Talk:Biodynamic agriculture

Edit war

@FMRSJR: Organic farming#Sri Lanka was a golden opportunity for biodynamic agriculture to show that it can feed a country. But it flopped, and Anthroposophists could not prevent the failure of Sri Lankan agriculture. They can produce small quantities of luxury vegetables, milk and meat, but they cannot feed the world. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

So ALL of Sri Lanka switched to Biodynamic Agriculture? I think we all would have heard about this. Can you provide some proof to back up your claims? FMRSJR (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The "this cannot be true because I never heard of it" gambit has been tried before on Wikipedia but as far as I know it has never worked. Wikipedia is supposed to contain the knowledge of the whole of humanity, not only yours.

Regarding "proof to back up your claims": Move your mouse cursor onto the underlined text "Organic farming#Sri Lanka" above, then click the left mouse button. You will arrive at a page that has little numbers at the end of sentences. Repeat that moving-and-clicking thing with those numbers, and you will see what the sources are. Find those and read them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A country switching to 100% organic agriculture would have been a golden opportunity for Anthroposophists to show the power of their own brand of agriculture. It was widely advertised, so it was no secret. Any honest agricultural businessman could join such transition. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"It was widely advertised, so it was no secret"

Then you should have no problems at all with finding valid sources on that. 2A02:F6E:A4B3:0:CF1A:DA6B:CC57:8341 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

As explained above: click on the link, then you may click upon the sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Better differentiation between organic and biodynamic

There appears to have been much back and forth about whether biodynamic agriculture is pseudoscience, but I find that the article isn't clear about which aspects are pseudoscience and which are not. There are also indications, whether true or false is unclear from the article, that there are some aspects of biodynamic agriculture that are not part of standard organic agriculture but are also not necessarily pseudoscience. For example, using astrology is obviously pseudoscience. But "development of new local breeds and varieties" is presumably not pseudoscience. Perhaps it would be helpful to describe the three aspects of biodynamic agriculture: methods used in typical organic agriculture, pseudoscience, and things that are specific to biodynamic agriculture that do work but are not part of classic organic agriculture.

Also, I personally found the phrase "sympathetic magic" a little odd because I had to look it up. I think "pseudoscience" is clearer and more precise. This is particularly true because it's not even apparent that there's any symbolic connection between ground quartz and "cosmic forces.". If there is a symbolic connection of some kind, perhaps it should be briefly explained to make this clearer. Since quartz is often mined from the ground, the connection to the cosmos is hard to understand.

Also, under planting calendar, I found the following: "This aspect of biodynamics has been termed "astrological" and "pseudoscientific" in nature.". It might be clearer to just say that this idea is not factually accurate. It would probably also be better to additionally cite a source that speaks to the pseudoscientific elements of biodynamics here. We might simply cite some of the sources used in other parts of the article. Perhaps this redundancy is also a demonstration of the disorganization of the article. JohnRichardScientist (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I probably have to concur here. It's not clear at all what is "pseudoscience" and what works. Whether or not biodynamics was inspired by obsolete concepts is a distinct question from whether or not elements of it can work or not. A Jesuit priest came up with the big bang, but we would never label the big bang as being founded on "pseudoscientific" principles.

In my view, two things are needed in this article:

1. Expansion of Pseudoscientific Elements as a subsection

2. Expansion of Scientific Evidence For (assuming there is any) and Against

I would further expand on sustainability research. Does it work with fewer outside inputs? What are the profit margins? Ecologically, how does it compare to organic farming? Does it work? Is it a narrative more than a science? Realistically, how many farmers are scientists? Does the biodynamic "story" improve farms?

What surprises me is that we see entire scientific conferences convening now about Silicon in Agriculture with no connection to biodynamics: https://issag.org/

As I far as I can understand its jargon, the "horn silica preparation" is a way that growers can produce plant-available soluble silica in the form of silicic acid. The research around this molecule is fascinating. I don't how Biodynamics got to this idea and wish we knew what scientific literature its founder had access to in 1923. Bleusoul (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

That Jesuit priest was playing entirely by the rules of sciences, i.e. he was a bona fide scientist. Lemaître said "As a matter of empirical science, the Universe had a beginning." That's all he said. He did not say "As a matter of empirical science, the Universe was created by the Holy Trinity, and Catholicism is the true religion."

See Silicon dioxide#Water solubility. In other words, that's not the way to make silicic acid. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I was reading documentation on an early 20th century US patent demonstrates that making silicic acid requires no more than water, quartz ground up to a flour like consistency and exposing it to an ammonia source. https://patents.google.com/patent/US1270093A/en this is somewhat similar to the environment of the so-called "horn silica" which is quartz silica ground up into a flour consistency, combined with water, and placed in a horn to age. I know for a fact a byproduct if keratin breakdown is ammonia. This literature or something like it must have been available at the time, from which something like this must have been reverse engineered. A creative way if it works. Does anyone know of any tests that this actually produces measurable amounts of silicic acid? Bleusoul (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The patent uses silicate of sodium or potassium, which are not the same substances as quartz.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silica And even if it would mean silicate, the recipe names explicitly quartz.

And that shows the dangers of WP:SYNTH: combining various WP:RS to mean what none of them means. Well, WP:RS didn't write that horn silica preparation produces silicic acid because it does not happen. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Gratuitous opinions

@Sanisidro1: Articles which explain the consensus of mainstream science, or the views of the debunkers of pseudoscience, aren't "gratuitous opinions". tgeorgescu (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

objectivity

I am simply doing research, but I find this article very biased, by describing biodynamic as relying on "mysticism" and "occult" theories and methods that have never been proven. Whatever Steiner's beliefs may or may not have been there's nothing mystical or occult about farming practices. Soil is, or is not, benefited and the evidence is that it is beneficial. https://horticulture.ces.ncsu.edu/horticulture-specialty-crops/biodynamics/ https://humanecology.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk161/files/inline-files/LKasten.pdf ~2026-15933-89 (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. --Hipal (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

A random undergrad project and something that doesn't support your claim aren't wp:reliable sources—blindlynx 19:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Even assuming it were beneficial, it still is based upon mystical and occult notions. I mean, "more beneficial than agriculture using chemical fertilizers" might or might not be true, but it is an objective fact that it is based upon mystical and occult notions. And even if it were beneficial, it is so upon a small scale, and cannot replace chemical fertilizers while producing the same quantity of food. So, no one thinks it is a serious competition for chemical fertilizers. Just because it produces ecological benefits upon a small scale, it does not mean that it can sustainably replace chemical fertilizers at the scale of all world agriculture. Chemical fertilizers might be unsustainable, but biodynamic agriculture is a hundred times more so. Certainly if you want it to produce food for eight billion people. Biodynamic agriculture seems like an easy solution to ecological problems, but the dire reality is: there are no easy solutions. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)