The Scientific Basis of Biodynamics
From the very start, Biodynamic development has been characterised by systematic scientific evaluation. There is no doubt that Rudolf Steiner’s suggestions regarding the making of the soil fertility and light metabolism preparations seem strange. However this is entirely irrelevant to their objective evaluation. The unusual suggestions, such as putting cow manure in cow horns and burying them over winter to make 500, together with Rudolf Steiner’s theosophical teachings and esoteric world outlook, have led some scientists to ridicule the Biodynamic method, completely ignoring the science behind it. Let’s look at the facts, and leave the hysteria to one side.
The scientific method starts with a question that you want to find answers to. After conducting observations of the phenomena involved and reviewing any related studies, a hypothesis (an educated guess) is formed that may potentially explain the phenomena in question. Experiments are then conducted to establish the validity or otherwise of your hypothesis. The results are analysed and conclusions drawn based on the results – a rational, orderly process. However, as eloquently put by Fred Hoyle[1] and Raymond Arthur Littleton[2], the process is often ignited by ‘intuitive insight or other inexplicable inspiration’[3]. Throughout the history of science, many major discoveries have come as a result of some sudden flash of inspiration, leading to the development of a hypothesis and subsequent testing of the hypothesis. The source of the inspiration is completely irrelevant, as is the belief system of the person advancing the hypothesis. Whether it be Rudolf Steiner’s inspirational agricultural suggestions, August Kekulé’s dreams and visions leading to the discovery of the molecular structure of organic chemicals, or Alex Podolinsky’s vision of plant functioning, it is the subsequent testing that establishes the validity or otherwise of their hypotheses.
Many of the most influential scientists of the last few centuries were religious or believed in some higher power, including Charles Darwin (biology/evolution), Marie Curie (chemistry), Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein (physics), Gregor Mendel (genetics) and Srinivasa Ramanujan (mathematics). According to a 2009 survey, 51% of American scientists believe in God or some higher power. Just as there is no justification for ridiculing their ground-breaking discoveries because of their personal belief systems, there is also no justification for ridiculing Steiner’s agricultural theories because of his theosophical writings.
Dr Steiner (PhD – his doctoral dissertation was entitled Truth and Science) insisted on thorough scientific testing of his agricultural suggestions. During his tertiary education, Steiner carried out scientific testing of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Theory of Colour, confirming many of Goethe’s findings. His extensive study and knowledge of Goethe’s scientific works led to his appointment as editor of these works for publication in the German National Literature Series. Before the 1924 agriculture lectures commenced, Steiner had requested Dr Pfeiffer and others do an initial trial of burying cow manure in cow horns over the autumn/winter period. That trial provided early confirmation of Steiner’s suggestion on making 500.
Steiner had met Pfeiffer when he (Pfeiffer) was a young university student and encouraged him to concentrate on studying the sciences, particularly biology, chemistry and physics. Pfeiffer was entrusted with the task of evaluating Steiner’s agricultural suggestions, particularly those relating to the making of the preparations. He confirmed that the preparations were effective, as suggested, and refined the method of making them as well as the most effective application methods and quantities.
Steiner also asked Lily Kolisko (a laboratory technician) and her husband, Dr Eugen Kolisko (a medical doctor and lecturer in medical chemistry) to similarly test the preparations. They also validated Steiner’s suggestions and went on to study other areas such as the influence of moon and planets and the effect of very dilute substances on plant growth, amongst other areas. Lily, in particular, continued her studies for over 30 years.
In Australia, Alex Podolinsky founded the Bio-Dynamic Research Institute (BDRI) in 1957 with a colleague, Andrew Sargood, and together they carried out many tests on soils and on Biodynamic developments. Many field trials were also conducted. The newly invented stirring machine was thoroughly evaluated and found to produce better soil development results than hand stirring for any quantity of water over 12 gallons (54 litres)[4]. Alex’s new development, prepared 500, was found to be considerably more effective than straight 500, and became the only form of 500 used in most situations in Australia (and worldwide on farms following the Australian Demeter Biodynamic method). Alex followed Dr Pfeiffer’s preparation making recommendations, improving on some, as acknowledged by Pfeiffer, with whom Alex exchanged preparation samples periodically until Pfeiffer’s death in 1961.
