In a recent interview, permaculture teacher Albert Bates discusses Rudolph Steiner and Biodynamics:
Albert defends Steiner on the basis that Anthroposophy has created a “tribe” which he sees as a good thing. In reality, Anthroposophy is more like a cult, which obscures its intentions, and is doing untold harm in persuading people that just making stuff up is somehow just as good as scientific experimentation. Albert gives an uncritical appraisal of Steiner’s contributions to education, social care and organic farming, claiming that it provides a “holistic world view” lacking in reductionist, mechanistic approaches.
I have blogged on zone5 about biodynamics before, describing what it is, reviewing some of the scientific evidence, and explaining why it can have no place in permaculture.
BD is a system of superstition, based on astrology, sympathetic magic and animal sacrifice, believed to be true entirely on the say so of Rudolph Steiner, who never gardened or farmed himself, and claimed his knowledge came from clairvoyance, not scientific experimentation.
It is surely obvious that the reason people think it “works” is because they are doing all the things right that you need to do anyway to be a successful gardener or farmer. The superstition has nothing to do with it, although it can be argued that BD growers do well because they are more committed and spend more time in the field, and pay more attention to detail.
Anecdotes such as “I smelled the soil on a BD farm, it was wonderful!” are not science. Anecdotally I can tell you that people regularly come to my own garden, smell the soil and say “how do you get such rich black soil, it smells wonderful!”
Now, if I told them it was because I work with cycles of the moon and hang deer bladders from trees which I then add to the compost to bring down etheric energies, maybe that would be enough to convert them to BD.
Permaculture however is based on a scientific understanding of ecology, also physics, chemistry etc; so something as wacky as BD that lies far outside anything verifiable by science can play no role here.
Call a spade a spade: BD- and the occult philosophy of Anthroposophy it is a part of- is a religion. As such it can have no more part in permaculture than any religion- eg. how would permaculture students respond i wonder if I told them in a class that praying to Mecca five times a day will help the plants grow?
At this point folk will probably ask “what’s the harm?” but this is unfortunately easily answered.
BD is not just any old superstitious woo, but part of what has been called the most successful form of ‘alternative’ religion in the [twentieth] century, with hundreds of organisations worldwide including banks (Triodos), schools and colleges, and the social care Camphill Communities.
This is all very impressive- would that permaculture had achieved as much!- and therein lies the real danger, because underneath the superficial similarities with the aims of permaculturalists of alternative education, community care, organic gardening etc. lies a seriously dysfunctional ideology of anti-science and mystic racism.
Anthroposophy had historic connections with the rise of Nazism and propagates notions of Aryan supremacy, as has been extensively researched by Peter Staudenmeier.
The education system of Steiner-Waldorf schools is based on Steiner’s racist beliefs about karmic incarnation:
On the one hand there is the black race, which is the most earthly. When this race goes toward the West, it dies out. Then there is the yellow race, in the middle between the earth and the cosmos. When this race goes toward the East, it turns brown, it attaches itself too much to the cosmos and dies out. The white race is the race of the future, the spiritually creative race.
http://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/steiners-racism
For many years now there has been a growing movement by parents disaffected with the covert aims of Steiner-Waldorf education, which is not to educate but to somehow guide the child’s “soul-journey”. Pity is, neither parents nor children are told exactly what is going on, while the schools themselves continue to pose as a more child-focused, alternative educational choice in order to seek state funding. In fact, they are part of a growing organisation based on a shadowy occult religion, where poor academic standards, cultish beliefs about racial purity, bullying (“it’s his/her karma”) and hard-core astrological mumbo-jumbo all-too-often prevail.
The Camphill Communities, run on Anthroposophical lines, might look like a benevolent form of social care but in fact often are based on the religious belief of Karma, ie that the physically or mentally impaired are so for karmic reasons, such as wrong-doing in a previous life.
What exactly the aims of this religion are is difficult to say, but like all religions Anthroposophy is trying hard to propagate itself, and the environmental movement, organics and now permaculture as well are all easy targets which have become vehicles for distributing a frankly vile set of beliefs.
Compost Teas- evidence that Biodynamics works?
In Albert’s interview, he points to the work of the controversial Elaine Ingham with aerated compost teas (ACTs) as evidence that Steiner was really onto something.
There seems little if any scientific research that actually supports the claims made by Ingham and her company Soil Foodweb, which sells costly tea brewers and other bits of kit.
Most scientists and reputable organizations are dubious at best. See for example this paper by Linda Chalker-Scott
and this discussion on The Garden Rant
Here is another useful discussion:
http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/verm/msg0620302417324.html
The upshot seems to be:
-there is little evidence ACTs work or do what they claim;
-there is a real danger of contamination with E.coli because those organisms may also be increased by the aeration process;
-the claims made seem to be more marketing hype than science, and involve the purchase of expensive equipment and the use of electricity to make the teas;
-even if they do have some benefit, you can achieve the same with simpler, cheaper and well-tried and tested methods, like just using compost itself, good mulches, no-till methods etc..
