for race and show horses. Commerical
vegetable growing and an extensive tree raising and planting programme
are also included.
Other farmers are contributing in the areas of dairying particularly
and biodynamic growers are successfully holding their own in citrus
and avocado growing to name just the higher profile areas. One of our
leading winemakers who consistently wins international gold medals
also grows his grapes biodynamically.
Pfeiffer's early work on microbes and composts gives the lie to the
statement that there is no scientific basis for biodynamics as does
the paper in Science April 1993 by Reganold et al showing the
sustainability of biodynamics especially with regard to soil
Our farm has also been the site of various other scientific
investigations including work on the dung beetle, blow flies and fish
farming - we have a unique mullet farm.
I would not point anyone to Steiner's works as an introduction. The
Biodynamic Farm by H.H. Koepf and the Coming Revolution in Agriculture
by Dr Harold Willis offer more practical perspectives on biodynamic
farming - there is some controversy in bd circles over Willis' view.
Soper's book on gardening is also, as I remember, relatively free of
the mystic elements.
Kirchmann's conclusion reminds of a MAF scientist critical of
biodynamics who featured in a TV programme on this topic - "Yes, well
we see that it DOES work, but we don't see why it SHOULD work." So
therefore it is dismissed!