Talk:Biodynamic agriculture/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

calendar

just for the record, i know that the calendar is about astrology (the moon passing through different sign of the zodiac) , you know it, i know that you know it, but the source says astronomical, so let's stick to the source. it is just one word, so i will not insist...trueblood (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the calendar uses the movement of the sun, moon and planets in the heavens but the difference, as I understand it from the sources, is that it uses the actual astronomical constellations rather than the traditional zodiacal signs. That's the difference that is cited. For example, the constellation Leo is larger (as I recall) than 30 degrees and certain other constellations are less than 30 degrees. So the biodynamic calendar doesn't use the traditional astrological July 24 - August 22 (or whatever) for Leo but rather the calendar dates when the sun is actually in the constellation of Leo, which is something like August 10 - September 14. That's why they make this distinction in terminology. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

well in my book talking about the movements of the sun in the heavens or any talk about constellations qualifies as astronomy. trueblood (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Trueblood, I think your original post was sufficient, given the last sentence... But you're arguing noun vs adjective. It's the same word, just serving a different function in a sentence. (cut the last three letters, and there's your preferred word - albeit ending in "i," which we commonly use in word conjugation in place of a final "y.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.155.193 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Astronomical vs astrological.

The lead paragraph states "the use of an astronomical sowing and planting calendar." sourced to "The Biodynamic Agricultural Association (n.d.)"An astronomical calendar is used to determine auspicious, planting, cultivating and harvesting times" (as opposed to an astrological calendar)."

The "Biodynamic method of farming" section has "The approach also attempts to consider celestial (i.e., astrological) influences on soil and plant development and to revitalize the farm, its products, and its inhabitants." which is sourced to "Diver, Steve (1999)" which mentions "astrological" 3 times and "astronomical" once.

These 2 things are as different as a roughly spherical Earth and a flat Earth. Is it that the difference between the scientific and the supernatural isn't recognised in biodynamics, or are there 2 different ways biodynamics is practised? -- Jeandré, 2009-02-14t06:27z

The two authors are interpreting biodynamics' use of astronomical data to determine agricultural actions differently.

• One calls this an astronomical calendar. This is certainly true; biodynamics uses actual astronomical data (the actual positions of the moon, planets and constellations) to determine planting times, etc. This differs, for example, from conventional Western astrology's calendar, which is based upon the tropical zodiac, long since out of phase with the physical zodiac.
• The second source implicitly considers any use consideration of astronomical influences on soil and plant development "astrological".

The question is: Can there be a lunar planting calendar that is astronomical, not astrological? If so, the former word ("astronomical") should be preferred here. If not, the latter ("astrological"). If it's a subject of contention - which it appears to be - the contention should either be explained or the usage qualified. hgilbert (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to resolve and clarify the distinction; is this adequate? hgilbert (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To me Hgilberts' explanation appears sufficient, should the banner be removed? Lkleinjans (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I believe that the use of "astronomical" in the first paragraph is still misleading. If the calender were purely based on the phase of the moon this may have some basis, but the use of constellations in determining what activities are allowable and the rational behind them clearly are astrological as described in the first sentence of Astrology. See for example http://www.biodynamics.in/Rhythm.htm near the bottom of the page, or http://www.astrologie-info.com/mocal.cgi?language=eng&sidtrop=sid or http://goviya.com/biodynamic-farming.htm. A13ean (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Maria Thun is considered the expert on the use of moon and planetary influences in biodynamics and says this about astronomy versus astrology: "The English rather than the Latin names of the zodiac constellations are given to distinguish them from the signs used in astrology, which are based on somewhat different calculations due to the 'precession of the equinoxes'. The planetary influences are, in this sense, astronomical rather than astrological."

I would add that there are even larger differences: the constellations are taken to be as large as they appear in the sky rather than the fixed 30 degrees per astrological sign. The calendar dates in the biodynamic calendar, when the sun is actually in the constellation of the Lion, for example this year, are August 11, 4 PM - September 17, noon -- more than 30 days duration and shifted quite a bit from the traditional astrological sign for Leo. The actual positions of the moon, sun, etc. are the astronomical positions that you will find in the ephemeris rather than an astrological chart.

The 3 sites you mention are hardly definitive sources compared with Thun herself. Indeed, the third one talks about astronomy rather than astrology. --EPadmirateur (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Thun book is a more definitive resource. It also reinforces the fact that no matter how the practitioners of biodynamic agriculture describe their calender, it is not based on astronomy beyond the fact that essentially every calender has to do with the rotation of the earth and phases of the moon. See for example the section in Thun about Good Friday and Easter Saturday. There is no astronomical basis for the location of these days beyond the week that they occur in. A13ean (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about "planetary influences", it's astrology. Astronomy does not deal with "planetary influences." Indian astrologers use the sidereal zodiac but are still astrologers, not astronomers. Astronomers may agree with sidereal astrologists about the apparent position of the planets against a background of stars at a particular time of year, but that doesn't make sidereal astrology astronomy. Biodynamics uses sidereal astrology as opposed to the better known tropical astrology, but it's still astrology.70.245.239.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

A reasonable point, though the tides are caused by the influence of the moon, and Neptune was discovered through its "planetary influences" on Uranus. The real question is the nature of the influences - gravitational ones are clearly classifiable as astronomical rather than astrological. Does biodynamics address the nature of the influences it describes? Certainly the fact that it uses the true astronomical positions, rather than the arbitrary ones of the tropical zodiac, opens the possibility of a meaningful influence here.

By the way, and not to be considered as any sort of argument for the contents of this section of the article: it is interesting to consider that Neptune can affect Uranus' orbit significantly though, at their very nearest, they are more than 10AU apart; in 1846, the time of Neptune's discovery based upon this perturbation, they were considerably further apart. A quick calculation using the relative masses and distances of the planets tells me that the gravitational acceleration effects of Moon, Mars and Venus on a plant on Earth at any moment are stronger than that of Neptune on Uranus even when the latter planets are at conjunction. These considerations would be irrelevant to any use of stellar constellations, of course. hgilbert (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you try to do those calculations again. I have also done the same calculation you described and found that the influence of Uranus and Neptune on each other is 10^22 times more powerful than that of the moon on a 100kg plant on Earth. I suspect you input the mass of Earth instead of the mass of the plant. To help you understand why your calculation is so wrong, consider this: both bodies gravitational influence on each other is the same in both directions. If the Moon had a greater influence on a single plant than Neptune has on Uranus, then every plant with a similar mass would have a similar effect on the Moon. There would be billions of plants all pulling the Moon in towards the Earth and it wouldn't take long for it to destroy the Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perlscrypt (talk • contribs) 10:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You have probably calculated the force acting between the objects. To put this in perspective: the force acting between the Earth and myself is the same for the Earth and myself, but the influence on the Earth on me is far greater than my influence on the Earth. For this reason, I have used acceleration not force; the Earth accelerates me far more than I accelerate the Earth. In this only the other mass, not the mass of the accelerated object, is relevant, and my above calculations are correct. hgilbert (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your calculations may be correct according to the logic you have presented but those calculations are also meaningless from any practical perspective. You are deliberately ignoring one third of the law of gravitation to try to prove a point concerning gravity. Even worse you initially tried to hoodwink others by claiming that your calculations were proven using scientific principles. Your methods indicate that either you don't understand the subject you are discussing very well or else you are hoping that casual readers will buy the message you are pushing without doing much research into it themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perlscrypt (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Acceleration due to gravity is meaningless from any practical perspective? hgilbert (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I am arguing against your method of twisting facts and using them to support your make-believe untruths. If the mass of Neptune/Uranus doesn't factor in your calculations you should have specifically said that in your original comment. The same applies to the plant you mentioned in your original comment, it could be a mountain, an ocean, a continent or the whole planet, since you are disregarding it's mass. You specifically mentioned plant which is likely to create a false idea in the readers mind. From an inertial frame of reference the plant will experience zero acceleration due to the pull of the moon since the ground underneath it and the air above it experience the exact same forces. This is why it is meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perlscrypt (talk • contribs) 13:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting and highly controversial researcher who showed that the dynamic gravitational effect is independent of the mass of the (falling) object. Please address further comments to him directly. hgilbert (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of astrological

Someone has removed the mention that the calendar has been termed astrological. The source may not have been the best, but is this still something that should be preserved? Or a better source for it found? hgilbert (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, just saw this. I reverted the edit -- I don't really agree with the general use of astronomical throughout, but if we do use it, I think we definitely need some mention of the fact that this is not in the usual sense of the word, as in what astronomers do. A13ean (talk)

I just noticed that the section had been renamed to "Astrological" -- as the previous discussion mentioned, the Divers, 1999 reference mentions both but the Divers text really points to "astrological" -- so which is it? Is there an acceptable reference that definitively addresses the question whether the use of planetary positions in biodynamics is "astronomical" versus "astrological"? --EPadmirateur (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored "astrological" as being more descriptive. It looks perhaps like within the biodynamic community "astronomical" might be the term they prefer to use. If so, that could be presented, properly sourced, as how they prefer to label it, but it shouldn't be used as a better description.