Moreover, I don’t think it is true to say that the use of ACTs a la Ingham actually replicate anything Steiner was really saying; in fact BD is often credited with being on a par with another pseudoscience, homeopathy, as described on the Village Community Farm page:
The farm is not only organic (no artificial fertilisers or pesticides) but is also Bio-dynamic -a method which aims to improve the health and fertility of the land through preparations similar to homeopathy.
Now, homeopathy is essentially no treatment at all- it is just water. So a homeopathic addition of soil nutrients or micro-organisms would be no use at all unless you believe in Steiner’s woo. Indeed, my own experiences of working alongside BD-trained gardeners in Co. Monaghan some years ago were that they clearly believed they were sprinkling magic water “homeopathically” (I dont think they actually used the word) over the land to “bring down the etheric forces” to protect and energize the plants.
The BD method of making the “preparations” involved hand-stirring a bucket of the tea for an hour or so at a certain phase of the moon- a far cry from what is demanded to make ACT, 24hrs of constant mechanical bubbling in a special tea-maker.
In Permaculture there are the Ethical Principles of “Care of the Earth, Care of the People, and Fair Shares”. Care of the People must include in my view giving the best information we can based on science, and protecting the more vulnerable from pseudoscience, snake-oil salesmen and other hocus-pocus. Permaculturalists everywhere should inform themselves about Anthroposophy and how it operates in the world and reject it as having anything useful to offer.
Further reading
Interesting response. I do not practice Biodynamics personally, but I am a Permaculturist with a Design Certificate. It’s funny that you use the term anecdotal for practices (whether they are biodynamic or something else) that are developed though practice, observation, replication and dissemination. These may not be proven by scientific laboratory double blind studies, but that doesn’t mean they are not true or ‘proven’ practices. It’s a great conversation regarding religion and science, but I do not see it as cut and dry as you do, nor do I see any specific religion involved with permaculture proseletizing or trying to grow their religion or cult in any serious way. Just my observation, as you with yours. I think this is the amazing part of permacultue. Basic ethics and principles and much diversity that grows out from that; just like in the natural world. BTW, I have had tremendous results with Compost Tea being aerated, especially in regards to Japanese Beetle defoliation. Permaculture is about the “experiment,” and the observation over seasons and time. Gotta go apply some right now………… thanks.
“It’s funny that you use the term anecdotal for practices (whether they are biodynamic or something else) that are developed though practice, observation, replication and dissemination. These may not be proven by scientific laboratory double blind studies, but that doesn’t mean they are not true or ‘proven’ practices.”
Well, it does mean that they are not proven; and it means that they are not supported by scientific evidence, which is the only evidence that counts. If the claims of “great success”- which could mean nearly anything- were as valid as some believe, it would of course be easy to test scientifically- there is no reason why it couldnt be proved scientifically if it worked.
An anecdote is not evidence; collections of anecdotes do not constitute science. The whole point of science is to make valid, objective comparisons, and eliminate confirmation bias as far as possible. (Ask yourself this: if someone from a giant multi-national company came up to you with a new herbicide and assured you they new it was safe “from personal experience” would you just accept their word for it?) The point is not to disprove anything, but to collect evidence- so far it does not look at all convincing for compost teas. That is not to discount them entirely- they could have some benefits for specific applications, but this has to be tested scientifically, otherwise you are just relying on hearsay and opinion. However, as Ive tried to point out here, Elaine Ingham is associated with biodynamics which is definitely bollocks, which does rather discredit ACTs somewhat since she is the main proponent (and beneficiary) of selling the idea.
Just a note to say I’m reading with interest your exchange with Albert Bates at http://www.cultivate.ie/elearning/discussion-forum/
You might be being too hard on Elaine Ingham, but I’m not sure. I’m certainly grateful to see there is some examination of her claims out there. I did her two week course and I was worried that there weren’t more scientific studies to back up what she was saying. And I haven’t made compost tea once since, because I can’t see the advantage over compost unless on the very large scale. She’s charismatic, and makes bold promises, and although I was more skeptical at the time than many, I still needed to debrief and filter through some of the inflated claims for a couple of weeks afterwards.
I did engage her on the GMO bacteria story because it seemed pretty unlikely to me that producing alcohol in an oxygenated environment would prove to be a good survival strategy — it’s not very efficient for your waste product to be ethanol, and wouldn’t a bacteria have come up with it themselves after 3.5 billion years of evolution if it works so well… Still if there was 1/1000 or 1/10,000 chance what she was correct I think she was justified in taking an alarmist tone.
All said though, I had a great time doing the course. She’s an engaging teacher, and the enthusiasm for soil biology is contagious and half the course was taught by a soil chemist. It was a foundation in soil science from which I’ve continued to learn a lot and I still love looking at compost under the microscope. It was just that you had to be a bit on guard for the overstatements.
She seemed fairly ambivalent at the time about biodynamics BTW and emphasised instead using microscopy on compost tea brews to analyze the biology rather than faith.
Anyway, thanks for your research.
Thanks for your interesting comment Adam one of the criticisms of ACTs is the danger of breeding and spreading e.coli- was that issue discussed on the course with Ingham?
