Sustainability and transformations
Posted: 27 Nov 2022, 20:21
Biodynamic farming as a resource for sustainability transformations: Potential and challenges
C.Rigolota & M.Quantin
Abstract
Biodynamic farming is increasingly popular among farmers and consumers, but it is still dismissed as pseudoscience by part of the scientific community. In this article, we first present an overview of biodynamic farming, its current development, foundations and three specific principles: 1) the farm seen as a living organism; 2) Preparations; 3) Cosmic rhythms. Then, we show that pragmatic scientific approaches are compatible with biodynamic farming, and suggest an interesting potential for sustainability. Particularly, anthropological studies demonstrate that beliefs and spirituality in biodynamic farming contribute to a unique relationship of care between farmers and nature. Contrary to a common misconception, biodynamic farmers are shown to be open to scientific knowledge, which they manage to combine creatively with experiential and spiritual knowledge. At farm scale, although still rare, holistic multicriteria assessment studies suggest fairly satisfactory overall sustainability performances. Biodynamic farming has also already proven to be useful in transdisciplinary action-research projects with diverse stakeholders, to produce original “actionable knowledge” for sustainability. Overall, we conclude that biodynamic farming can be a valuable resource for “reenchanting” agriculture, in a comparable and complementary way to indigenous knowledge. However, it must not be seen as a panacea, and its organization and the major role of beliefs especially raise legitimate concerns. More research is needed to better understand the specific advantages and difficulties of biodynamic farming. Three key research perspectives are identified: 1) Farmers' decision-making; 2) Farming system design and evaluation; 3) Transformation pathways.
Introduction
In the context of climate emergency and biodiversity collapse, many authors argue that technological and political adaptations will not be sufficient, and that deep transformations at the personal level of values, beliefs and worldviews are also required (Beddoe et al., 2009; Schill et al., 2019; Vogel and O'Brien, 2022). Particularly, the evolution of human relationships to nature might be essential, from “domination and control” to “stewardship” and more “intimate” or sensible relationships (Folke et al., 2021; Vogel and O'Brien, 2022; Rigolot, 2021). At scale, this would correspond to profound societal and systemic changes, which raises extremely challenging questions about possible transformation pathways (Folke et al., 2021).
In this context, biodynamic farming has gained much attention as an alternative form of agriculture for sustainability transformations (Brock, Geier, Greiner, Olbrich-Majer, and Fritz, 2019). Biodynamic farming is a form of organic agriculture with additional specificities in its standards and the particularity of explicitly postulating the existence of a non-material dimension (Wright, 2021). According to its international organization, Demeter, in 2019 biodynamic farming was practiced across 55 countries worldwide on more than 5500 registered farms, with a steady increase in the last years, especially in the wine sector (Castellini, Mauracher, and Troiano, 2017). The total certified biodynamic area corresponded to 190,000 ha, and there are also many small non-certified biodynamic farms (Pigott, 2021; Roche, Dib, and Watson, 2021). Biodynamic farming is increasingly put to the fore in mainstream media, which has resulted in an intensification of long-term controversies (Siltaoja et al., 2020). Public opinions about biodynamic farming are indeed highly polarized, with differences among countries, whether it is considered as a promising sustainable alternative or, at the extreme, as the emanation of some dangerous religious cult (Siltaoja et al., 2020).
The number of scientific publications about biodynamic farming in peer-reviewed journals has remained limited, although it has been increasing substantially in the two last decades (Brock, Geier, Greiner, Olbrich-Majer, and Fritz, 2019). Evidence of specific effects are mixed in these studies (Turinek, Grobelnik-Mlakar, Bavec, and Bavec, 2009; Chalker-Scott, 2013), and far from convincing part of the scientific community which remains strongly opposed to biodynamic farming, considering it as a pseudoscience (Parisi et al., 2021). In Italy, a recent bill proposal for acknowledging biodynamic farming as a suitable form of agriculture has generated a strong opposition and a petition by academic scientists (Parisi et al., 2021; Ciliberto, Lo Schiavo, and Vitale, 2022). According to the petitioners, echoing earlier arguments from Kirchmann (1994), biodynamic farming cannot be verified through the scientific method, and the new law would amount to shaping government policy by esoteric astrological principles.