Tests carried out by the BDRI showed that, using no fertilizer inputs at all, Alex had increased the soil organic matter level at Powelltown in his first six years there, from 0.9% to 11.4% in the top 100mm and from 0% to 2.4% at 1000mm. Victorian Agriculture Department scientists reported that this had resulted in the locking up of 1614 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare over the six year period[5].
Independent research has added to the validation of the method in Australia. JA Lytton-Hitchings et al[6] studied matched pairs of Victorian Biodynamic and conventional dairy farms. They found that the Biodynamic farms had greater soil macro-porosity, better structured soil, greater air filled porosity and greater organic matter content. They concluded “these more favourable soil properties of the bio-dynamic soil have the potential to allow faster infiltration, less surface runoff, less waterlogging, deeper soil exploration by plant roots and a longer interval between irrigations”.
Parker[7] and Cock[8] also found better soil structure on Biodynamic farms.
In 1991, a study of ten matched pairs of Biodynamic and conventional dairy farms was carried out by the Victorian Agriculture Department, overseen by soil researcher Doug Small and veterinarian Dr John McDonald. The results were reported at an Australian Institute of Agricultural Science conference in 1993. In summary, the Biodynamic farms (which were using no fertilizer at all) were found to have better soil structure, similar pasture composition, slightly lower soil phosphorus and soil nitrate nitrogen levels, other minerals at similar levels; Biodynamic cows didn’t suffer from bloat, and the incidence of metabolic disorders was lower; irrigation was much less frequent on Biodynamic farms; lower levels of selenium in conventional cows, lower levels of phosphorus in Biodynamic cows; Biodynamic cows were more fertile; Biodynamic cows remained productive longer; grain feeding was 600% higher on conventional farms; milk production was higher on conventional farms, but costs were lower on Biodynamic farms; net returns were somewhat higher on conventional farms, but if off-farm environmental effects were taken into account (nutrient run-off has been measured at up to 30 times higher from conventional farms, causing blue-green algae and other environmental problems) it was suggested that the total economic benefit would most likely be in favour of Biodynamics. The Agriculture Department veterinarian, Dr McDonald, stressed to me just how important was the higher level of selenium in the Biodynamic cows, relating this to their higher fertility levels, and also suggesting that it may have significant consequences in human fertility.
A study comparing Biodynamic with conventional soils was carried out by Eric Frescher as part of his Bachelor of Civil Engineering at LaTrobe University[9]. The Biodynamic farm studied had previously demonstrated considerable reduction in salt affected areas over a five year period. During the same period, the neighbouring conventional farm studied had demonstrated significant expansion of salt affected areas. Frescher’s results showed that: the Biodynamic soil was less compacted and more porous than the conventional soil in both a dry and wet state; water infiltration on the Biodynamic soil was four times higher for the first ten minutes, and two and a half times higher after that; the Biodynamic soil was capable of holding twice the amount of soil moisture, and contained twice the amount of carbon; the Biodynamic soil contained numerous aggregates and was softer, the conventional soil contained very few aggregates and was harder; the Biodynamic soil was five times less acid than the conventional soil; the Biodynamic soil contained six times more nitrate nitrogen in the top 50mm and at 200mm contained 10ppm nitrate nitrogen compared with zero on the conventional farm, and; in dry conditions, the soils showed similar levels of biological activity (as measured by micro-organism respiration rates), but in wet conditions, the Biodynamic soil biological activity was far higher.
European Studies
The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (Forschungsinstitut für Biologischen Landbau – FiBL, Switzerland) ran trials comparing Biodynamic, organic and conventional growing methods, published between 1996 and 2020. A selection of results follows, expressed as a comparison with conventional growing methods (100%).
Conventional Organic Biodynamic
Microorganism activity[10]
100% 143% 161%
Weight of earthworms[11]
100% 130% 140%
Root penetration intensity[12]
100% 103% 157%
Soil crumb stability[13]
100% 104% 125%
Nitrous oxide emissions[14]
100% 75% 57%
Why Do Biodynamic Growers Need Fewer Fertiliser Inputs?
