Ernst Haeckel's biodynamics 1866 and the occult basis of organic farming
ABSTRACT
One hundred and 50 years ago (Sept. 1866), Ernst Haeckel published a monograph entitled General Morphology of Organisms, wherein key terms, such as Protista, Monera, ontogeny, phylogeny, ecology and the ‘biogenetic law’ where introduced. In addition, Haeckel coined the word “biodynamics” as a synonym for “general physiology.” In contrast, Rudolf Steiner's “biodynamic agriculture,” which originated in 1924, and was promoted via Ehrenfried Pfeiffer's book of 1938 with the same title, is an occult pseudoscience still popular today. The misuse of Haeckel's term to legitimize disproven homeopathic principles and esoteric rules within the context of applied plant research is unacceptable.
KEYWORDS: Agriculture, biodynamic farming, Ernst Haeckel, Julius Sachs, organic movement
Introduction
One year ago, the achievements of the botanist Julius Sachs (1832-1897), founder of modern plant physiology, were summarized in this journal.1 In this Addendum, I will outline the content and significance of a 150-year-old book authored by Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) (Fig. 1), with reference to Sachs' agenda of basic and applied plant research.2
In a recent Review Article on organic farming in the 21st. century, Reganold and Wachter3 argue that “Rudolf Steiner's 1924 course on biodynamic agriculture sparked the evolution of organic agriculture in Europe.” The “biodynamic” (or organic) philosophy is characterized by the authors as an attempt to improve the stability and richness of the soil by enhancing its content of organic matter and avoiding synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. However, neither the original meaning of this key term, nor the ideological basis of alternative farming systems, which are rooted in standards set by a system called “biodynamic agriculture,” is mentioned by the authors. Here, I document that the word “biodynamics” originated with Haeckel's book of 1866,4 and that its original meaning was perverted by the founders of the “organic movement” in agriculture.
Haeckel and the biodynamic life sciences
In September 1866, a seminal monograph authored by the German zoologist and evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel was published under the title Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (or the General Morphology of Organisms).4 In this 2-Volume-monograph (Fig. 2A), Haeckel not only introduced novel terms and concepts, such as Protista, Monera, ontogeny, phylogeny, ecology and the ‘biogenetic law’, but also coined the word “Biodynamik” (biodynamics) as a synonym for ‘general physiology’. Haeckel (1866)4 separated the natural sciences into the major branches I (Abiology or anorganology) and II (Biology or life sciences). In Haeckel's scheme, biology (zoology, protistology and botany) consisted of biostatics (morphology) and biodynamics (physiology) (Fig. 2B). In addition, Haeckel (1866)4 published the first “oak tree of life,” wherein the Kingdoms Monera (microorganisms, protists), Animalia (animals), and Plantae (plants) were depicted in an evolutionary context.
However, Haeckel's book, which was published when the author was just 32 years old, has largely been ignored by the scientific community. As a result, the term “biodynamics” was not adopted by physiologists like Julius Sachs or Wilhelm Pfeffer (1845-1920),1,2 and is even today not widely known. Unfortunately, Haeckel's “bio-word” is well and alive in another context that is unrelated to its original, scientific meaning.
Steiner's occult bio-philosophy
The Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner (1861 – 1925) was the leader of an esoteric circle that persists to the present day, notably in Germany and Switzerland. He was also the founder of the oldest, most radical alternative (rule-based) organic agricultural system. Steiner was invited in 1923 by his followers to deliver lectures on how to improve the quality and yield of crops. One year later, his statements (with discussion) were written down and published after Steiner's death under the title Geisteswissenschaftliche Grundlagen zum Gedeihen der Landwirtschaft (or the Spiritual Basis for the Improvement of Agriculture).5
This collection of essays contains rules that his followers obey to in a dogmatic way up to the present. Among other oddities, Steiner5 claimed that, in the long-term, soluble mineral fertilizers cause “a loss in the nutritional value of the crops.” As a result, synthetic mineral salts are prohibited. He also claimed that “cosmic vital forces” have a large impact on physiological processes in plants and animals. For reasons not explained, he recommended to use isolated cow horns as containers to “vitalize” organic and inorganic substances (manure, silica). First, the filled horns must be burrowed below the soil surface.6 A half year later, the “vitalized” content of the recovered cow horn has to be “brought into contact with water.” According to the “biodynamic principle,” the substances have to be “dynamized,” in analogy to the dilution/shaking process of homeopathic practitioners that were invented by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843).7
As recommended by Steiner and his followers, a few grams of the substance (manure or silica) has to be placed into 100 liters of water and stirred by hand for one hour. This “dynamized solution” (in the case of silica, SiO2, without solute) is sprayed on the farm land at a very low rate in order to enhance plant growth and improve the quality of the crops. No statistically significant positive effects have been found even by the followers of this occult practice. However, according to Steiner,5 reproducible results are not necessary; a tendency is enough, because “the truth may reveal itself.”