In this perspective article, we argue that biodynamic farming is in fact compatible with pragmatic scientific approaches, and that its' a priori disqualification represents a missed opportunity for sustainability transformation. First, we give an overview of biodynamic farming, its foundations and core principles. Then, we show some promising results from pragmatic research studies, and we conclude by identifying some key challenges and research perspectives.
Section snippets
An overview of biodynamic farming
Biodynamic farming was established in 1924 following a series of lectures delivered by philosopher and mystic Rudolf Steiner in Koberwitz (in what is now Poland) (Steiner, 1924). Although the term “biodynamic” itself was coined later, Steiner's lectures are still regarded as its philosophical and practical foundations (Paull, 2011a). Rudolf Steiner is known for having founded a whole system of thought called anthroposophy, the implications of which extend far beyond agriculture, and cover areas
Biodynamic agriculture is compatible with comprehensive research approaches grounded in farmers' practices and transdisciplinarity
When research studies take the worldviews, practices and experiences of biodynamic farmers seriously and respectfully from the outset, a very different picture emerges. For example, from a socio-ethnographic survey with more than 80 qualitative interviews, Foyer, Hermesse, and Hecquet (2020) highlight the particularly important role of nature observation for biodynamic winegrowers (for whom it seems especially essential to “get down from the tractor”, “to walk in the field”, “to take the time
Conclusion, challenges and perspectives
Biodynamic farming can be studied with adequate research approaches, whose common characteristic is pragmatism: From this perspective, the role of the researcher is not to distinguish what is belief and what is knowledge, but rather to “reveal the diversity of human experience of the world” (Foyer, 2018), or to facilitate the production of “actionable knowledge” (Masson et al., 2021). As Foyer (2018) develops, furthermore, it is not necessary to believe in all Steiner's insights and visions to
C.Rigolota & M.Quantin
Abstract
Biodynamic farming is increasingly popular among farmers and consumers, but it is still dismissed as pseudoscience by part of the scientific community. In this article, we first present an overview of biodynamic farming, its current development, foundations and three specific principles: 1) the farm seen as a living organism; 2) Preparations; 3) Cosmic rhythms. Then, we show that pragmatic scientific approaches are compatible with biodynamic farming, and suggest an interesting potential for sustainability. Particularly, anthropological studies demonstrate that beliefs and spirituality in biodynamic farming contribute to a unique relationship of care between farmers and nature. Contrary to a common misconception, biodynamic farmers are shown to be open to scientific knowledge, which they manage to combine creatively with experiential and spiritual knowledge. At farm scale, although still rare, holistic multicriteria assessment studies suggest fairly satisfactory overall sustainability performances. Biodynamic farming has also already proven to be useful in transdisciplinary action-research projects with diverse stakeholders, to produce original “actionable knowledge” for sustainability. Overall, we conclude that biodynamic farming can be a valuable resource for “reenchanting” agriculture, in a comparable and complementary way to indigenous knowledge. However, it must not be seen as a panacea, and its organization and the major role of beliefs especially raise legitimate concerns. More research is needed to better understand the specific advantages and difficulties of biodynamic farming. Three key research perspectives are identified: 1) Farmers' decision-making; 2) Farming system design and evaluation; 3) Transformation pathways.
Introduction
In the context of climate emergency and biodiversity collapse, many authors argue that technological and political adaptations will not be sufficient, and that deep transformations at the personal level of values, beliefs and worldviews are also required (Beddoe et al., 2009; Schill et al., 2019; Vogel and O'Brien, 2022). Particularly, the evolution of human relationships to nature might be essential, from “domination and control” to “stewardship” and more “intimate” or sensible relationships (Folke et al., 2021; Vogel and O'Brien, 2022; Rigolot, 2021). At scale, this would correspond to profound societal and systemic changes, which raises extremely challenging questions about possible transformation pathways (Folke et al., 2021).