The ideal of many organic and Biodynamic farmers has been to achieve a closed system, that is, to bring in no fertiliser inputs at all from outside. This is partly based on the fact that European organic farms of the past operated successfully as virtually closed systems for centuries. However this was in the context of farms, pre-mechanisation, that had large numbers of people living on them (farm workers and their families). Most of the farm production went to feed these families, with relatively little being exported. All farm wastes, including animal and human manure, was recycled by composting and was spread on melting snows in Spring to maintain soil humus levels and fertility. In the early period of Demeter Biodynamic development in Australia, many farmers aspired to operate their farms as closed systems, and applied no fertilizer for decades. They were able to maintain good production levels (Alex Podolinsky brought in no fertilizer for 40 years, until prolonged drought necessitated an application of reactive rock phosphate), but it could not be maintained forever. It was eventually realized that modern organic farming is of a quite different nature from historical organic farming. Now, usually, only one family lives on and operates a large farm, sometimes running into thousands of acres, and must export large quantities of produce to survive economically. Some fertilizer inputs may well be required, to complement the work of the soil biology activator preparations and general Biodynamic management.
Having said that, experience shows that Biodynamic farmers require far less fertilizer inputs than conventional farmers, and considerably less than most organic farmers. Why is this?
Why Biodynamics Works
The reason Biodynamics works so well is that every aspect of the method, based on scientific understanding, meticulous experiments and extensive field trials, is focussed on building and protecting the essential soil life, whose collective function in Nature is to convert organic matter and any free soluble elements into stable colloidal humus. This feeds plants as Nature intended, under the jurisdiction of the sun, not indiscriminately through the soil water.
Myriad living organisms and associated ‘biological catalysts’ participate in this soil life:
- Soil animals, including microfauna such as protozoa, mesofauna such as mites and springtails, macrofauna such as ants, earthworms, beetles and termites;
- Soil fungi, active in the early stages of breakdown of organic matter;
- Micorrhizal fungi, a specialized group of fungi which form mutually beneficial associations with plant roots;
- Soil bacteria, single celled organisms that can reproduce and proliferate very quickly – they include: actinobacteria (active in converting organic matter into humus); independent nitrogen fixing bacteria, which convert ammonium into nitrates that are incorporated in the soil humus; azobacter, free living bacteria that convert atmospheric nitrogen into forms useable by plants; rhizobia, bacteria that form symbiotic relationships with the roots of leguminous plants and take nitrogen from the air and convert it into a form useable by plants.
- Biological catalysts such as enzymes and co-enzymes, which are synthesized by plants, animals, mould, fungi, yeasts and bacteria. They play a key role in the breakdown of organic material and its conversion to colloidal humus, the cycling of nutrients, and the building of soil structure.
The Biodynamic preparations are the most powerful (and unique worldwide) stimulators of this overall biological activity in the soil, and, when combined with associated biological agricultural practices, enable farmers and gardeners to produce food of the highest quality with absolutely minimal inputs.
Biological Transmutations
Based on an increasing body of research, it is becoming clear (though not yet accepted by many scientists) that, in a living biological system, elements can transmute into other elements. This is the inescapable conclusion of much meticulous research and many observations that are inconsistent with the generally accepted view that an element is a substance that cannot be broken down by chemical means. Rudolf Steiner suggested in 1924 that transmutation of elements was occurring in nature.
Research that supports this idea includes: in 1799, Louis Vauquelin found that a hen excreted 5 times more lime than it ingested; in 1822, Prout discovered that limestone in an incubating chicken egg increases overall; in 1831, Choubard found that germinated seeds contained minerals that were not present originally in the seeds; in 1844, Vogel found that, after germination, watercress contained more sulphur than was in the seeds. These results strongly suggest that under certain conditions, elements are able to transmute into other elements.
In 1879, Albrect von Herzeele published the results of many experiments[15] which strongly supported the idea that elements can change from one into another. Some of the reactions he demonstrated included:
H2CO3 to Mg to Ca to P to S to N to K
How is this possible? Conventional understanding is that elements can combine in chemical reactions to form molecules, and that molecules can break down into individual elements, but that elements themselves cannot normally change.
