In my last post, I looked at some of the views of Rudolf Steiner, the father of Biodynamics, outside of the field of agriculture.  Now, I’ll turn to his agricultural teachings.

According to Wikipedia:

The development of biodynamic agriculture began in 1924 with a series of eight lectures on agriculture given by Rudolf Steiner at Schloss Koberwitz in what was then Silesia, Germany, (now in Poland east of Wrocław). The course was held in response to a request by farmers who noticed degraded soil conditions and a deterioration in the health and quality of crops and livestock resulting from the use of chemical fertilizers.

Biodynamics has a number of facets. Perhaps the most notorious is the use of various preparations to, at least in theory, enhance soil quality.  Many of you have probably heard of burying a cow’s horn filled with cow manure.  I must admit, this thought would never have occurred to me, and I can’t imagine why he thought the cow horn would accomplish much.  But he did.  Some of his other preparations, though probably of dubious merit, bear some resemblance to compost teas, which are beneficial in many circumstances.

I will give Steiner this much credit-he did feel that his ideas should be tested in the field.  His current followers don’t seem to feel bound by his advice in this regard, however.

Another aspect of Biodynamics that I personally find particularly kooky is the belief that crops should be planted and harvested in accordance with the phases of the moon.  I can’t imagine waiting to harvest a grape crop that’s reached its peak until the moon was in a particular phase (and the crop now, by definition, overripe).

But some of his other beliefs weren’t so crazy.  He believed that pest and disease control should be based upon trying to have a balanced ecosystem (that’s my term, but it is his idea).  Some of his prescriptions for obtaining that balance seem pretty off base, but the basic idea is largely accepted in modern agriculture.  I know that I, and many if not most other farmers these days, seek to have a complex biosystem in their farms.  Where there is a complex and active ecology, it becomes more difficult for any one pest or disease to become so dominant as to pose a problem.  Not impossible mind you, but more difficult.

While doing comparisons of one farming technique versus another are fraught with problems, I think it’s fair to say that Biodynamics, to the extent empiricists have tried to test it, hasn’t fared well, at least against other farming systems (e.g., organic) that attempt to treat the farm as a complex organism, as opposed to something to  be controlled through chemical means.  I personally believe a system rooted in a more natural system of cultivation (i.e., little or no tillage, cover crops, etc.), but supplemented where appropriate with judicious use of chemicals, would outperform a Biodynamically farmed vineyard.  In fairness, if in general thrust if not in detail, the organic movement descends in some part from Steiner’s impetus.

I know I would certainly advise obtaining nitrogen in the soil through the planting of legumes rather than use of chemical fertilizers, other things being equal.  At the same time, while they shouldn’t be overly relied on, chemical fertilizers have their place, albeit a much smaller place than in a farm where they are the first and only means of fertilization.  I think it’s a good rule of thumb to try the more natural course first, and resort to chemicals when the more natural means aren’t getting the job done.  It’s a pleasant thought that the more natural way is always the better way, but in practice it doesn’t always work out that way.

Next post, my personal conclusions about Biodynamics.

I don’t believe in hiding the ball-I’m not and never have been a fan of Biodynamics.  It’s always struck me as the worst the wine world has to offer: myth and passion where deliberation and empirical science are what are called for.

I’d also had little use for Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Biodynamics.  I must admit that, having looked in the matter a little more thoroughly in researching this post, I’ve come to qualify my feelings towards him a bit.

So who was Rudolf Steiner?  Born in Germany in 1861, Biodynamics was a small part of his works.  It would be easy enough to dismiss him as some kind of nut, which, truth be told, he certainly was.

You could add racist as well, as he seemed to believe that Germans were the crème de la crème of humankind.  A few select quotes:

“Jewry as such has outlived itself for a long time. It does not have the right to exist in the modern life of nations. That it has survived, nevertheless, is a mistake by world history, of which the consequences were bound to come.” [Toos Jeurissen, trans de Tollenaere]

“We are within the great Root Race of humanity, which has peopled the earth, since the land on which we now live rose up out of the inundations of the ocean. Ever since the Atlantean Race began slowly to disappear, the great Aryan Race has been the dominant one on earth.

His spiritual beliefs were complex, but, again, on the fringe.  Here’s one quote:

Thus preparation for the Messiah of the Fourth Subrace is made in concealment, removed from Judaism, in Galilee. Judaism had never had a strong footing in Galilee, had never really penetrated there.

The racial character of the Galileans was very mixed. (See note 3.) He (the Messiah) must have nothing of the Galilean element in him. He must come from a hidden source. Hence the Apocryphal writings allege that he was a “mothers child.” (See note 4.) This was Jesus of Nazareth, the Galilean. He was a Chela of the third degree of Initiation. It was now a matter of making him into the highest Initiate for all that was to be fulfilled on the physical plane. This was achieved through the whole personality being taken possession of by another Being, the Christ, who represents the whole Fifth Root Race. The whole Fifth Root Race emerged in the Fourth Subrace. This is represented symbolically by the descent of the Dove. Only the most sublime imagery could be used to express the truths which apply here.”

Many more thoughts of this ilk can be found at http://rsquotes.blogspot.com/.  They, in total, give the impression that he was a pretty unusual character.

That all said, there is a lot to like in Steiner.  He was relatively benign in his views, even those that are most objectionable.  If he his views were racist (which they were), they weren’t particularly malevolent.  He seems to have had a brotherly love for all of mankind, his inferior as well as his superior races.  He detested Hitler (the feeling was mutual), and declared he could never live in a Germany ruled by him (he died before he had a chance to make good on his promise).

Of course, we’re less concerned here with Steiner’s views on these subjects than with his views on agriculture.  But I think it’s important t to realize that Steiner’s main source for his views was Steiner.  And I think a pretty good case can be made that someone whose views were so eccentric in other regards should be treated with some skepticism when he starts to pontificate on agricultural issues as well.

I’ll turn to those views on agriculture in my next post.