In this context, biodynamic farming has gained much attention as an alternative form of agriculture for sustainability transformations (Brock, Geier, Greiner, Olbrich-Majer, and Fritz, 2019). Biodynamic farming is a form of organic agriculture with additional specificities in its standards and the particularity of explicitly postulating the existence of a non-material dimension (Wright, 2021). According to its international organization, Demeter, in 2019 biodynamic farming was practiced across 55 countries worldwide on more than 5500 registered farms, with a steady increase in the last years, especially in the wine sector (Castellini, Mauracher, and Troiano, 2017). The total certified biodynamic area corresponded to 190,000 ha, and there are also many small non-certified biodynamic farms (Pigott, 2021; Roche, Dib, and Watson, 2021). Biodynamic farming is increasingly put to the fore in mainstream media, which has resulted in an intensification of long-term controversies (Siltaoja et al., 2020). Public opinions about biodynamic farming are indeed highly polarized, with differences among countries, whether it is considered as a promising sustainable alternative or, at the extreme, as the emanation of some dangerous religious cult (Siltaoja et al., 2020).
The number of scientific publications about biodynamic farming in peer-reviewed journals has remained limited, although it has been increasing substantially in the two last decades (Brock, Geier, Greiner, Olbrich-Majer, and Fritz, 2019). Evidence of specific effects are mixed in these studies (Turinek, Grobelnik-Mlakar, Bavec, and Bavec, 2009; Chalker-Scott, 2013), and far from convincing part of the scientific community which remains strongly opposed to biodynamic farming, considering it as a pseudoscience (Parisi et al., 2021). In Italy, a recent bill proposal for acknowledging biodynamic farming as a suitable form of agriculture has generated a strong opposition and a petition by academic scientists (Parisi et al., 2021; Ciliberto, Lo Schiavo, and Vitale, 2022). According to the petitioners, echoing earlier arguments from Kirchmann (1994), biodynamic farming cannot be verified through the scientific method, and the new law would amount to shaping government policy by esoteric astrological principles.
In this perspective article, we argue that biodynamic farming is in fact compatible with pragmatic scientific approaches, and that its' a priori disqualification represents a missed opportunity for sustainability transformation. First, we give an overview of biodynamic farming, its foundations and core principles. Then, we show some promising results from pragmatic research studies, and we conclude by identifying some key challenges and research perspectives.
Section snippets
An overview of biodynamic farming
Biodynamic farming was established in 1924 following a series of lectures delivered by philosopher and mystic Rudolf Steiner in Koberwitz (in what is now Poland) (Steiner, 1924). Although the term “biodynamic” itself was coined later, Steiner's lectures are still regarded as its philosophical and practical foundations (Paull, 2011a). Rudolf Steiner is known for having founded a whole system of thought called anthroposophy, the implications of which extend far beyond agriculture, and cover areas
Biodynamic agriculture is compatible with comprehensive research approaches grounded in farmers' practices and transdisciplinarity
When research studies take the worldviews, practices and experiences of biodynamic farmers seriously and respectfully from the outset, a very different picture emerges. For example, from a socio-ethnographic survey with more than 80 qualitative interviews, Foyer, Hermesse, and Hecquet (2020) highlight the particularly important role of nature observation for biodynamic winegrowers (for whom it seems especially essential to “get down from the tractor”, “to walk in the field”, “to take the time
Conclusion, challenges and perspectives
Biodynamic farming can be studied with adequate research approaches, whose common characteristic is pragmatism: From this perspective, the role of the researcher is not to distinguish what is belief and what is knowledge, but rather to “reveal the diversity of human experience of the world” (Foyer, 2018), or to facilitate the production of “actionable knowledge” (Masson et al., 2021). As Foyer (2018) develops, furthermore, it is not necessary to believe in all Steiner's insights and visions to