She mentioned that most E.coli is not harmful, but I can’t remember now if she claimed that compost tea selects for the less harmful varieties.
Elaine stressed that only well made aerobic hot compost be used as the source of compost for the teas — certainly not un-aged manures — and much of the course was how you can make quality compost (she recommends using a thermometer and turning in response to temperature) and how to use microscopy at home to assess the final product, how aerobic it is or was, and the kind and diversity of life within the compost.
Elaine warned of making compost downwind from feedlots or other situations where wind contamination could re-infect piles. And she warned repeatedly about bad hygiene and not sufficiently cleaning compost tea brewers and watching out for ‘slime’. Some models have places inside the pipes or other hard to reach areas where pathogens including I think E.coli can maintain populations and she discourages their use.
So there definitely was a sense that things can go wrong if you don’t do those things well.
You seem to be sceptical, if reactive, over a number of mutually exclusive practices. I’m not personally interested in defending Steiner, though have other experience and opinion than yours, but you appear to be missing the point 1) AACT which is really a misnomer for a highly effective microbial brew teaming with beneficial bacteria, nematodes, fungal mycelia (and no e-coli because no manure should be added and the brew should be strictly aerobic) – is more immediately available and effective then any surface mulch or compost for increasing soil fertility. You can do the science if it makes you feel better, though a multitude of pragmatic gardeners will attest. 2) Traditional Planting by moon phase is an ancient agricultural practice used by farmers for several thousand years. The sun and moon create massive tidal influence on all bodies containing water (including menstrual flow obviously) – one would have to be a little obtuse to deny it’s effect on the plant kingdom, even without direct observation. 3)BD – whatever, but recommend looking deeper than reductionism … either way, we’re all gardening together on this earth as far as I can tell. Not sure what the vehement objection is to such a benign practice. Good luck anyway.
Nik: “The sun and moon create massive tidal influence on all bodies containing water (including menstrual flow obviously) “
For the record, Nik: Menstrual flow is unconnected to the moon and / or the tides. You may have fallen for an urban myth. Though the time spans appear similar, there is no correlation. Humans’ cycle is approx 28 days on average but is inconsistent, while the length of the lunar month is a consistent 29.53 days. Other primates have quite different cycle lengths, and mammals vary radically. And so on and so forth (this urban myth has been better debunked elsewhere).
When discussing the subject of skepticism, science, anecdotal evidence and so on, researching one’s positions before taking the plunge is vital.
Hi, thanks for your response. FYI, as there is variance in the menstrual cycle of women in terms of periodicity and moon phase, the link between moon and fertility has frequently been discounted. However, Wikipedia as quick reference, tells us that
This is clarified in conclusive studies by By Dr.s Winnifred B. Cutler, Wolfgang M. Schleidt, Erika Freidmann , George Preti, and Robert Stine (published in the Journal: HUMAN BIOLOGY December 1987, Volume 59 Number 6) amongst others, the essence of which is: The most fertile reproductive cycle has the same length as the lunar cycle – 29.5 days. It has been clearly shown that women whose cycles approach the 29.5 day span have the highest likelihood of fertile cycles, while women whose cycles become longer or shorter have a proportionately diminishing incidence of fertile cycles. About 28% of reproductively mature women show a 29.5 + 1 day cycle length.
“it can be argued that BD growers do well because they are more committed and spend more time in the field, and pay more attention to detail.”
What a shame you don’t pay more attention to this point, which in my opinion is absolutely critical to understanding the value of the biodynamic approach.
You concede yourself, “This is all very impressive- would that permaculture had achieved as much”. I have spent close to 10 years being very deeply involved in permaculture in the UK, I am reluctantly moving away from it because i have experienced a frustrating tendency of permaculturists to obsess with talking, reading and writing about it all, but spend so little time actually doing it, and consequently permaculture has (in the grand scheme of things) achieved next to nothing here. I certainly feel that the UK permaculture scene struggles to produce any successful working farm (one that is actually producing food!).
The permaculture scene tends to have its collective head buried in theory, be composed overwhelmingly of urban idealists who have very limited experience of actually farming – and the few who actually make it on to a farm tend to endlessly pass very vocal criticism of practices such as ploughing or cultivating annual crops, whilst not demonstrating a realistic viable alternative.
Which makes me wonder: what is the value of a bunch of nice, theoretical, ‘scientific’ ideas which despite looking so fantastic on the pages of a book, are not actually being done? And another bunch of similar ideas, which take an other-worldly approach, ARE achieving aims of sustainable farming?
Perhaps, those other-worldly aspects of the biodynamic approach are the aspects which make it work? They might not be strictly ‘true’, but i am starting to ask myself, who cares if they’re ‘true’, so long as they work? Perhaps such non-scientific aspects actually play subtle yet crucial functions in our motivation to get out there and do it?
DISCLAIMER: I am writing from extensive personal experience of the ‘permaculture scene’ in the UK. I expect (and hope!) that permaculture elsewhere in the world is achieving more than iot seems to here. Also, although i find Steiner’s words on race repulsive, i have certainly never come across such racist views or behaviour in my experience in Camphills and biodynamic farms here – and i would certainly challenged it if i did.