A chemical element is a pure substance composed of one type of atom. Elements are distinguished from one another by the number of protons (positively charged particles) in the atomic nucleus. The lightest element, Hydrogen, has one proton in its nucleus, giving it an atomic number of 1. Uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element, with 92 protons and therefore the atomic number 92. Biological transmutation occurs when an element merges with another element, combining their protons in a single new nucleus thus becoming a third element, or conversely, when an element breaks down into two new elements with separate nuclei.
It is accepted by scientists that in certain circumstances elements can change: when a cosmic ray neutron (electrically neutral particle) hits a nitrogen atom (7 protons), it breaks down into carbon (6 protons) and hydrogen (1 proton). Isotopes (variations in the number of neutrons in an atomic nucleus) are involved but we won’t go into that here.
The element uranium breaks down (very slowly) in nature in the following sequence (again involving isotopes): uranium to thorium to protactinium to uranium (different isotope) to radium to radon to polonium to lead to bismuth, and, after fluctuating between various isotopes of lead, bismuth and polonium, eventually decays into a stable form of lead.
Professor Louis Kervran (University of Paris) began publishing the results of his experiments on what he called biological transmutations in 1959. He found that the most important and abundant biological transmutations occur amongst the first twenty elements of the periodic table and to a lesser extent with the next ten. Many transmutations were found to occur. Although the exact mechanism of biological transmutation is still to be discovered, Prof. Kervran suggested that enzymes are probably integral to the process. Scientists who have confirmed some of his findings include: Prof. Dr. Hisatoki Komaki, Prof. Pierre Baranger, J.E. Zündel, Panos T Pappas, Jean-Paul Biberian, Vladimir Vysotskii, Edwin Engel and Rudolf Gruber.
Leaving aside the issue of different isotopes, and expressing the atomic number only, some of the biological transmutations that have been discovered (many of which are reversible) include[16] :
11Na + 8O’ = 19K 19K + 1H = 20Ca
12Mg+ 8O’ = 20Ca 14Si + 6C = 20Ca
11Na + 1H = 12Mg 11Na = 3Li + 8O’
12Mg + 3Li = 15P 17Cl – 8O’ = 9F
15P = 6C + 9F 8O’ + 8O’ = 16S
26Fe – 1H = 25Mn 7N + 12Mg = 19K
This is only a sample of the many reactions that have been shown to occur[17]. The implications for farming, diet and medicine are intriguing. Instead of trying to replace elements that appear to be lacking we might be better to consider biological transmutations carefully. For instance it may well be (there is some evidence) that calcium deficiency in humans could be better treated with magnesium or organic silica (both of which can biologically transmute into calcium), than with calcium supplements. In agriculture, potassium can be formed from transmuted calcium (in combination with hydrogen), and so on.
The very idea of “soil analysis” is called into question, when dealing with the biologically active soils found on Biodynamic and organic farms and gardens. Where soil life is abundant, there are many active cycles occurring. Nature is constantly trying to achieve balance, to redress imbalance, so that healthy plant growth can continue. A soil test is a snapshot in time. One week after the ‘snapshot’, the situation may have changed considerably. In 2004, the Australian Soil and Plant Testing Council sent standardised soil samples to 18 laboratories across the country. The results for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium varied so dramatically that laboratory standards were called into question, even though the same testing methodology was used. Could it be that, once the samples were divided up, variations in temperature, elevation, pressure, microbial and fungal content, or other factors, could have caused the wide divergence via biological transmutation?
While soil tests can still be useful and are used from time to time by Biodynamic farmers, it is perhaps more important to first look at the whole living system on a farm to assess the needs of the plants, including how well or poorly things are growing, the predominance of particular grass or weed species, the health status of animals etc., than to rely solely on potentially unreliable soil tests.
Professor Kervran makes the point that in agriculture, for biological transmutations to work, the soil must be alive, rich in microorganisms, and that adequate humus must be present. He also comments that all plants are different. For instance, some plants can make their own calcium in a calcium deficient soil whereas others cannot. The same applies to other major and minor elements. Each plant has different root types and structures, and releases different exudates from its roots. Each plant lives in, fosters, and is fostered by, a unique community of bacteria and fungi.
