A review of BD - and comments from BD chiefs
Posted: 27 Oct 2022, 13:19
Concepts, Principles, and Application of Biodynamic Farming: a Review
Seid Hussen Muhie1
Abstract
Biodynamic farming is an old but new alternative agriculture for sustainable development.
However, it is not well understood and practiced. It is similar to organic farming
but incorporates metaphysical ideas in treating soil and crop growth. The objective of
this paper is to review and give brief highlights about the concepts, principles, and
applications of biodynamic farming. To review about biodynamic farming, different
literatures, research works, and practical works have been reviewed. Different search
engines were used in search of documents using keywords like biodynamic agriculture,
organic farming, sustainable development, ecology, soil quality, and health. Biodynamic
farming is regarded as “above and beyond organic.” It was the first systematic
method of organic farming as an alternative to the rise of high-input industrial agriculture.
Biodynamic farming is the concern and practice of more than 5500 farmers globally,
and the farming method has a very good preference among consumers of organic
product. The number of countries with Demeter-International certified biodynamic
activity increased from 42 to 55 with Germany having the largest (1552) biodynamic
farms. Some of the principles of biodynamic farming are restoring the soil through the
incorporation of organic matter; treating soil as a living system; creating a system that
brings all factors that maintain life into balance; encouraging the use and significance
of green manure, crop rotation, and cover crops; and treating manure and compost in
a biodynamic way. Biodynamic farming is more than just a set of techniques; it is also
a conceptual philosophy that applies to the farm’s general structure. The foundation
of biodynamics is the construction of a farm that functions holistically as an unbroken
organism. Scientifically proofed, biodynamic farming has its own contribution to agriculture
sustainability via effect on soil quality and improvement of quantity and nutritional
quality of a produce and pest management. Hence, biodynamics is regarded as a
promising road to tomorrow’s integrated and sustainable agriculture.
Keywords Biodynamic farming · Principles of biodynamics · Farm management · Soil
quality · Sustainable agriculture
____________
This article provoked the following comment on the article (by C. Brock, L. Bautze, P.Derkzen, J.-M. Florin, J. Fritz, U. Geier, M. Oltmanns, A. Spengler Neff, M. Turinek and J. Wright):
This article is a very poor review of biodynamic agriculture and includes a polemic defamation of anthroposophy. Against this background, the researchers denoted above wrote a letter to the journal editors with these statements:
We would like to comment on the article “Concepts, Principles, and Application of Biodynamic Farming: a Review” by Seid Hussen Muhie, Circ.Econ.Sust. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00184-8. Even though we in principle appreciate the intention of the author to present and discuss biodynamic agriculture, we see some severe weaknesses in the article that must be addressed:
Least important, the article adds no new aspects or insights to existing reviews of biodynamic food and farming (e.g. Brock et al. 2019, Turinek et al. 2009, Leiber et al. 2006). In fact, the author collects aspects and sources apparently arbitrarily and provides no sufficient discussion. References are few and do not cover the addressed topics comprehensively, which can be expected from a review paper.
Further, the author provides very superficial information on different aspects of biodynamic farming without a thread and without describing the system in an intelligible way. He uses regional studies to support global statements and makes strong statements without any support at all. The paragraph on ‘Modern biodynamic agriculture’ is a crude mixture of basic organic farming principles and the author’s own interpretation of biodynamic management. It is a pitty that he supports his statements with newspaper articles, but does not refer to any basic literature on biodynamic management, e.g. the guidelines of the Biodynamic Federation-Demeter International, or to statements of biodynamic associations worldwide.
However, our most important concern is about the paragraph on the anthroposophical background of biodynamic agriculture, which is pure polemic and discriminatory and the author does not support his statements with adequate references. To our opinion, this is a severe violation of ethical standards in scientific publishing. Peter Staudenmaier raises important points in his work, but it must be noted that the cited text (Staudenmaier 2000) has not been published in a scientific journal and needs discussion. By no way may such a text be used to support very drastic statements in a scientific review paper! Other references in the text again are not scientific publications (Hansson n.d., Lowinsky 2012), or do not address biodynamic management (Mansouri and Akbarzadeh 2009). Even though we strongly appreciate a critical discussion of anthroposophy and biodynamic theory, we are appalled that such a defamatory text without proper support can appear in a scientific journal.