This would apply to the lede as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it from the lede completely while awaiting responses. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Different sources seem to use variant terms. I wonder if a description wouldn't be better: planting times based on lunar cycles. hgilbert (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think "astrological" is the most descriptive term we have, and from the references and general descriptions in other biodynamic agriculture literature it seems appropriate to use. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the most thorough descriptions I can find -- perhaps the most thorough -- is in Cosmos, Earth and Nutrition: The Biodynamic Approach to Agriculture by Richard Thornton Smith. He consistently uses the term astronomical. Another is in Culture and Horticulture: The Classic Guide to Biodynamic and Organic Gardening, by Wolf D. Storl. Both are published by anthroposophic presses, however, and thus are not RS for controversial material. They do indicate that within biodynamics the term astronomical is preferred in major publications. In a dissertation, Mondzeiten: zur Genese und Praxis moderner Mondkalender, by Helmut Groschwitz, the term astrological is used. Perhaps both usages should be documented.

My personal impression is that the references to lunar, planetary and star positions mix elements of astronomy and astrology. The actual astronomical positions of the heavenly bodies are used, not the Western astrological values for these. But the assignment of certain zodiacal signs to Earth, Water, Air and Fire is certainly astrological, not astronomical. It would be great to find a source that explicated this, but we are not likely to. hgilbert (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point: when referring to the general definitions of the words rather than how they're used by those withing the biodynamic agriculture community, astrological is an accurate descriptive term, while astronomical is not. --Ronz (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

wine

nobod responded so far to the template, i think it should go ahead and the article should be merged. i don't see why biodynamic wine should have it's own article and say biodynamic cereal not.trueblood (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Please hold off until we can discuss. Merci, EPadmirateur (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. It comes down to a question of notability. This needs to be firmly established for a separate article to be viable.

Biodynamic wine is getting twice the press of the rest of biodynamic agriculture. I think that notability probably could be established - between the books and the articles on biodynamic wine (specifically) cited. But the article certainly needs clean-up, especially citations. Hgilbert (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think BD wine deserves a separate article not only for notability but also because it is an extensive subtopic of biodynamic agriculture. For notability, in addition to the recent article links HGilbert added to the article, see also the link to the list of 425+ vineyards now reported world-wide. I think the article needs to be expanded further with references and with a section on the requirements for BD wine designation (see the Demeter USA Wine Making Standards for a reference). Clearly, there are requirements and standards that go beyond the requirements for biodynamic farming. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

when let's just take the template off, i don't know who put it there, but the person is not proposing any arguments herself and i don't feel very passionate about it. i just wanted to settle the subject. i agree with hgilbert that the article should have some quotations that underline the notability

193.253.241.49 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The template was put on last November 4 by User:Agne27 who is a self-described "wiki-oenophile", whose comment on adding the tag was: "merge article that is more about the agriculture then any specific details about the wine". I think that gives additional good advice about what is needed to make the article stand on its own: make it more about the wine and less about the agriculture. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin and content

Normally a topic's intrinsic content is treated before its origin. To put where it came from before anyone knows what it is makes little sense. I've tried to synthesize the two approaches as a compromise, but the first sentence should definitely tell what biodynamics is.

Also: to put "supporters claim" at this particular point is misleading: the primary sources are a North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University Agricultural specialist (Diver) and Richard Harwood, former C.S. Mott Chair for Sustainable Agriculture at Michigan State University, not internal documents of the biodyamic movement, and their works are published by peer-reviewed presses. These are objective authorities on the subject and there is no reason to doubt that they are accurately characterizing the subject. Lorand is a biodynamic farmer, though with a PhD in agriculture; his dissertation is also academically reviewed and can be assumed to be an accurate source. Unless you have sources that contradict the statements made in the introductory paragraph, it can fairly be assumed that these are accurate characterizations, not merely claims.Hgilbert (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would still be appropriate to mention the controversy about BD farming at the end of the intro with something like: Biodynamic agriculture is controversial because it appears to be based on magical practices (ref Treue). Or wording to that effect. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You would have to show that it is in fact controversial. One newspaper editorial by someone who is not an agriculturist is hardly sufficient evidence. If it were, an extensive part of the introduction would have to be devoted to how BD has been praised; there are numerous newspaper articles to cite here. Neither this kind of journalistic praise nor this kind of journalistic critique belong in an introduction. See Wikipedia's policies on giving undue weight to one point of view Hgilbert (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Category

Studies listed in this article has yielded mixed results. A number of studies have found improvements in soil structure: from one long term study: In regards to soil aggregate stability, soil pH, humus formation, soil calcium, microbial biomass, and faunal biomass (earthworms and arthropods), the biodynamic system was superior even to the organic system, which in turn had superior results over the conventional systems. The classification as pseudoscience is absurd for two reasons: One, the technique is subject to scientific testing; Two, the technique has been found to have efficacy. Finally, the category listing is more stringent than the article listing; it only includes subjects that are "generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific". You would have to demonstrate both; since the scientific community has made in-depth formal studies of BD, and since it is quite widespread as an agricultural system, neither qualifies. Hgilbert (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific community has made in-depth formal studies of BD is not the reason for saying it is not pseudoscience. BD is crap can be understood by reading the introductory paragraph. Biodynamic agriculture is based on a spiritual world-view. There are some remedies in Ayurveda which are seen to have certain degree of effects, but that does not make the Ayurvedic concept Tridosha system a science. Since BD is based on a spiritual world-view, it is crap. Simple. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously simple reasoning, but unrelated to either Wikipedia's criteria for WP:Verifiability, or the standard for this particular category.

For clarity, try translating the above logic into a different area: "Since Christianity is based on a spiritual world-view, it is..." whatever you think of it, but it's clearly not pseudoscience. Hgilbert (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Christianity is not the issue. If there was something called "Christian horticulture" then it might rightly be considered pseudoscience since it is attempting to impose anti-scientific ideas into the replicable science of agriculture. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Whereas biodynamic agriculture is subject to scientific review; its efficacy has been confirmed by a number of studies; there is a Department of Biodynamic Agriculture at a major university; the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization dedicates considerable effort to studying the field (it is particularly relevant for farmers that can't afford high synthetic fertilizer and pesticide inputs), etc.Hgilbert (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Divination

What possible relevance does the category divination have here? I have removed this.Hgilbert (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"compostation"

Can someone point out the language of this term (compostation) in the Studies of efficacy section and it's origins? - not in any dictionary of English I've found, maybe should be changed? Red58bill (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed. hgilbert (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See also section

Entries in the see also section are usually reserved for aspects not already highlighted in the main text. hgilbert (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Douchebaggyness

Seriously could this article be more douchebaggyish? Sounds like a hippie phamplet that advertises love and peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.177.67 (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? I had the impression that it was about farming. hgilbert (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't convey that appearance. The problem with at least the study in ref. 12 is that it only compares the biodynamic mixture to no treatment at all, and not to (for example) simply mixing in flowers and bark into the compost. The latter might incorporate actual chemical components without the magical deer's bladder treatment. KarlM (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the study should have done this. I agree. hgilbert (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Year later response to above post

Is that a WP:FORUM comment about the phenomenon or complaint about Wikipedia, or is this a concrete suggestion for improving the article? The concept of farming responsibly, well, and in a healthy way, is far from hippie-dippy. However, the article rambles for quite a long while on the aspirations of the movement without making clear what it really is. Is there a certification agency? A trade group? A philosophy? How do we know whether something is biodynamic or not? I have a feeling if you look at an article on, say, Kashrut, you'll get a much more specific description of a classification of food. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

It is unwarranted to claim in the lead that "many scientists" consider biodynamics to be pseudoscientific without corresponding supporting citations in the body. hgilbert (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I looked up the source now given. It says nothing about BD being pseudoscientific; to the contrary, it quotes Wildfeuer that the preparations have been verified scientifically. Please read the material before adding a citation to it! hgilbert (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

While I've not kept track of the minutia of when and how "pseudoscientific" can be used withing Wikipedia, I think would be unreasonable not to do so here. Let's see what attention we can get from WP:FTN. --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This has actually been discussed before when it was added to list of topics characterized as pseudoscience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience/Archive_14#Biodynamics A13ean (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Request here --Ronz (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The "minutia" include following the usual Wikipedia standard of verifiability.hgilbert (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've merged two parallel passages, one about "individuality" and the other referring to a "self-nourishing system", in the opening sentence. They strike me as roughly equivalent, and the former evoked misunderstanding (see above noticeboard discussion). hgilbert (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience

Biodynamic agriculture is listed in Michael Shermer. The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience, Volume 2. That source has been removed from the article. It should be reintroduced, with the word "pseudoscience" in the content of the article. What else should we add from this source? --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't have it, it would be good to include a relevant quote from the book in the reference (inside ref tags) for easy verification. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Biodynamic agriculture section is available in google books. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And there is no comment in the text that describes the approach as pseudoscientific or anything remotely equivalent.hgilbert (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So it being listed in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience accounts for nothing. Sorry, no.

