>
> jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov writes: [re biodynamics and Steiner]
> >
> > many of his statements are not provable simply because
> scientifically
> > clear hypotheses cannot be made as his descriptions were unclear and
>
> > not stringent. Those predictions that can be tested scientifically
> have
> > been found to be incorrect.
> What a pity the author of this article did not do some up-to-date
> research. Here in New Zealand many farmers are farming
> biodynamically. [etc etc]
I have no difficulty accepting that biodynamic farms work well, but I
suspect that the success stems from the attitudes of the farmers
rather than from the peculiar biodynamic prescriptions they use. I
greatly admire the way that anthroposophists think, at least the ones
I know. Their blend of caring and pragmatism is very effective.
The real question is not whether biodynamic farms work, but whether
they work better than other organic systems. Is there any evidence
about this? By evidence, I mean a controlled trial.
If biodynamic farms are really better than standard organic ones, it
could be important to sort out whether it is the Cows Horns or the
Caring that is important. Otherwise there is a risk of
discreditation due to other people following the form rather than
the substance of the method.
************************
Rod McDonald
Engineer/scientist
Horticulture and Food Research Institute,
Hamilton, New Zealand
Phone +64-7-8385675 work, +64-7-8552019 home, Fax +64-7-8385655
************************