We simply don’t know how many different species of living things are in the soil or understand the complex interrelationships that exist, or how they vary from plant to plant. We don’t know the full range of enzymes and coenzymes that are produced by plants and soil macro and micro-life or the biological transmutations they, the micro-organisms and possibly creatures such as worms, might foster.
The correct use of properly made and stored Biodynamic preparations enormously enhances soil biological activity. Organic matter levels in soils rise significantly. Microbial activity is greatly enhanced, root growth fostered, and colloidal humus formation promoted. As a direct result of this enhanced activity, soil colour darkens progressively, and soil structure improves. Actively growing roots, in conjunction with soil biology, create and develop soil structure. Soils become deeper, even heavy clays becoming friable soil in time. Such dramatic soil changes, which soil scientists have stated would take Nature alone hundreds, if not thousands of years to achieve, have only been achieved through the use of the Biodynamic preparations.
The soil spray 500, if properly made, is a very concentrated source of microbes, as are the six compost preparations which are used in compost heaps and added to 500 to make the even more potent prepared 500. Dr. Pfeiffer discovered several novel species of microbes in the preparations. Sprayed on moist soil that is warm (or at least not too cold), the Biodynamic preparations have a unique and dramatic soil enlivening effect. The conditions for a rich soil ecosystem, that facilitates transmutation of elements, are well and truly established by their correct use.
Sun and Air
In discussing plant growth we tend to focus on soil factors, and forget that without sun and air there would be no plants at all. The sun provides the primal energy for photosynthesis, the only truly original manufacturing process on Earth. Air provides the carbon dioxide necessary for photosynthesis to occur, as well as nitrogen that is brought into soils by independent azobacter bacteria, and rhizobia bacteria in conjunction with plants. We must also remember that plant leaves can take in other nutrients from the air – all elements are present in air, in minutest quantities. We still don’t understand how relevant this is to plant nutrition, although the fact that leaves can take in nutrients has been abused by proponents of foliar feeding, who apply nutrients via foliar sprays, thus subverting the natural, sun-directed plant feeding process.
Biodynamic management combines:
- the harmonious functioning of the soil engendered by the use of the Biodynamic preparations, encompassing unique soil biology development, humus formation and soil structuring.
- the biological transmutation of elements enabled by the highly active soil biology, giving the soil a high degree of adaptability and supporting the healthy growth of plants.
- a comprehensive system of natural farming techniques including careful cultivation, rotational grazing of pastures, composting, green manuring and much more.
These factors together provide a plausible explanation for the success of, and the much lower input requirements of Biodynamic farms. All of these points have been the subject of scientific studies and extensive field trials. There is one more important aspect that should be considered, one that is in its infancy and deserves far more scientific scrutiny:
The Concept of Formative Forces
From ancient times, peoples at all stages of civilisation have shared a common belief that living things have as their basis a non-physical ‘formative force’ that organises and holds the physical components of organisms in coherent, living forms. Different cultures have different names for it: for instance prana (India), chi (China) and Ki (Japan). In the West it has been called formative force and etheric body amongst other names. It was written about by philosophers including the ancient Greeks and Lao Tsu the Chinese founder of Taoism. Most traditional and integrative medical disciplines, including Ayurveda, traditional Chinese medicine, Naturopathy, Chiropractic and Homeopathy have vitalism as their foundation, as do yoga and many martial arts. Many scientists in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were vitalists. Even in the 20th and 21st centuries, some scientists still give credence to this theory. Theoretical physicist, Max Planck (1858-1947) was one.
The concept of formative forces was strenuously attacked during the 18th and 19th centuries, and when Friedrich Wöhler succeeded in synthesizing the organic chemical urea in 1828, this was trumpeted as the death knell of the theory, despite the fact that urea is not actually a living organism. Today most but not all biologists believe that physical and chemical principles are sufficient to account for life despite its many, as yet unexplainable, mysteries.