Seid Hussen Muhie1
Abstract
Biodynamic farming is an old but new alternative agriculture for sustainable development.
However, it is not well understood and practiced. It is similar to organic farming
but incorporates metaphysical ideas in treating soil and crop growth. The objective of
this paper is to review and give brief highlights about the concepts, principles, and
applications of biodynamic farming. To review about biodynamic farming, different
literatures, research works, and practical works have been reviewed. Different search
engines were used in search of documents using keywords like biodynamic agriculture,
organic farming, sustainable development, ecology, soil quality, and health. Biodynamic
farming is regarded as “above and beyond organic.” It was the first systematic
method of organic farming as an alternative to the rise of high-input industrial agriculture.
Biodynamic farming is the concern and practice of more than 5500 farmers globally,
and the farming method has a very good preference among consumers of organic
product. The number of countries with Demeter-International certified biodynamic
activity increased from 42 to 55 with Germany having the largest (1552) biodynamic
farms. Some of the principles of biodynamic farming are restoring the soil through the
incorporation of organic matter; treating soil as a living system; creating a system that
brings all factors that maintain life into balance; encouraging the use and significance
of green manure, crop rotation, and cover crops; and treating manure and compost in
a biodynamic way. Biodynamic farming is more than just a set of techniques; it is also
a conceptual philosophy that applies to the farm’s general structure. The foundation
of biodynamics is the construction of a farm that functions holistically as an unbroken
organism. Scientifically proofed, biodynamic farming has its own contribution to agriculture
sustainability via effect on soil quality and improvement of quantity and nutritional
quality of a produce and pest management. Hence, biodynamics is regarded as a
promising road to tomorrow’s integrated and sustainable agriculture.
Keywords Biodynamic farming · Principles of biodynamics · Farm management · Soil
quality · Sustainable agriculture
____________
This article provoked the following comment on the article (by C. Brock, L. Bautze, P.Derkzen, J.-M. Florin, J. Fritz, U. Geier, M. Oltmanns, A. Spengler Neff, M. Turinek and J. Wright):
This article is a very poor review of biodynamic agriculture and includes a polemic defamation of anthroposophy. Against this background, the researchers denoted above wrote a letter to the journal editors with these statements:
We would like to comment on the article “Concepts, Principles, and Application of Biodynamic Farming: a Review” by Seid Hussen Muhie, Circ.Econ.Sust. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00184-8. Even though we in principle appreciate the intention of the author to present and discuss biodynamic agriculture, we see some severe weaknesses in the article that must be addressed:
Least important, the article adds no new aspects or insights to existing reviews of biodynamic food and farming (e.g. Brock et al. 2019, Turinek et al. 2009, Leiber et al. 2006). In fact, the author collects aspects and sources apparently arbitrarily and provides no sufficient discussion. References are few and do not cover the addressed topics comprehensively, which can be expected from a review paper.
Further, the author provides very superficial information on different aspects of biodynamic farming without a thread and without describing the system in an intelligible way. He uses regional studies to support global statements and makes strong statements without any support at all. The paragraph on ‘Modern biodynamic agriculture’ is a crude mixture of basic organic farming principles and the author’s own interpretation of biodynamic management. It is a pitty that he supports his statements with newspaper articles, but does not refer to any basic literature on biodynamic management, e.g. the guidelines of the Biodynamic Federation-Demeter International, or to statements of biodynamic associations worldwide.
However, our most important concern is about the paragraph on the anthroposophical background of biodynamic agriculture, which is pure polemic and discriminatory and the author does not support his statements with adequate references. To our opinion, this is a severe violation of ethical standards in scientific publishing. Peter Staudenmaier raises important points in his work, but it must be noted that the cited text (Staudenmaier 2000) has not been published in a scientific journal and needs discussion. By no way may such a text be used to support very drastic statements in a scientific review paper! Other references in the text again are not scientific publications (Hansson n.d., Lowinsky 2012), or do not address biodynamic management (Mansouri and Akbarzadeh 2009). Even though we strongly appreciate a critical discussion of anthroposophy and biodynamic theory, we are appalled that such a defamatory text without proper support can appear in a scientific journal.