Guess we'll start by not mentioning "pseudoscience" in the content until we work this out. --Ronz (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not peer reviewed

The following appears to not be peer reviewed and should not be in the studies section:

• Raupp, Dr Joachim (2001) "Manure fertilization for soil organic matter maintenance and its effects upon crops and the environment, evaluated in a long-term trial." In: Rees, PhD R.M.; Ball, PhD B.C.; Campbell, PhD C.D. and Watson, PhD C.A. (Eds.) Sustainable Management of Soil Organic Matter. CABI Publishing, chapter 4.10, pp. 301-308.

IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Of course the studies section should be written from reviews, not individual studies. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any review articles present at all in the studies section? (aside: The inconsistent referencing style makes it a pain for reference checks) IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

CABI appears to be an intergovernmental agency publishing scientific work. I don't know the organization, but on the face of it their books should qualify as verifiable sources, I would think. hgilbert (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I would think that specific scientific studies should be published in peer reviewed journals. Besides this, we should be summarizing the scientific consensus and not inferring things from these papers: Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)#Summarize_scientific_consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, CABI is the publisher, the paper is from the published proceedings of a conference held by the British Society of Soil Sciences. Not knowing the format of the conference it's hard to say, but it was probably subject to an editorial review rather than a full peer review. This is not to imply anything bad about the paper, it's just how conference proceedings usually work. Similarly, papers submitted to the very awesome "Bridges Math Art" conferences are reviewed by the editors for inclusion. Generally if the results hold they are also published in a peer reviewed journal at some point -- whoever has time first could take a look around and see if that's the case. (This may vary somewhat between fields.) That being said, I agree with Ronz that we should be citing review papers rather than original studies, although the former are pretty scarce on this subject. A13ean (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Do studies that are not reviews have any due weight in the article?IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many situations where such studies could be could be used properly. In this article as it appears today, most if not all are being used improperly. I guess this is expected in an article on a pseudoscience - editors are just taking material from biased sources at face value. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds is this a "biased source"? It's a normal scientific publication, with no indication at all of fringe status. 15 citations in Google Scholar, which isn't bad. Published conference proceedings. Easily citable for non-controversial points. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And the statement it is being used to support is obviously true. I'm not worried about the source, but slightly concerned it might be used out of context. Of course if you use biodynamic preparations you are putting organic matter in the soil. The question of interest is whether the preparations increase the organic matter in the soil in a way that is beneficial for agriculture. Or even, do they have a more beneficial effect than other kinds of organic manures, which are a lot easier to generate. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "biased sources" I'm looking at the bigger problems in the article, and note I wrote "sources". Looking over the article in general, it appears that much has been written from biased sources, taking their claims at face value. The mythos of biodynamic agriculture is being presented as if they were reasonable, scientific, and effective. The article needs a complete rewrite. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, and on further examination, the conference proceedings as a whole are innocuous but this particular paper could be fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

External links

If the Wikipedia article on the Catholic Church has in its "external link" section a link to the Vatican's website, shouldn't this article have a link to the Biodynamic Association website? hgilbert (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about the biodynamic association. For example Catholicism doesn't have external links to the vatician. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

From List of topics characterized as pseudoscience: --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Biodynamic agriculture – method of organic farming that treats farms as unified and individual organisms. Biodynamics uses a calender which has been characterized as astrological and unconventional preparations and composts. For example, field mice are countered by deploying ashes prepared from field mice skin when Venus is in the Scorpius constellation.

So, the issue isn't if we mention pseudoscience, but how much weight to give it. I think we can easily source a great deal about it, enough to deserve mention in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I have put pseudoscience into the article, the lead section, and a category. I used some of the above-listed sources and others as well. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Chalker-Scott appears to be the only citation that supports this classification, and I have clarified the lead accordingly. (Merely having an entry in the Encyclopedia of Pseudosciences means nothing; there is an entry for Earthquake Prediction, as well. The actual text does not support this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs)

As you may remember, this was already discussed on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience/Archive_14#Biodynamics

• From the abstract of the Kirchman paper: "However, 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. It was concluded that Steiner's instructions are occult and dogmatic and cannot contribute to the development of alternative or sustainable agriculture."
• From JB & BS: "Much of the biodynamic literature, as with many sorts of proto- or pseudoscience, appears in obscure publications, where standards of evidence and the capability to do thorough peer review may be quite low or even nonexistent."
• The Goode book: "Where the difficulty remains is that while much of Biodynamic practice is so esoteric and has such a "pseudoscience" ring to it, mainstream scientists are afraid to be associated with it"

I think everyone can agree that CS is not the only source that supports this. A13ean (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. There's much more we can and should add about the scientific absurdity of some of the practices. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement that BD "is listed as pseudoscience in " Shermer's book is misleading. It has an entry in the book. But the entry says nothing about pseudoscience. The statement should simply read that BD "is listed in" the book. hgilbert (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't believe it is original research to say that simply being listed in the book is verification enough. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Skeptic Encyclopedia: Looking at page xii in the introduction by Michael Shermer, it appears that he lists both scientific and pseudoscientific topics in his encyclopedia; merely having a listing in the encyclopedia is not a statement by Shermer about whether the topic is pseudo or valid. Taking that stance as the center, the entry for biodynamics appears to be supporting its scientific side rather than telling the reader it is pseudoscience. Hgilbert is correct and I was wrong earlier in using the book the way I did. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I was beginning to wonder seriously about the apparent readiness to disregard all rules of evidence by those shouting loudest about science. I appreciate a rational voice in the discourse. hgilbert (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Shall we pretend it is listed there as science despite what it says? --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Shall we pretend the article calls it pseudoscience when it does not? Why not say what it says. To go from "astrological" to "pseudoscientific" qualifies as WP:Original research. hgilbert (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny that. I specifically remember giving the opinion that it isn't original research. We'll have to get back to this when the article is rewritten neutrally. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Without the Shermer book there are still very high quality observers saying that biodynamics is pseudoscience. Let Shermer go... Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the pseudoscience label can be sourced and should probably be in the lede. But I don't like at all the idea of rushing in to label every practice as scientifically absurd. Steiner's philosophy was mystical and quasi-religious, everything follows from that. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Shermer quote

I've removed it because the passage in question isn't him speaking: he's quoting Rudolf Steiner. Mangoe (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

He's actually quoting someone else, not Steiner. hgilbert (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct, he's quoting Wildfeur, Sherry. N.d. “What Is Biodynamics?” Bio-dynamic Farming and Gardening Association. http://www.biodynamics.com/biodynamics.html (Accessed on June 3, 2001) - the page has changed since. Copies of it are available at many websites such as http://www.ghorganics.com/BiodynamicFarming.htm and http://www.kibbutzlotan.com/creativeEcology/organic/what_is_biodynamics.htm .

I don't see misrepresentation as rationale to remove sourced info. I gave it another shot based upon Binksternet's edit, but without the quote. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The quote about "verified scientifically" is from Wildfeuer, I am now seeing that. Here's another archived version. So that means Shermer does not state a personal conclusion about biodynamics, whether it is science or pseudoscience, but he chooses to quote a fairly positive final note by Wildfeuer. Don't you think it is misrepresentative of Shermer's tone if we only say negative things are in his book? Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think our summary is too long as is, and I don't think the quote puts anything in a positive light at all. --Ronz (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't think "verified scientifically" is positive? Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As you can see here she is not a neutral reporter; she is an advocate. She also has http://www.stellanatura.com/biodynamics.html. I see no effort on her part to back up this claim, so I regard it as unfounded. Mangoe (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"You don't think "verified scientifically" is positive?" Not in context. Besides, it would violate NPOV for us to try to decide what is positive or not, and then to somehow try to balance those perspectives. --Ronz (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is positive, being selected by Shermer as the final sentence in the encyclopedia entry, but I respect that you think it is not positive in context. The solution between our two views, of course, would be to include the quote verbatim, "verified scientifically", this time sourced to Wildfeuer. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No it would not. There was a reason I brought up WP:NPOV - selectively choosing information to "balance" editors points of view is absolutely not how to write a neutral article. --Ronz (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a big stretch to claim that Shermer quotes this because he agrees with it at all, but in any case, the only reason to put in an unsupported claim of scientific verification is as evidence that this is indeed pseudoscience— because real science doesn't do this. Mangoe (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of pests and weeds

This section was recently removed. I suspect most of it can all be sourced. It needs a rewrite though: --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Biodynamic agriculture sees the basis of pest and disease control arising from a strong healthy balanced farm organism. Where this is not yet achieved it uses techniques analogous to fertilization for pest control and weed control. Most of these techniques include using the ashes of a pest or weed that has been trapped or picked from the fields and burnt. A biodynamic farmer perceives weeds and plant vulnerability to pests as a result of imbalances in the soil.