In his 1924 agricultural lecture series, Rudolf Steiner suggested that forces, including formative forces, would be concentrated in the Biodynamic preparations and that when the preparations were applied, these forces would bring a unique enlivening influence to soil and plants in addition to their microbial content. Amongst the many suggestions he made to the scientists he appointed to investigate his agricultural theory was that the presence and quality of formative forces could be tested by the use of chromatography in connection with capillary analysis. The technique was called capillary dynamolysis: a substance to be tested is liquefied and allowed to rise in a filter paper. The filter paper is then dried and a light sensitive chemical such as silver nitrate or gold chloride is allowed to be drawn up by the same filter paper. On exposure to light a picture emerges which Steiner maintained would give pictorial indications as to the presence and quality of formative force in the test subject. Later versions of the method include ‘sensitive crystallization’ where a liquid extract is mixed with copper chloride and poured into a glass dish in a temperature and humidity controlled, vibration proof cabinet and left to crystallise. While these methods may seem tenuous to some scientists, they are not dissimilar to current efforts deep in an Australian gold mine to detect very ephemeral traces of the theoretical, invisible and hitherto unmeasurable ‘dark matter’, which is purported to constitute 30.1% of the universe. The rest is, in theory, made up of 69.4% invisible and unmeasurable ‘dark energy’ and 0.5% actual visible matter.
It has been suggested that the Biodynamic soil/compost preparations work not only at a physical level, fostering microbial activity, humus formation and root growth, but that they also harmonise the working of ‘life forces’ in soil and plants, facilitating the optimum development of soil biology. In the case of the ‘light spray’, 501, it is suggested that a concentration of formative forces related to light is involved as well as the physical properties of millions of tiny crystalline structures concentrating light. Whilst a substantial body of evidence points to the superior physical and chemical properties of Biodynamic soils, the potentially equally important role of enhanced formative forces in Biodynamic soils and plants (which may bring improved health and vitality to animal and human consumers), cannot be easily dismissed. Scientists should keep an open mind and continue to investigate this hitherto neglected field. I refer interested readers to my essay Formative Forces and Science in Biodynamic Growing magazine No. 22, June 2014:
Anecdotal Evidence
Anecdotal evidence is much less significant than careful scientific studies. However, it can still be illuminating, and can also suggest further research possibilities. The following observations (many relating to drought conditions) were recorded by experienced Biodynamic farmers and advisors visiting Australian (and one Italian) Demeter Biodynamic farms over the years.
- “Despite abnormal rains and floods in the early part of the year, the farm has progressed well, but little or no rain followed, most pasture was lost. Any crops that have germinated and any pasture which survived has an amazing root development up to 4 to 6 inches in depth. This compared with the neighbour’s crop and pasture 2 inches deep and spreading outwards”.
- “Considering the late start and very little rain to the beginning of the sowing season, most of the crops are developing well. Soil has improved, comparing it with the neighbour’s which is very hard and compacted”.
- “Even with a late start to the season and then very wet, this farm is coming away very well. In observation, this farm is progressing a lot quicker than the conventional farms around it. Cattle are in good condition with the extra feed that has developed”.
- “Drought bad, but farm (tree lines!) stands out in the district. Colour of dry plants shine, neighbours’ grey death”.
- “Two years drought. This BD farm is standing up better than the conventional farms around here”.
- “Drought severe. Stock very thin, but coat still shining (never seen before). Stock agent said the same!”
- In a butcher’s shop: “The Demeter meats on display are easily recognised by their colour, juiciness and meat texture (of relatively fine fibrousness).”
- “Pasture is a ‘glow green’ colour and has active look. Good feed reserves beyond any neighbour with same stocking rate.”
- “Even in this dry year, this farm stands out in the neighbourhood. A surprising lot of green grass, stock in good condition”.
- “Severe drought. Very dry, but there is a new green growth of approximately 3 inches amongst the dry grasses, which is a true BD green. The neighbours have no visible green at all, just a dead brown. Has cattle which are fat, ready for market. I have not seen any other cattle in the area as good. There is some moisture in the soil, it will hold together when squeezed in the hand. I dug some in the neighbours’ and it is like rock with no moisture in it and like dust when broken.”
