Feature

Unearthing Biodynamics

With the trend back to "natural" produce, biodynamic farming is attracting increasing attention. What special merits does it have, if any?

By Vicki Hyde, NZSM

Biodynamic farming and gardening has gained a good deal of attention lately as a reputed means of providing chemical-free produce and humane animal repellants. A high public profile has not been matched by a broad awareness of the history and basis of the biodynamic approach. Despite this, there have been increasing demands for public funding of scientific studies to assess the worth of biodynamics.

The biodynamic approach to farming developed as an offshoot of the anthroposophical movement of Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner. In the 1920s, Steiner applied his theories of a "spiritual science" to agriculture.

He and his followers developed a series of preparations aimed at restoring the vital life-force to plants and enhancing their growth through utilisation of planetary forces. It is the use of these preparations and the practice of peppering that forms the main distinction between biodynamic followers and conventional organic farmers.

Dr John Reganold, a visiting soil scientist at Massey University, says that there are other subtle differences. Biodynamic farmers are not permitted to use any fertilisers or pesticides that are not provided for under the biodynamic system. Organic farmers can use manures, for examples, from non-organic farms.

"In general, biodynamic farming is stricter," he maintains.

Soil Study

Reganold is investigating the differences between soils on biodynamically run farms and conventionally farmed neighbouring properties. The close proximity is necessary to provide comparable soil types.

The study involves seven biodynamic farms and nine conventional ones. The biodynamic farms have been under the regime for at least seven years -- time enough for effects on the soil to show up, according to Reganold. He's examining everything from bacteria numbers to trace elements quantities, from organic content to the physical structure of the soil.

"Let's say there is a difference in microbial activity for some reason," Reganold enthuses. "The biodynamic people might contend there should be more on their farms because of the synergistic effects of their preparations."

"I think we're going to find that biodynamic farms are probably better for the soil quality," he adds.

Dr John Walker, emeritus professor in soil science at Lincoln University, tends to agree with this, but he has reservations about attributing it to biodynamic practices.

Biodynamics Vs Organics

"If you use compost you're certainly going to improve your soil structure, but it has nothing to do with the biodynamic preparations," says Walker.

This highlights a major flaw in the study. There is no control to tease out the differences between the biodynamic approach and that of conventional organics.

Reganold admits the problem, saying that it would have been great to have a neighbouring conventional farm, organic farm and biodynamic farm in the study to test such a point. Such a study may be done later, but it would have been more appropriate for it to have preceded the current trials.

"We've put very little money into biodynamic or organic farming," says Reganold. "Most research has been done to support conventional farming."

Walker sees a reason for that.

"If you're going to waste money, you've got to have the money and time spare," he maintains, adding that biodynamic claims offends his scientific sense "right from the word go".

No Scientific Evidence

The problem is, nothing in the way of acceptable scientific experimentation has been done on biodynamic claims. While biodynamic texts refer to tests done in the 1920s to 1940s, few -- if any -- of these were conducted in a scientific manner. By far the bulk of evidence supporting biodynamic claims is anecdotal.

"If people are going to make claims about these sorts of things, they should prove it," Walker says. "If you don't do experiments then you can easily make stupid claims."

Reganold is keen to put biodynamic claims on a scientific footing, admitting that he is not aware of a single paper supporting biodynamic claims in refereed scientific journals.

One scientific study recently conducted concerned the biodynamic practice of peppering. In this, the bodies of unwanted organisms are burnt at a certain time in the lunar cycle. The ashy remains are then diluted down to minute levels and sprayed around a property. This is said to reduce or eliminate the presence of the undesirable organism. Peppering is used by biodynamic followers for everything from clearing land of thistles to repelling possums.

When plans were being made for ridding Rangitoto Island of possums, biodynamic adherents approached the Department of Conservation with the suggestion that 1080 drops be replaced by peppering.

Anecdotal Accounts

Dr Charlie Eason, member of a Forest Research Institute team which recently studied peppering, says that if they had been any data published on the efficacy of the technique, it would have been considered. However, much of the claimed success rate for peppering is based on anecdotal evidence.

Reganold has encountered one farmer who swears that peppering removes thistles.

"Maybe it is working," he says. "I believe him. I don't think he's lying."