• Pests such as insects or field mice (Apodemus) have more complex processes associated with them, depending on what pest is to be targeted. For example field mice are to be countered by deploying ashes prepared from field mice skin when Venus is in the Scorpius constellation.

• Weeds are combated (besides the usual mechanical methods) by collecting seeds from the weeds and burning them above a wooden flame that was kindled by the weeds. The ashes from the seeds are then spread on the fields, then lightly sprayed with the clear urine of a sterile cow (the urine should be exposed to the full moon for six hours), this is intended to block the influence from the full moon on the particular weed and make it infertile.

Agricultural technique vs. science

Agriculture is a practical activity, not a science. Like education, its effects can be measured empirically without the practice itself having achieved scientific rigor. This is true generally, and particularly: Biodynamic agriculture is not a science, and as far as I know it doesn't claim to be a science. Attempts to measure its effects empirically do not turn it into a science any more than our ability to measure educational (or economic) results rigorously turns education (or economy) into a rigorous science.

As it does not claim to be a science, it cannot be a pseudoscience. We can simply report on whether its techniques are effective or not as measured by various measures. (Note for those who think agriculture is a science: When it has been treated as such, "Modern agronomy, plant breeding, pesticides and fertilizers, and technological improvements have sharply increased yields from cultivation, but at the same time have caused widespread ecological damage and negative human health effects" (see Agriculture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 November 2011‎

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." No one is claiming it is "a science", rather they're claiming that science can be applied to studying and understanding it. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

All I can say in response, Hgilbert, is if our reliable sources call it pseudoscience then we do, too. Philosophical discussion falls away in the face of those facts. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agricultural science is science. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But agriculture ≠ agricultural science. If the article was titled "Biodynamic agricultural science" the case would be different.

Binksternet: I am not arguing that the sources should not be represented. Just making a possibly futile effort to clarify what seems to me the pretty murky argumentation here. hgilbert (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A series of methods to improve yields is well under the scope of agricultural science. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources and their use

I'd like to go over all the sources, making sure that they're reliable for the information sourced: --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Andrew Christopher Lorand. Biodynamic Agriculture—A Paradigmatic Analysis. Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education. 1996 PhD Dissertation.

  An old PhD dissertation? And from an extremely biased source. It might be ok used as it is, but I've not kept up on the discussions on use of dissertations as sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Very useful to go through all the sources, thanks. I think we are currently quite pro PhD thesis. Penn State is a reputable university, not quite sure what you mean by "extremely biased source". We would expect to see a 1996 PhD followed up by publication in journals or perhaps book chapters/books. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the use of theses.

Maybe I was overly rushed to judge Lorand as biased. His website is http://www.andrewlorand.com. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Whereas the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is not a biased source? LOL.

NPOV would suggest that a verifiable source should be included, even if the author has different views than any particular editor happens to hold. hgilbert (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Biases toward science, rationalism, and objectiveness are ideal in writing encyclopedia articles.

Besides, there other policies/guidelines besides NPOV that apply here. I've found it very helpful when working fringe-theory and pseudoscience articles to put a great deal of emphasis on WP:IS. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Having seen his website, I think Lorand's position is best described as a minority scholarly view. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And not independent. --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Diver (1999), "Community Supported Agriculture". The NCAT Sustainable Agriculture Project.

  Not independent, but probably fine as it's being used. --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  I have some concerns about it verifying, "Biodynamics was one of the first modern ecological farming systems" --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Kirchmann, H.; Thorvaldsson, G.; Bergstrom, L.; Gerzabek, M.; Andren, O.; Eriksson, L.O.; Winninge, M. (2008). "Fundamentals of organic agriculture" (PDF). Organic Crop Production--Ambitions and Limitations. Retrieved 2009-07-01.

  Seems fine. The book looks like a source to use much more widely. --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Harwood, Richard R. (1990). "A History of Sustainable Agriculture". In Clive A. Edwards, Rattan Lal, Patrick Madden, Robert H. Miller and Gar House (Eds.). Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society. pp. 3–19. ISBN 0-935734-21-X. OCLC 20933949.

  This is a presentation from the 1988 International Conference on Sustainable Agricultural Systems. While the source is a bit old, I question it's use to verify, "Biodynamics was one of the first modern ecological farming systems." Combined with Diver (1999), it appears to be WP:SYN and cherry-picking. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear what the problem is; after delineating the prehistory of organic agriculture (traditional farming techniques embedded in all cultures), Harwood immediately states that "The first organized and well-defined movement of growers and philosophies was the biodynamic movement, which arose from a series of lectures given by Rudolf Steiner...in 1924." How could it be clearer? See also this manual of organic agriculture.

There are several sources clearly stating that this is the case and nothing contradicting it. If anything, the present article is cautious in suggesting that biodynamics was "one of the first", whereas all the sources clearly have it as the very first non-traditional system of organic agriculture. (I think the caution is wise; Albert Howard was in the process of developing his system around the same period, though Howard did not publish until 20 years after Steiner). hgilbert (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Then we need to reword it or find better sources. --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Saving the World with Biodynamic Farming, ISIS report 16/01/08. Accessed December 18, 2009.

  Probably not a reliable source for the information, "and is considered to be one of the most sustainable." The information probably doesn't belong in the lede either. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I can continue if we need, but the article is clearly using poor sources, and too many sources that are biased to the subject-matter. --Ronz (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Category

I have removed the Category Pseudoscience. We've been through discussions about this before; the Wikipedia standard is to classify something according to "the defining characteristics of a subject" (WP:Categorization) rather than to use a category for a disputed aspect of a topic. hgilbert (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Biodynamics as pseudoscience is a defining characteristic. What makes you think it is not? The scholarly sources we have say that it is. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you grasp the meaning of defining characteristic. From Wiktionary: "A property held by all members of a class of object that is so distinctive that it is sufficient to determine membership in that class. A property that defines that which possesses it. The defining characteristic of a human is that it is, in Aristotle's words, the "rational animal."" No source even remotely claims that pseudoscience is a defining characteristic of BD. hgilbert (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure they do; that's why it's mentioned in the lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a defining characteristic because of Steiner's original methods which called upon astrology and homeopathy to enrich the soil and promote growth in plants. Anything based on pseudoscience must in itself be pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Turinek reviews

A 2011 review found that biodynamically cultivated fields:

• had greater earthworm populations and biomass than conventional farms; both factors were similar to the result in organically cultivated fields.
• maintained or slightly improved the organic carbon levels, while both organic and conventional farming techniques resulted in a loss of organic carbon.
• had higher microbial biomass carbon and dehydrogenase activity than those of either organically or conventionally farmed fields.

A 2009 review by the same author found that biodynamic techniques increase biodiversity and achieve better efficiency of production and a positive environmental impact.

It seems like this addition is bending over backwards to make this sounds like a positive result, when it is entirely unsurprising. As the authors themselves mention, the conventional farming method generally showed a yield which is generally higher. The increased yield generally matches the lower organic carbon levels and dehydrogenase activity in the soil afterwards. It's also unsurprising that both biodynamic and organic methods are more energy efficient -- no energy was used to produce fertilizer. Next, it's misleading to say "positive environmental impact" without clarifying, as the authors do, that they're only talking about the energy efficiency, which comes from the lack of fertilizers. Lastly, as a matter of style, the references should have all been to the peer-reviewed survey article rather than to the PhD thesis.

Can we please stop trying to constantly WP:SYNTH a positive result from these? A13ean (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note the reviewer's comment included with the article:

‘My personal perspective is that the authors do not need to ask whether BD can be regarded as a scientific category or even point out that part of the scientific community looks at it with skepticism and marks it as dogmatic. There are over 4200 farms around the world that are certified as BD so it is clearly worthy of study. There are also many research studies and publications identifying the benefits of organic farming and the ability to maintain yields and improve soil health with organic farming methods. To my knowledge BD includes all the key components of ORG so what is true for ORG is true for BD.’

A13ean (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Also one more suggestion, and then I'll go do something productive. If you want to reference a line in an article, and it is itself referencing another document, please cite the original -- it makes things easier to keep track of. A13ean (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We should not give much weight to studies that compare biodynamics with conventional farming methods. Only comparisons between biodynamic and organic farming should be given top weight. This attitude is straight from Professors Douglass Smith and Jesús Barquín who have written several criticisms about the 21-year Swiss study by Mäder et al. It is also from Peter Treue who considers organic and biodynamic methods to be much the same, and from Linda Chalker-Scott who says that the addition of organic methods to Steiner's original formula has muddled (or muddied, depending on the source) the matter. Comparisons between biodynamic and conventional methods do not prove anything special about biodynamics. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly a violation of NPOV (and WP:UNDUE) to arbitrarily remove content drawn from verifiable sources because of (critical) comments from another source. The critique should appear, but so should the original content. If academics are comparing BD to conventional farming, there are good reasons to do so. We should clearly state when BD is being compared to organic, and when to traditional, and differentiate the meaning of both. All relevant studies should be included here. hgilbert (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Also: how is it SYNTH to report on a study's findings? No one is inserting additional conclusions drawn from this. hgilbert (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are studies comparing biodynamic methods to conventional methods, but that comparison is not very important to determining whether biodynamics is at all different than modern-day organic methods. As Wikipedia editors we have the job of determining weight given to various sources, and I think we should not give much text space to any comparison to conventional farming. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's simply not how NPOV works. --Ronz (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You pick and choose from the raw data reproduced in the review, rather than summarizing the review's findings by mentioning the change in organic carbon while ignoring the yield, and similarly with the dehydrogenase activity. You also state generically that BD achieves "better efficiency of production and a positive environmental impact" while in the review this is clearly used only in the context of the energy not used for fertilizer production, which is common between ORG and BD. A similar, POV, statement would be to just state that BD achieves significantly lower yields than conventional farming methods, without comparing it to ORG. This can go either way. A13ean (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that comparison is not relevant to determining the difference between BD and organic methods. This article is not about comparing BD and organic, however; it is simply about BD. It would be fair in this context to 1) characterize its nature pure, and 2) compare it to other common agricultural methods. Traditional and organic are the chief relevant methods, and studies have devoted equal time to both comparisons. (So should we.)