- “Drought. Pastures are very short with some new green shoots from the base of the dry clumps. There is no sign of green on the neighbours’. Cattle are in strong condition and cows near calving. Rain is desperately needed.”
- “Started BD in 2005 from organic organization. Soil had terrible structure when started”.
- “Farm still fully productive in a drought time. Flats have growth and bush grazing still available”.
- “Even though this farm has come through a severe drought, it has shown considerable improvement since the last visit. Since 6 inches of rain fell 3 weeks ago, it has sprung back with legumes coming up everywhere and trees have a beautiful BD colour. This farm stands out among the surrounding farms.”
- “Even though there is a drought and shortage of water, the cattle and crop looked in excellent condition”.
- “A look at the neighbour’s farm showed how well this farm bounced back after the rain”.
- “The neighbour has large areas eaten by army worms whereas this farm has not been touched”.
- “The farm is in wonderful condition and is head and shoulders above the neighbour’s chemical farm”.
- “Three and a half inch downpour, all absorbed, with no runoff!”.
- “He is quite pleased at the ability of his farm to perform under such terrible, tough drought conditions. Sheep are in very good condition. Some close neighbours looked terrible”.
- “This farm plus other BD farms in the area have recovered well, considering drought. Much better than conventional farms where wind erosion has occurred”.
- “The best BD chocolate converted (originally white sand!) soil of all in the area”.
- “Big production of fruit without watering (in drought)”.
- “It was commented (by the cheesemaker) that any BD cheese made as a trial, was having less waste than that from the conventional milk, which makes the cheesemaker happy”.
- “Soil very good, creek still running (August, drought). April, drought, creek still running and has fish! Quite incredible, considering”. (This being a creek that had not run all year round, or in drought, for over 80 years, but had recommenced running continuously after a number of years of BD on a substantial size farm bordering the creek. Old locals are amazed).
- “A dry spell was experienced after some crop had been planted and pasture germination, but no signs of wilting. Moisture retention is very good as well as organic matter. He is pleased with the results, which are showing in the cows and calves. All areas are covered with pasture which will help with wind blow which occurs regularly in the area”.
- “Plant colour given extreme wet indicates good drainage despite heavy black clay. This indicates that BD is beginning to work”.
- “This horticultural area suffered extreme 480C temperatures last summer. The BD crops were far less affected than the conventional neighbours’. The capacity of the BD trees to survive (conventional growers sustained substantial losses) extreme heat wave further demonstrated the results of BD farming. The neighbours have expressed their amazement with the yields achieved with few inputs”.
- “Poor sandy to blue clay soils have, over a decade developed Biodynamically to highly productive humus soils. Blue clay, possibly the most difficult of soils, no longer exists!”.
- “Dry grass has golden glow compared with neighbours who have to feed heavily, whereas the golden glow still has food value. Neighbours’ grey colour grass, need to feed reserves early”.
- “Lucerne sown on recovering salty areas is doing very well, with a good root development, depth down to 10-12 inches, leaf very healthy and no sign of salt effect”.
- “The most noticeable improvement on this farm is the improvement in coverage on the salt affected area, which is almost covered with various plant species”.
- “This farm is the only one around the area that has any feed to speak of, compared with the neighbours”.
- “Comments have been made to him by some of his neighbouring orchardists about the longer shelf life of his fruit, which makes him pleased”.
- “The packers and cool store personnel commented on the quality of the BD meat as well as the extra shelf life”.
- “The farm responds to rainfall much quicker than their conventional neighbours’ farms and the grass holds on longer. The sheep on the conventional block (yet to be converted to BD) require supplementary feeding and are hard to maintain in condition whereas the sheep on the BD block are ‘mud-fat’. The crops on the conventional block have yielded only half as much as those on the BD farm this year. They only started supplementary feeding (drought time) on the BD block in early February, while the neighbours have been feeding for months”.
- “After 6 years of organic growing, the sandy market garden soil still had only 0.6% organic matter, the same as when they started. After six years applying the Australian Demeter Biodynamic method, the organic matter in the soil had increased to 4.2%” (Italian market garden).