In 1938, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer (1899-1961), a follower of Steiner's system, popularized these irrational recipes and coined the key term “biological dynamic (or biodynamic) agriculture” (Pfeiffer 1938).8 It is not known whether Pfeiffer, a chemist by profession, was aware of Haeckel's Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (Fig. 2A, B). At any rate, the misuse of a scientific term (Biodynamik, i.e., physiology in its broadest sense) to denote an un-scientific agricultural practice should have been avoided.
Occult biodynamic farming in a leading journal
Are the dogmatic views of Steiner5,6,8 still relevant in present-day bio-organic research? One example may be sufficient to document that they are still alive and well. In a highly cited Science paper by Maeder et al. (2002),9 the rules of the founding fathers of the organic movement have been followed in detail (see ref. 9, Supporting Online Material/special treatments, Table S 1). Steiner's classical “biodynamic preparations P 500 and P 501” (cow-manure and silica, respectively, fermented in a horn) were applied at the “homeopathic” concentrations recommended. However, Maeder et al. (2002)9 did not reveal how Steiner's magic substance SiO2 was “fermented” in the cow horns used in their experiments. They also did not report how many farmers and technicians were employed in order to perform the occult trials described in their paper. According to Steiner, unemployed farmers should be recruited who “will perform this stirring job with joy.” This may be a good idea to lower the high unemployment rate in many European countries. However, it is not the basis for scientific research and an efficient, modern high-yield crop-production system that can feed the growing world population in the years to come. In my opinion, Reganold and Wachter3 should have informed their readers about the pseudoscientific basis of organic agriculture, as well as the original meaning of Ernst Haeckel's word “biodynamic,” that was coined 150 years ago.
Conclusions
In this contribution I have documented that Haeckel's term “Biodynamik” has been ignored by physiologists such as Julius Sachs and Wilhelm Pfeffer, who championed plant physiology and its application in agriculture.1,2 However, the founders of the “organic movement,” Rudolf Steiner and his popularizer, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, used exactly this word in the sense of “dynamization of water,” analogous to homeopathic principles that have been refuted by numerous scientific studies.7 Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that Steiner was aware of the dangers that may originate from the uncontrolled use of cheap Haber-Bosch synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers.10 Despite this insight, the philosopher, who was not a scientist, mixed up this rational knowledge with his occult anthroposophic ideology.11
There is no question that the aims of organic farming, i.e. avoidance of pollution of air and water by fertilizers and pesticides, maintenance of soil fertility and biodiversity, as well as the production of better-tasting food of superior quality, deserve support by the scientific community. However, as pointed out by Anthony Trewavas12 in an excellent Commentary, in organic farming there is sometimes very little science. Therefore, in articles on this topic, the authors3 should mention the esoteric roots of the alternative agro-movement – unfortunately, in popular contexts, “organic” and “biodynamic” are used interchangeably.
In my opinion, the future of farming is based on the natural sciences, and not on dogmatic rules and borrowed terms, such as the “biodynamic (i.e., homeopathic) principle” that can be traced back to Steiner5 and Hahnemann.7 Ernst Haeckel (Fig. 1) introduced a useful, novel terminology into the emerging biological sciences (Fig. 2A, B) that was later misused to distribute occult pseudoscientific principles under the cover of an “alternative” branch of the agricultural sciences.
References
1. Kutschera U. Basic versus applied research: Julius Sachs (1832-1897) and the experimental physiology of plants. Plant Signal Behav 2015; 10/9: e1062958. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Kutschera U. Comment: 150 years of an integrative plant physiology. Nature Plants 2015; 1:15131; PMID:27250684; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nplants.2015.131 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Reganold JP, Wachter JM. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants 2016; 2:15221; PMID:27249193; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nplants.2015.221 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Haeckel E. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen Vol. I–II Reimer G., Berlin, 1866 [Google Scholar]
5. Steiner R. Geisteswissenschaftliche Grundlagen zum Gedeihen der Landwirtschaft R. Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach, 1929. (8. Ed. 1999) [Google Scholar]
6. Koepf HH, Schaumann W, Haccius M. Biologisch-Dynamische Landwirtschaft. 4 Ed. Ulmer E., Stuttgart, 1996 [Google Scholar]
7. Kutschera U. The difference between Hahnemann and Darwin. Skeptical Inquirer 2008; 32:26-27 [Google Scholar]
8. Pfeiffer E. Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening: Soil Fertility Renewal and Preservation. Anthroposophic Press, New York, 1938 [Google Scholar]
9. Maeder P, Fliessbach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 2002; 296:1694-697; PMID:12040197; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1126/science.1071148 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Galloway JN, Leach AM, Bleeker A, Erisman JW. A chronology of human understanding of the nitrogen cycle. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2013; 368:20130120; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1098/rstb.2013.0120 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Paull J. Biodynamic agriculture: the journey from Koberwitz to the world, 1924-1938. J Organic Systems 2011; 6:27-41 [Google Scholar]
12. Trewavas A. Urban myths of organic farming. Nature 2001; 410:409-410; PMID:11260685; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/35068639 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]