The lower yield should also be mentioned, of course; I thought it was in the article somewhere. If not, it's clearly an important factor. We should also clarify that it is energy efficiency that is meant (lower fertilizer input = lower absolute but proportionally better yields). I am really not trying to bias the article, only fully represent the range of sources out there. Please help by extending the use of competent sources (rather than reducing it)! hgilbert (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it uses organic farming methods comparisons to that are what make sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any sense in biasing the information to only comparisons to organic farming methods. We're going to follow NPOV and the related policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

From the article biodynamic uses organic farming methods which are augmented with potions etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Biodynamic pre-dates organic, so let's not make the mistake that biodynamic is organic+magic, let alone that biodynamic is organic+. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The first Steiner biodynamics = Steiner magic + Steiner-approved folk organic practices. Modern biodynamics = Steiner magic + Steiner-approved folk organic practices + modern organic practices. We have in the article a number of observers who say that the later addition of modern organic practices to the Steiner recipe confuses the issue; that modern organic agriculture should be compared to Steiner + modern so that the magic elements can be evaluated separately. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bulleted list in lead section

I don't see any reason that we should have a bulleted list in the lead section. The lead section is for summarizing details in the article body. I think that this bulleted list should be in the article body, not the lead section. The lead section should be composed of prose. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Lovel

Non encyclopedic content-I just added a dozen of so paragraphs of selected text from Hugh Lovel's book: A Biodynamic Farm for Growing Wholesome Food. Text related to the preps and what is in fact biodynamic agriculture. Mr IRWolfe deleted the same text because it is not encyclopedic. Apparently only encyclopedic content is allowed by IRWolfe. Obvoiusly, Mr IRWolfe is NOT a biodynamic farmer. If one's biodynamic knowledge is only encyclopedic then that knowledge is also limited. One might even say minimal or non-existent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbillyg (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual! All text should be encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The added text might plausibly be used for an article on the BD preparations, but would still need to be stylistically compatible with Wikipedia standards. hgilbert (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, if text is added verbatim from a source then we probably have a serious copyright violation. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

There has been a question of the neutrality of this article. At the moment, essentially all the sources are peer-reviewed. I suggest that there are two possibilities:

1. These represent the range of the peer-reviewed sources available. In that case, the article cannot be critiqued for violating NPOV standards.
2. These do not represent the range of the peer-reviewed sources available. The way to demonstrate this is to add other sources, which in turn will make the article neutral.

Flagging the article as NPOV without demonstrating the existence of other sources is counter-productive. If they exist, let's add them. If they don't, it would be WP:OR to claim that they should. hgilbert (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"essentially all the sources are peer-reviewed" Not at all. See (04:38, 17 January 2012) and join the discussion on that thread. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be a diff? hgilbert (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Sources_and_their_use --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My concerns with this article have to do with a lot more than the sources used. For example, the statement that

A 2009/2011 review found that biodynamically cultivated fields achieve lower absolute yields but better energy efficiency of production; impact the environment positively, including increased biodiversity; had greater earthworm populations and biomass than conventional farms; maintained or slightly improved organic carbon levels, while both organic and conventional farming techniques resulted in a loss of organic carbon; had higher microbial biomass carbon and dehydrogenase activity than those of either organically or conventionally farmed fields.

in the lead without context is misleading for several reasons as discussed before. I still think it's inappropriate to use "astronomical" and think this should be revisited. There are also several sources that are either unreliable or being used too broadly. For example [1] is used to source the statement that "[Biodynamic farming] is considered to be one of the most sustainable", which is kinda like using lenr-canr.org to say "Cold fusion is considered to be the energy of the future" or something. a13ean (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think that the claim that biodynamics is pseudoscience (based on chiefly non peer-reviewed sources from magazines like World of Fine Wine and Master Gardener) is misleading for several reasons as discussed before. The point is that both sides are being represented. If anything, we should ensure that any controversial claims are cited to solely peer-reviewed sources, as an arbitration on related articles decided some years ago.

I-sis.org, the source of A13ean's quote above, is the website of the Institute for Science and Society, which looks quite impressive. It is a university-affiliated group. It is also wholly independent of any connections to biodynamics. I don't see how the comparison is remotely valid. hgilbert (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong ISS - this is the one that is not affiliated with a university, is a small non-profit run by a few people, publishes stuff like this: [2] and the other major hit for it on google is this: [3]. a13ean (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The only other non peer-reviewed sources I see are the Seattle Times and Skeptical Inquirer. What else is in question? hgilbert (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is more than just poor sources. We're using poor and biased sources, and then using them improperly. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, then, I suggest that we treat high quality sources (academic journals and publishers, peer-reviewed) as primary sources, and that we try to eliminate lesser quality sources. Also, that we complement the existing high quality references, which make up the bulk of those extant, with further high quality sources. I don't think you can claim bias in peer-reviewed sources...the whole point of the peer review process is to ensure neutrality, and you would be asserting that you are more competent to judge this than the editors...a clear case of WP:OR. hgilbert (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"I don't think you can claim bias in peer-reviewed sources" Sure we can. Peer review can and does fail. We're dealing with pseudoscience here after all. --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK...but Wikipedia relies on verifiable sources, not on editors' arbitrary judgments of the WP:Truth. See WP:RS as well. hgilbert (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been dealt with many times, see the last point of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. a13ean (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

That totally misses the point. This article nearly exclusively references standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed journals and academically published works, not "journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view". Other than the list below, to which I would now (after the recent clarification of its status) add ISIS, the other sources appear to be impeccable. hgilbert (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, but feel free to add complementary sources to balance the viewpoints already represented. hgilbert (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we need something more akin to a rewrite based upon NPOV and FRINGE.

NPOV is not accomplished by "balancing" viewpoints, especially when it comes to fringe theories and their applications. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You're really not listening. The sources used here are mainstream, peer-reviewed, and reliable. There is no over-representation of fringe viewpoints when there are no fringe viewpoints represented at all. If anything, the article is overbalanced in the other direction, as it is an article on BD that excludes BD sources! The argument made above, that all" mainstream sources are suspect when it comes to this subject, not only goes against the RS policy; it goes against any definition of honest scholarship. hgilbert (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I always like using scholarly sources when there is a scholarly literature on a topic. But agriculture topics can also use newspaper and magazine articles, government and NGO reports. The underlying theory is pseudo-scientific, and that can't be ignored. But sometimes biodynamic farms get attention because they are local initiatives, minimise inputs, or because of their employment or marketing strategies. There is more to be said than the strictly scientific aspects. If you want to maximise efficiency you don't use biodynamic methods, but not everyone wants to maximise efficiency. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean, 'maximize production'. Efficiency would be judged per input levels...a complex picture (labor or energy input?) hgilbert (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, probably. As you say it is complicated, and there are all sorts of externalities, not least the effect of fossil fuel inputs on climate change. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV dispute: "The [NPOV] tag is intended to signify that there is an active good-faith effort, grounded in policy, to resolve the perceived neutrality concern." It would be good if this effort were more visible! hgilbert (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

List of non-peer reviewed sources to remove

1) Here we can list the potentially non-peer reviewed sources that should be removed from this article: hgilbert (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• World of Fine Wine
• Master Gardener
• Seattle Times
• Skeptical Inquirer

Why suggest removing such sources completely? --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally the first thing to do to improve standards of the sources is to rely more on peer-reviewed sources, and to remove lesser quality sources. hgilbert (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you intentionally confusing works that are or claim to be scientific with repporting? These fall under WP:NEWSORG not WP:SCHOLARSHIP. a13ean (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you equating news organizations and peer-reviewed journals as sources for scientific studies?hgilbert (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally? so it will be in the guidelines then? Can you paste the link to that? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Natch: Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship. hgilbert (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by natch, I see no mention of anything that supports your point. Maybe you should quote the specific line so I can see. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.
• Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
• One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.