- “When we were dairying conventionally, bloat was a real danger and losses were not uncommon. After a few years of BD farming, it disappeared completely. Nitrate poisoning also disappeared”.
- “Fertility problems affected 40% of cows when farming conventionally. Under BD, a 99-100% pregnancy success rate. The cows live and produce up to 6 years longer under BD. Milking 250 cows, there were calving difficulties in 50 calvings and vet visits were required in 25 of those. Under BD we had 10 calving problems a year and the vet was only required once or twice a year”.
- “After 25 years of BD, soil tests were done – the pasture roots went down 1500mm compared with 150mm previously. The soil held 10 times as much carbon as before (ie 10 times as much CO2 was absorbed and held as before). Before BD, irrigation water wouldn’t sink in, it went stinky on top and held back the grass. Irrigation every 7 days. Under BD – water went straight in, grass grew straight away and irrigation was extended to every 30 days!
[1] 1915-2001, mathematician and physicist, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge, 1948-1973
[2] 1911-1995, British astronomer
[3] ‘The Internal Constitution of the Stars’ in Occasional Notes of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1948
[4] Steiner advised that 500 should be stirred to form a deep vortex, then the stirring direction reversed, creating a vigorous bubbling chaos, followed by another vortex, reversing direction again, and so on for one hour, to prepare the 500 for spraying.
[5] Correspondence between Victorian Department of Agriculture soil scientist Graeme Savage and the Extension Director at the Agriculture Department’s Ellinbank Dairy Research Institute (and Biodynamic dairy farmer), Peter Medling, also correspondence between Victorian Agriculture Department Manager, Organic Farming, Ross Clarke, and Peter Medling.
[6] Lytton-Hitchins JA, Koppi AJ, & McBratney AB, The soil condition of adjacent bio-dynamic and conventionally managed dairy pastures in Victoria, Australia in Soil Use and Management (1994) 10, 79-87
[7] Parker C.B. The Phosphorus balance of a conventional and a biodynamic dairy farm, Undergraduate thesis LaTrobe University, School of Agriculture 1992
[8] Cock S. A comparison of soil and plant root characteristics in irrigated summer pasture from two different farming systems. Undergraduate thesis, LaTrobe University, School of Agriculture 1991
[9] Frescher E., Russell J., A Comparison of Biodynamic and Conventionally Managed Soils – Hyden Western Australia in Biodynamic Growing No. 4, June 2005, 29-33
[10] Raupp J (2001): Wirkungen der biologisch-dynamischen Präparate im Langzeit-Düngungsversuch, LE 5-01, 42-44
[11] Pfiffner L, Mäder P(1997): Effects of Biodynamic, Organic and Conventional Production Systems in Earthworm Populations. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 15: 3-10
[12] Bachinger J: 1996: Der Einfluss unterschiedlicher Düngungsarten (mineralisch, organisch, biologisch-dynamisch) auf die zeitliche Dynamik und räumliche Verteilung von bodenchemischen und mikrobiologischen Parametern der C- und N-Dynamik sowie auf das Pflanzen- und Wurzelwachstum von Winteroggen. Schriften reihe des Forschungsring/IBDF Bd.7
[13] Siegrist S, Schaub D, Pfiffner L und Mäder P (1998): Does organic agriculture reduce soil erodibility? The results of a long-term field study on loess in Switzerland. Agric Ecosys. Environ 69: 253-26
[14] Minarsch EM, Gattinger A, Skinner C, Mäder P (2020): Potenziale des Ökolandbaus in Zeiten des Kimawandels: Geringere Lachgas Emissionen vor allem auf biodynamischen Ackerböden. LE 2-20, 40-45
[15] His results were published in a series of books including The Origin of Inorganic Substances
[16] C=carbon, Ca=calcium, Cl=chlorine, F=fluorine, Fe=iron, H=hydrogen, K=potassium, Li=lithium, Mg=magnesium, Mn=manganese, N=nitrogen, Na=sodium, O=oxygen, P=phosphorus, S=sulphur, Si=silicon,
[17] See Biological Transmutations, Professor C. Louis Kervran, Happiness Press, California, 1980 for more examples.