The film is great. He is due to publish a report on his 2008/2009 tour of European BD farms very soon.

Poetic indeed and not an unfair criticism of some ‘believers’ of BD. I see preps sprayed dogmatically with limited effect and have no direct experience of spiritual beings. However, I am convinced by much of the research and researchers and am open to learning and experiencing more. Where is my research? As with evan, it will materialise when I convert my farm and I hope to be able to report back.

The DOK trials are probably the longest running BD/organic trials in Europe although by far the most striking evidence for the effects of BD preps can be seen in Australia where aerial spraying (and using Flowform stirring) is now quite extensive (see Secrets of the Soil by Tomkins & Bird).

Here a few links to english websites, where I have ventured form the dusty tomes, of practitioners and researchers that I have links for in my bookmarks. Unfortunately not all their research is available free and much of the BD research out there is in German only, but contact them for information. Dr Haushka, Weleda, Laverstoke Park conduct private research. ISOFAR research includes many BD farms (because they are amoung some of the longest running organic farms). Much research is unpublished as it is out there on farms and requires you to go and look for it:

http://www.fibl.org/en/homepage.html
http://www.garudabd.org/
http://www.considera.org/
http://www.isofar.org/publications/scientific-01.html
http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/5/1651
http://www.jdb.se/sbfi/default.asp?lang=GB
http://www.ecotropic-consulting.com/en/profile/index.html

Glen Atkinson and Enzo Nastati, in particular, have done some fascinating work in developing and researching Steiner’s ideas. Much of their work is published and accessible. You can also buy products that ‘do exactly what it says on the tin’ as a result of said research.

And to an extent this misses the point. Most of the research we have today in no way negates what Steiner has suggested, it simply does not directly support it because it was not looking at that. The largest sponsors of soil science research today are hardly likely to publicise research that does not promote one of their products. It is a sad and unprogressive fact that there is so little independent university research done today. I, as you, would love to see more research. However, until then I shall continue to support BD as a spiritual, engaging world of possibilities that promotes sustainability, extensive farming and high animal husbandry techniques, improves soil fertility and places emphasis on the social aspect of farming.

As you also say, he was an imperfect man (but certainly less so than other prominent Austrians of the time) with many contradictions, that to me makes him more plausible rather than less. To shoot the messenger seems pointless. Importantly he states in all his lecture courses that research, research, research is key, don’t take his word. HE was not dogmatic, although many who have taken up his writings have become so, perhaps because much of what he suggests is a lifetime’s research.

I think your critique of Demeter and early agriculture a little clumsy. Demeter has grasped a small marketing hook around 1924. But there is no claim within BD that organics started then. As I see it Steiner tried to crystallize methods, ideas, images, feelings (spiritual connections) that by 1924 were changing so rapidly or disappearing. He was reminding people that humans were moving away from the animal and spiritual worlds, that a new approach was needed, that agriculture was (and still is generally) heading off in the wrong direction. Not that he had invented some novel form of working the land. And, from what I have read, he was well aware of the fragility of our existence on this earth and its possible shortlivedness.

I too have seen research suggesting one thing and another. However, I do know I see little in modern agricultural practises that is environmentally, socially or economically viable on an ongoing basis. A childhood growing up in the midst of industrial agriculture (unaware of the alternative except as romantic ideal in school books) meant I have found BD farms (of which I have seen many) a revelation and an inspiration (as, it must be said, I have many organic and a small number of non-organic). Not all are perfect either, not everyone who farms BD is a good farmer.

Steiner did at least give (in your words dreadful) a philosophy including social, medical, legal and economic ideals within which to build a sustainable community. High ideals then and now but something to grapple with, something to inspire and work into the soul whilst ploughing a furrow or awaiting a lambing. Mainstream organic farming has become the absence of something, it is defined by what is not there. There is much in organics, now and historically, as you list, that overlaps with BD. No surprise there, Steiner, I don’t think, was trying to be original or exclusive. BD gives you more than just preps though, it gives you a whole realm of beings and forces that are there, waiting for you to engage your mind and your will, who will then help you in your tasks. Far fetched? Maybe, but it can work, does work, and it might all be true. It would be great if enough money were put into researching aspects to find out but what would be the point if you couldn’t patent something at the end of it?

I came to BD with an openmind and I have found nothing comparable for creating a beautiful, productive, socially alive, living agricultural organism as a commitment to the practices of biodynamics allows. Practiced well, and that is necessarily open to very wide interpretation, I believe it is one the most sustainable forms of agriculture. Practitioners too need to be flexible but that is not precluded by the ideas laid down by Steiner.

As for the cow horns, if modern scientific, economic and social systems hadn’t allowed us to reach the point where we manifested BSE in cows then the trade in them wouldn’t be necessary. If society hadn’t become so divorced from the soil, the plants and the animals that it lives off, then their use might not seem so bizarre.

The only thing is to seek spiritual progress whilst living in this world.

it requires careful study to understand the man’s teachings, and above all, good will, and CERTAINLY not a predisposition to reject him offhand, and no superficial examination is valid in a professional sense, just as a cursory study for a few weeks even, of a subject such as the calculus doesen’t render you a competent mathematician…

you are admitting ill will, it looks like due to personal bias regarding his core teachings about ’spirit’ “Father and son, together they pluck messages out of thin air.”

steiner has a reason to call it spiritual science: it presents universally validatable principles, just like any science, in this case requiring ‘tools’ that have to be built with human forces of thinking, feeling and willing. unless you have built up these tools, you cant disprove the propositions!

-cheers

I have been asked several times to do a list of Organic producers, but it’s both hard enough to keep up on the Biodynamic Producers list (except, now, for Australia, I have to pretty much discover most of the producers myself), and the rules for “organic wine” differ in the US from, say, France.

Btw, I never heard of biodynamics until a few years ago. And then, as I learned every so often of a producer who happened to be biodynamic, I was so surprised that a high percentage of the wines I liked/wines I have in my cellar were from biodynamic producers. Combined with the sustainability aspect, it seemed a natural for me to create a real master list.