I'd say that's a pretty clear commitment to scholarly and peer-reviewed work. Dissertations in progress, for example, are not acceptable because they have not been "vetted by the scholarly community". We should examine our sources to see that they conform to the same standard. hgilbert (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see any benefit to the article in removing the four reliable sources listed above. Such a removal would take away a critical examination of the scholar process itself. Douglass Smith and his co-writer Jesús Barquín are both scholars themselves, so they know where to look for more information. The removal of their work would remove a necessary uncertainty appended to the unusually positive Mäder study. Smith and Mäder explain that there could be real problems in the positive data, that a positive result for Steiner-style biodynamics is not necessarily true. In short, the removal of the four sources makes biodynamics look more mainstream than it is. The sources should stay to help show the proper mainstream dismissive context, and the lack of good studies to prove BD's effectiveness beyond normal modern organic methods. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems that this is a bad idea. It's been two months, and I'm still not seeing any convincing argument for outright removing such references. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, and the guideline Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship contained no such wording to say it is normal practice to remove them. In fact, most of the peer reviewed papers in the article are used as primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Joachim Raupp

The Raupp and Joachim paper is cited as a submitted conference proceeding -- unless it is published elsewhere it is not peer-reviewed and is probably being given undue weight anyways. a13ean (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there are two Joachim Raupp papers in the article, one cited for article content and one tossed into the reference section. Raupp works for The Institute for Biodynamic Research in Darmstadt, Germany, so he can hardly be neutral on the subject. Expert, yes; neutral, no.

• The Raupp paper used to support article text, "Manure Fertilization for Soil Organic Matter Maintenance and its Effects Upon Crops and the Environment, Evaluated in a Long-term Trial", is published in a book, Sustainable management of soil organic matter, that was edited by a panel headed by Robert M. Rees, and published by the agriculture and soil advocacy organization CAB International. The editorial panel writes, "The book is based upon papers offered to the annual meeting of the British Society of Soil Science entitled, 'The Sustainable Management of Soil Organic Matter' held in Edinburgh in September 1999." Papers were "selected on the basis of peer review", which is not exactly definitive regarding whether Raupp was peer reviewed, but is better than nothing. Raupp's paper appears on pages 301–308 in the book of collected conference papers. He cites his own earlier work several times but no other paper in the book cites him.
• The Raupp paper in the reference section, "Biodynamic Approaches in Research and Development", is merely an unpublished manuscript, part of an apparently unsupervised collection held by FAO Corporate Document Repository. It should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

2) Here we can list "journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view" used as sources in this article:

Criticism or

From Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_.22criticisms.22_or_.22controversies.22:

Rather than create a section dedicated to criticisms, instead try to incorporate negative material into the appropriate topical or thematic section that the negative material relates to (such as a particular event, policy, or product).

When the sources indicate that a section should be devoted to third-party opinions on a topic, avoid using the term "criticism" in the section title. Although the word "criticism" can sometimes encompass both positive and negative assessments, often carries a negative connotation. Alternative words, such as "evaluation," "review," "critique," or "assessment" have a similar meaning as "criticism", but without the negative implications. The word "reception" is a neutral term that is often used in section titles in articles about books and films.

The criticism section should be renamed accordingly. It should also be differentiated from the section devoted to scientific studies and reviews. What about Qualitative assessment? Reception? Any other suggestions? hgilbert (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot be anything but skeptical of this proposal because of Hgilbert's demonstrated persistence in removing criticism from the article [4][5][6] and in removing the word or category "pseudoscience": [7][8][9][10][11]

If the article is to undergo a large scale renovation wherein criticism is integrated more closedly into the article as a whole I would rather see another editor champion the change. At this point, the criticism section is suitable enough, and some criticism is already integrated under the Mäder study. Let's not lighten the criticism in any way. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are less than ideal. Given the recent editing, I share Binksternet's concerns that we still have more general NPOV problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight

Material sourced to a reference to a paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting has been removed from the article:

• A 2006 study found that biodynamic farmers as a group experience a deep connection to the earth. They cultivate not merely to produce goods for sale, but to fulfill their souls and to connect to their environment. They believe in "quality over quantity and moral growth above traditional market value." (Jon C. Phillips, "Beyond Organic: An Overview of Biodynamic Agriculture with Case Examples", paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California, July 23 – 26, 2006)

At the same time, a newspaper editorial is used as a "reputable" source:

• In a 2002 newspaper editorial, Peter Treue, a researcher with the University of Kiel, characterized biodynamics as pseudoscience and argued that similar or equal results can be obtained using standard organic farming principles. He wrote that the biodynamic preparations more resemble alchemy or magic akin to geomancy. (Treue, Peter (13 March 2002). "Blut und Bohnen: Der Paradigmenwechsel im Künast-Ministerium ersetzt Wissenschaft durch Okkultismus" (in German). Die Gegenwart. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Archived from the original on 17 April 2003. Retrieved 15 November 2011. (Translation: "Blood and Beans: The paradigm shift in the Ministry of Renate Künast replaced by science occultism"))

This seems a clear case of UNDUE weight being given to critical sources. hgilbert (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The faculty bio page of John C. Phillips does not even mention the paper. It is not important. Discussing the souls of farmers will take a lot more than that! Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter Treue's editorial is less important. Treue, incidentally, is no longer a faculty member at the University of Kiel, if he ever was one. It is inconsistent to refuse one university professor's presentation paper as a source and accept an ex-professor's newspaper editorial as a source. You are cherry-picking. hgilbert (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed a beat. Treue's work has been cited over and over again: Anthroposophie in Deutschland: Theosophische Weltanschauung Und Gesellschaftliche Praxis 1884-1945, Volume 1, "Blätterwald 1/02 – Konfessionslos", "Cool bleiben. Neues von der Gurkenfront", "Im Gespräch – Mittelstufe: Individuelles Konzept", "Wenn bei Frau Künast der Mond auf das Hinterteil scheint", "Blut und Bohnen - Rudolf Steiner und der Rassismus", Geschichte und Gesellschaft, volume 30, page 659, Consumer Protection in International Perspective. It appeared in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and so was very widely seen. It is even in the German Wikipedia article on this topic. It is an important paper.

Treue and his analysis are foundational to the proper expression of the mainstream view. You cannot take Treue out of the article and expect it to stay out. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow; what an impressive list. One of the citations you list above is another newspaper editorial that merely laughs at Treue: "beim Stöbern im Netz stoße ich auf Herrn Dr. Peter Treue, der den Artikel Blut und Bohnen in der FAZ verbrochen hat. Der verkauft jetzt (unter anderem) auch Werz-Kekse. Meines Wissens bestehen diese aus Demeter-Getreide. Guten Appetit!" (Translation: Treue is a salesman now, selling Demeter (biodynamic) products, among others!) Another of these citations is to something that describes itself as a "political magazine" with a clearly described bias. Two of your citations are to anthroposophical newsletters critiquing Treue. The fifth is to a blog by Treue.

Only two of these citations are to something that would even remotely qualify as reliable sources. In one, Anthroposophie in Deutschland, it appears in the bibliography but is not cited anywhere in the text (!!), and in the other, Treue's aticle appears briefly in a footnote among a list of examples of contemporary newspaper articles raising the issue of consumer protection, an entirely different subject.

In neither of these is the content referred to or used in any way. One appearance in a footnote as part of a list of recent newspaper articles, and one appearance in a bibliography without being referenced in the book's text, hardly demonstrates that this is a foundational text. Rather the reverse. hgilbert (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the FAZ article is not an editorial, but an investigative report along the lines of what one might find in the New Yorker or New York Times. a13ean (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is that people were spurred to comment after Treue published his "Blut und Bohnen". It does not matter whether they were full of praise or full of critique. The point is that the Phillips puff piece was not widely read or commented upon. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"One of the first modern ecological farming systems"

Biodynamics is one of the first modern ecological farming systems, not of course one of the first modern farming systems generally. I've tried to bring out the emphasis on ecological in the lead to address the ambiguity that clearly arose, and given more information about what is meant by this term in the body of the text. I hope this addresses the concerns of the editor who removed a passage supported by three high quality citations, apparently without checking these. hgilbert (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the wording you've chosen here over that in the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I agree - I switched away from this wording due to another editor's intervention but have now moved back. Feel free to make improvements. hgilbert (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mineral sprays

"More controversially it uses various herbal and mineral preparations as compost additives and field sprays."