Conventional researchers would not necessarily suggest that biodynamic exponents are lying about their claims. They do point out that such claims do need some sort of backing before they can expect major funding or attention.

"I don't think anyone can walk in and say use this new technique without being asked to show some results," observes FRI animal ecologist Graham Hickling. He and Eason recently organised a scientific study of possum peppering, testing whether the biodynamic preparations really repel possums.

"If there'd been any sort of effect, we would have [seen] it," Eason says.

Peppering Study

Treated and untreated foods were laid out in bait stations and the behaviour of the possums carefully examined. Five "active" and four placebo treatments were tested. The former were provided by a homeopathic company, the Biodynamic Farming & Gardening Association and a biodynamic farmer. FRI also produced their own pepper based on instructions from the association. All treatments were coded so that staff did not know which were active and which were placebos. This is the double-blind approach central to experimentation of this type.

The FRI report on the study noted that biodynamic proponents said that "possums would not go near the treated areas and they would probably be desperate to get out of the cages". In fact, there was no discernible reaction.

David Wright, executive secretary of the Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association of NZ, commented in Growing Today magazine, that all the trials proved was that that particular trial gave a negative result. He suggested that more tests were necessary before peppering was dismissed.

Eason and Hickling agree that further trials may be of some value, but are aware of the problems associated with using mainstream research funds to study fringe approaches.

"The [Animal Health Board] took the correct approach to do something small and low-key and focused. If there'd been any evidence that something was going on, they would've gone further," notes Hickling. The AHB is funded by a levy off every cattle beast sold, and has to justify its expenditure to the farming community.

As it is, the FRI scientists have recently set up a further series of tests. This was prompted by criticism from the NZSM concerning the experimental methodology used in the original trials. The trials were not true double-blind experiments, as a "non-believer" would expect no results regardless of which preparations were used. To be truly rigorous, a positive control was needed using a known repellent. Eason is in the process of running trials under this basis.

"I don't think it invalidates the study design," says Eason. "How do you match a repellent against the intangibles of earth, fire and water and the movements of the solar system?"

Hickling is quick to note that some of the balanced ecological system approaches work well when applied to agriculture. The problems occur with the aspects which are said to be beyond the realms of physics and chemistry.

"That anybody in this day and age can believe the rubbish followed by these people is incredible," says Walker.

Secret Herbs And Spices

Preparation 500

Fresh manure is packed into a cow's horn and buried over the winter months. The horn is said to reflect planetary forces into the manure, "raying back whatever is life-giving and Astral", according to Steiner. Burying it ensures that "all the radiations that tend to etherialise and astralise are poured into the inner hollow of the horn". This causes the manure to be "quickened" with "all that is Ethereal and life-giving". The manure is then diluted and used as a spray. "Some of these people have obviously never converted evil-smelling cow [manure] into sweet-smelling compost, and are surprised to find this happens," observes Dr John Walker, emeritus professor in soil science at Lincoln University.

Preparation 501

In this, silica, generally in the form of powdered quartz, is packed in a cow horn and buried over summer. The silica does not feel at home in the wintery earth because it is connected with the planets beyond the Sun. Steiner called silica the "cosmic material which takes up light within the earth". The diluted prepration is said to bestow sense organs upon the plant, "allowing the totality of outer planetary forces to work". "They don't seem to appreciate powdered quartz is one of the most inert materials in nature," Walker says.

Preparations 502-507

These are made from a variety of plants, including dandelion, yarrow, camomile and stinging nettle. Preparation 502, for example, involves packing yarrow into a stag's bladder, exposing it to sun influences over summer and burying it for the winter. It has "very strong radiating power...quickens and refreshes the soil, making good exploitation", Steiner writes.

In Preparation 503, camomile flowers are stuffed into cattle intestines and buried under snowy ground so that the "Cosmic- Astral influences work down into the soil where the precious little sausages are buried".

Holes are made in bio-dynamically prepared compost heaps and the preparations are inserted. The aim of this, according to one anthroposophical booklet is to ensure that "the Astral can get hold of the Physical-Ethereal substance harmoniously". This requires the implantation of "planetary organs into the compost body from which the planetary processes can radiate through the compost body, astralising it harmoniously".

Vicki Hyde is the editor of New Zealand Science Monthly.