I'm know very little about biodynamic farming but I know a lot about conventional farming and organic farming, I studied plant sciences. And mineral field sprays are not controversial, spraying Cu (Copper) is a common pest control method in both conventional and organic agricultural systems. There are many other examples of herb sprays such as Neem and Pyrethrum which is also relatively common in both systems. This is to name a few. Think this part of the article should be corrected. 76.114.18.123 (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The techniques by which these are produced involved homeopathic dilutions and other controversial processes. hgilbert (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The use of the adjective "homeopathic" in this context is wrong. You are probably referring to the fact that homeopathic preparation are serially diluted to extinction. In biodynamic agriculture, the microbiota of the preparation is the crucial element. So basically it's an inoculum, which need to be diluted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riennn (talk • contribs) 11:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There are sources that claim that the dilutions are indeed homeopathic. I guess we need to add them? --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI

FYI, I opened a thread at ANI with regards to my concerns about POV pushing on this page and related ones. a13ean (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

This is intended to be a workplace to improve the article to the point that the NPOV tag can be removed, which would be the goal for any article. There are two concerns mentioned above: poor sources and the use of sources. As not all editors see that either problem exists, I would ask those who do to begin listing concrete concerns so these can be addressed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 July 2013‎

See the previous discussions on the matter. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through the last year and a half of discussion. Commentary follows on every single talk page entry during this time.

• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Agricultural technique vs. science. Resolved The wording and categorization you wished for remains
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Sources_and_their_use. Resolved This is the most extensive list, but seems to have been completely resolved; you yourself commented on several of these positively, "but probably fine as it's being used", "seems fine". Where other or more sources were requested, e.g. for the Harwood and Diver citations, these have been supplied. I don't see anything left over in this list. Am I missing something?
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Category Resolved The category pseudoscience is back and has been for a long time
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Turinek reviews Resolved You came down strongly for keeping the existing comparisons
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Bulleted list in lead section Resolved The list has been removed long ago
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Hugh Lovel Resolved Text was removed long ago
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#NPOV Resolved The two concrete examples of a problem were removed (a section from the lead, and the ISIS citation).
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#List of non-peer reviewed sources to remove Resolved You asked that these sources not be removed, and so they were left in.
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Joachim Raupp Resolved The request to remove a work from the references section was promptly honored, long ago
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Criticism or Resolved The critiques of methodology section remained, as you wished
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Undue weight Resolved The Treue piece was left in, and the Phillips piece removed, as you wished
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#"One of the first modern ecological farming systems" Resolved You agreed heartily with the change in wording
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#Mineral sprays Resolved
• Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture#ANI No concrete issues raised

Every single issue has been resolved in the way you requested. I'd like to know what remains to be worked on. If there are really no concrete issues that can be named, the tag should be removed. hgilbert (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment of the concerns being resolved. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Let's look at them one at a time. Can you name one concrete concern to start with. hgilbert (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition what's already brought up? --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could state any sources you see as problematic. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

All the non-independent ones, as pointed out previously.

I think the problems are bigger than individual sources. What I'm looking for currently are independent, tertiary sources to get an idea how far this article is straying from what it should cover. If we have any, or if editors have an idea of where we might find some, let's list them. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you list what you consider non-independent ones? All those previously mentioned (which you keep referring to) have long since been removed. hgilbert (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No they've not, and the solution is not to remove the sources completely. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you please, please, please, give one concrete example. hgilbert (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Lorand's works, as previously discussed. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. This has had zero effect on the text of the article, incidentally, since several other existing citations, and a new tertiary source which I've added as a citation, all support the exact same point. Any other important changes to make? Let's get this moving.

I'm sorry, but we simply don't seem to be communicating here, nor are we addressing the concerns. I'm going to hold off contributing for a while until we get others involved. This has been extremely unproductive in my viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

• Boeringa, Alternative Methods of Agriculture'
• Taji and Reganold, Organic Agriculture: A global perspective
• Alsos et al., The Handbook of Research on Entrepeneurship in Agriculture and Rural Development

I have gone through the above and added some of the general information (i.e. overview), but there is a great deal more detail on how the approach is applied that could be garnered.

• less helpful

• Gowariker et al., The Fertilizer Encyclopedia
• Mason, Sustainable Agriculture

Thanks! I'll take a look through them when I have more time. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Please list the sources that are of concern here

Usage of reliable sources

Please list problems with how sources are used here

Reminder: NPOV tagging

I'd like to move forward on clearing up any NPOV problems. What's left to do? There are no sources that have been listed as problematic above, so I gather this is no longer a problem.

As a reminder, WP:NPOV dispute states, "In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time." hgilbert (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking over this, I think there is an issue with how "Leiber, Fuchs and Spieß" are used to "however" the description of BA as pseudoscience. As the affiliation list here shows, these three gentlemen are affiliated to the Goetheanum and the Institute for Biodynamic Research in Darmstadt. So they are very much insiders to the BA movement and their view is a bit "they would say that wouldn't they". Is there not a strong, independent secondary source offering a counter-pseudo view? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a neutral source, as well. hgilbert (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how your changes addressed the concerns. Could you explain? --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That's worse. The insertion of the text: "A scientific basis for the operation of some aspects of biodynamic agriculture has not yet been found" (with the implications of "not yet") further damages the neutrality of this article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This was a response to the request for an independent, secondary source (see above). I guess truly independent voices are not desired here,though, since it was immediately removed. Another user has now restored this source. hgilbert (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Leiber, Fuchs and Spieß are not independent of the topic, being closely associated with Steiner studies at the Goetheanum. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The neutral source I added was not Leiber, Fuchs, and Spieß, but the one you just restored! hgilbert (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's get crystal clear here:

Anthroposophists Florian Leiber, Nikolai Fuchs and Hartmut Spieß, researchers at the Goetheanum, consider the pseudoscience label a misunderstanding.[17]

Why does this belong in the lede in any form? Seems like a rather blatant violation of NPOV and FRINGE to juxtapose the minority and biased viewpoint of these people against the scientific consensus.

Its founder, Rudolf Steiner, and its developers characterize it as "spiritual science", and they advocate taking a holistic view rather than a reductionist view.[4][18]

Likewise, why does this belong? Not only are there NPOV and FRINGE problems again, but it seems outright misleading when compared to what unbiased sources have to say on the matter. Are the sources correct in claiming that Steiner himself wanted people to scientifically verify the information he provided in his lectures? --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: practical verification of the efficacy of biodynamics, and a (possible) theoretical scientific explanation of biodynamics.

1. Practically: proponents and opponents of biodynamics, as well as neutral parties, can test the efficacy through field trials, statistical evaluations of yield, etc. Such practical tests are ongoing and have yielded a mixed picture, but one that includes a fair amount of positive support for claims of soil building, improved compost quality, better flavor, etc. Its interest (shared by its founder and its current practitioners) in and success at practical tests does not support the use of the term pseudoscience.
2. Theoretically: Claims that BD is pseudoscience are usually not based on any failure of practical verification, but on the difficulty in providing a theoretical explanation/foundation for its often pretty weird practices. There is a nearly complete failure to provide any scientific basis for the compost and field preparations, in particular. Planting by the moon is another feature without theoretical basis. (Other aspects, like rotation of crops, or use of manures and composts, have more scientific plausibility.)

The sources you quote as "unbiased" are hardly that. Most neutral sources (i.e. scientists in the field rather than professional skeptics) do not use the term pseudoscience; instead they engage in scientific tests of the field and report the results. There are a lot of articles in scientific journals on BD that take it quite seriously, not usually a hallmark of fringe fields. hgilbert (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and removing the first part while we await some response to the concerns about it. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

More neutrality problems: a number of unsourced claims in the "Studies of efficacy" section. These need to get resolved. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Every paragraph appears to be sourced to a citation. What are you referring to, for example? hgilbert (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The stuff that's tagged ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

General comment

A general (neutrality-related) problem with the article overall is its lack of hard information. If I wanted to do some biodynamic farming, reading this article would hardly give me any idea of what is actually done. Instead of description, there are a lot of very wordy abstract evaluative statements tending to give a "positive" impression of the topic. To take one particularly vacuous example (also unsourced): "Biodynamic farms often have a cultural component and encourage local community, both through developing local sales and through on-farm community building activities." Does this mean "Some farms have shops"? What does it mean for a farm to "have a cultural component" and what in heaven's name are "on-farm community building activities"? is this, in any case, a distinctive feature of BA? This article needs to cut the fluff and to add some plain basic description of things that biodynamic farmers actually do. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's neutrality related, except that the practical guides to BD tend to be written by BD farmers, for obvious reasons, and thus would probably be rejected here as non-neutral sources. But perhaps there's enough information that can be gathered from the available sources. hgilbert (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent practical guide: The farm standard used for BD certifications hgilbert (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks potentially useful, but should be used carefully and with attribution I'd have thought. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

BARDD study

The recent change in wording is wildly and completely unreflective of the source used. I've changed the lede's last paragraph to correspond to the text of the cited source. hgilbert (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to hone closely to this source, but this particular source doesn't appear to be completely independent and doesn't really establish the means by which biodynamic agriculture may differ from other integrated farming techniques. It may not be really appropriate for the lede. I'm not sure. jps (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I read the paper rather closely and found that the way it was being used in the lede wasn't precisely appropriate. In particular, the study points out that there is no scientific basis but goes ahead and says that it is worthy of investigation in part on the basis of its certain proliferation. The study makes no attempt to distinguish the results of biodynamic agriculture from other integrated farming techniques and, indeed, is not intending to explore such a subject while it's fairly apparent to me from a review of the studies referenced here and elsewhere that every attempt to distinguish between "organic" and "biodynamic" outcomes has returned results consistent with the null hypothesis. I think that the best way to approach this source is to simply state that there is improved microflora and fauna diversity and leave it at that. The quote is fairly special pleading, I think. jps (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Holistic approach

Biodynamic agriculture in the lede is being described as a "holistic approach", but biodynamic agriculture is not holistic management (agriculture) which is a resource management approach to agriculture developed to avoid desertification. I think that Steiner may have described biodynamic agriculture as "holistic" in the Goethean sense, perhaps, so if someone could find a citation where he does this I'd be appreciative.

jps (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Steiner probably didn't use the term, as it wasn't yet in common use in this way in the early 20th century. I've added the original source that somehow was mislaid; there are probably more.

Thanks for the source, but I'm not sure whether it is a direct quote or not. I think we will need to attribute it directly, however, because holism means so many different things to different people. The particular problem I mention above is one that we should keep in mind. Confusing the reader with other "holistic" techniques is not in our best interest. jps (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede

I appreciate greatly the spirit and letter of the latest edits. I've tried to reorganize the lede slightly, but please regard this as a suggestion for clarity, and feel free to change anything back that I've spoiled. I've also changed one link--spirituality is more appropriate than spiritualism, which was a late-19th century movement in America that Steiner frequently criticized.

One query: do we need this phrase in the lede: "as with other integrated farming techniques"? It seems to be more confusing than illuminating. hgilbert (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've moved this phrase later in the sentence, which seems to help. Also: there is some scientific evidence mentioned in various studies, but it's weak and sometimes disputed. To say "no evidence" is too strong, however, and also immediately contradicted as the sentence goes on to mention one piece of undisputed scientific evidence for such a difference (diversity of micro flora and fauna). I've tried a slightly more open description; this could be tweaked. hgilbert (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with the sentence. The study actually found that BD has higher diversity than other organic farming systems. This is masked by the current wording. hgilbert (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"other integrated farming techniques" is somewhat important as I don't think there is any evidence that BD can be distinguished from them. Certainly BD can be distinguished from conventional monoculture, rather uncontroversially. If you have an alternative way of making clear the ambiguity, I'd like to consider it. jps (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The review compared BD with organic farming systems and reported that a certain result was consistently found. We should stick with this. The article on integrated farming technique compares this with non-integrated methods. It is a completely different comparison and should not be mingled here; see WP:SYNTH. hgilbert (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems more of a WP:FRINGE (and NPOV and NOT) issue if we don't. Overall, biodynamic agriculture seems to be no different from other approaches where it is effective and ineffective where it is different from other approaches. In other words, if they didn't continue to wrap their approach in mysticism and anthroposophy, they'd have nothing to sell. We need to weigh their salesmanship against modern agricultural science, whether they like it or not. --Ronz (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

From my reading, the study did not intend to control for what we might call "conventional organic" techniques. To do this would require, for example, eschewing the rituals that were unrelated to the physical aspects of the agricultural preparations in favor of simply including the same kind of compost and growing regimens. Until such a study is done, we really can't say that BD has the highest diversity without rather awkward qualifications. We can say that BD has a comparably high density compared to other techniques, however. I'll try to tweak and we'll see if we can't come to a good consensus. jps (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate you editing this sentence again, hgilbert. I think we're coming closer to the right sense of the term, but I tend to agree that we're not quite there yet. I think that the study is one of the ones that is most positive towards BD outcomes, but it doesn't quite give positive evidence for something that is better than any other technique that uses composts, manures, crop cycling, and the like. What we have is evidence that the microflora and microfauna are in greater diversity as compared to certain other techniques that they mention, but this is by no means an exhaustive elimination of a null hypothesis that BD is no better than other techniques which might use similar ecological approaches but might, for example, avoid the mysticism. jps (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It gives scientific evidence distinguishing BD from other organic approaches: greater diversity. The sentence cannot then state that there is no such scientific evidence distinguishing BD from other organic approaches. hgilbert (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In addition, there are other scientific studies that have found differences: see this and this. It is simply incorrect to say no such evidence has ever been found. hgilbert (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

None of these studies actually do the job of distinguishing between BD and all other organic farming techniques as a physical basis. The point is that one could adopt the accidents (to use the Aristotlean term) of BD while omitting the substance and get the same results. If one ignored the handbook's exhortations to engage in the rituals which have no physical basis, the generally accepted outcome would be identical results. There are no studies which show that this isn't the case. What we have is evidence that the system is different from other systems, but the argument of the skeptic (which is what this paragraph is about) is that the system is indistinguishable from other systems that use the same "accidents". jps (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry; that appears to be your OR. The studies clearly state that there is scientific evidence that distinguishes between BD and other organic approaches. You might or might not get the same outcome when you vary components of the BD approach; that hasn't yet been studied scientifically. I agree that it would be interesting and valuable to do so, to figure out what parts of BD are creating the difference. At the moment we just have the overall picture, that BD has been found to create some differences, in diversity, carbon take-up, etc. hgilbert (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't have any sources that show that BD can be distinguished generally, only specific measurements under specific conditions comparing very specific (and plainly uncontrolled) methodologies which is a useful data point, but does not constitute scientific evidence for the claims of the proponents. There is no evidence that BD can be distinguished from other organic farming methods because no one has ever done a study trying to show this in a serious way. All that has been done are studies that measure the differences between different specific techniques in particular in different specific scenarios and conditions which is a different question entirely. To claim that this is evidence that BD actually does have distinguishing characteristics beyond something that would not be certified BD is actually the original research. The studies themselves don't even go so far as to make such conclusions. jps (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Studies evaluation

This study does not adequately control for whether the biodynamic preparation is meaningfully different from one which uses the same ingredients but eschews the biodynamic rituals. It also only compares between three different alternatives which is not enough to establish anything other than a comparison of the three alternatives for that context and doesn't speak to the point that there is no statistically relevant distinguishing characteristics that separates a BD preparation from one that avoids the mysticism.

This study likewise does not control for whether the biodynamic preparation is meaningfully different from one which uses the same ingredients but eschews the biodynamic rituals. It only compares between two different different manures which is not enough to establish anything other than a direct single comparison for that context and doesn't speak to the point that there is no statistically relevant distinguishing characteristics that separates a BD preparation from one that avoids the mysticism.

The article doesn't claim that the preparations particularly make the difference, just that BD (as a whole) makes a difference. See above. hgilbert (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. There are absolutely no sources that try to make anything more than a measurement of differences between different farming techniques and absolutely no sources have demonstrated a means to determine the significance of the difference except for those sources which explicitly explain that there is no evidence that contradicts the null hypothesis. Since this is the point of introducing these references in the first place, it is misleading to claim that there is even "little" evidence to support BD efficacy. jps (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with placing a statement in the section on preparations stating that there is no scientific evidence that shows that these make a difference, however. hgilbert (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's good enough for the section, why not the lede? That's the whole basis of the critique of BD that makes it controversial. It's in practically every independent source on the subject (even the flippant wine journals make oblique reference to it). jps (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've reread the Turinek review more carefully, and noted to my chagrin that much of the evidence found for BD performing differently is in trials comparing untreated farmyard manure with manure treated with preparations. So there is scientific evidence for the preparations making a difference. I'm reluctant to give this much weight in the article, until further trials demonstrate the consistency of these results, but it would be untrue to say that there is none at all. (For example, here no soil difference is found, but differences in "winegrape canopy and chemistry" were discovered.)

There is also a more differentiated picture for the micro flora and fauna, than we have been presenting. First the article mentions that both BD and ORG systems have advantages here, but are difficult to distinguish! They continue, that "However, the BD farming method affects the diversity of soil micro flora and fauna more clearly, where various scientists have come to similar conclusions on the basis of long-term trials. When looking at the complexity and diversity of the microbial food web in soils, the metabolic quotient for CO2 (qCO2) indicates the economy of microbial carbon utilization20. Higher qCO2 values can indicate young microbial communities with greater energy requirements to maintain itself, whereas lower qCO2 values, which were also found for long-term (more than 8 years) cultivated BD soils, indicate less stressed soils and thus diverse and highly interrelated soil communities11,14–16,18. In line with these findings, Carpenter-Boggs et al.6 measured higher qCO2 values for soils amended with BD compost in a 2-year short-term study"

I'll amend the section accordingly, making a more limited claim.I don't really consider that the special claim deserves the status of the lede. I've moved it to the body of the article, leaving the emphasis of the last paragraph on the paucity of evidence and the critical stance. This should be more NPOV-friendly!

We still need to tweak the description of evidence. I've left this as "relatively little" -- we need some wording that implies there's little, but not none at all. hgilbert (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You are overstating the linked article, what it says is: "Biodynamic preparations may affect winegrape canopy and chemistry but were not shown to affect the soil parameters or tissue nutrients measured in this study.", emphasis mine, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine. The point is that there is slight, little, minor evidence, however we want to word this. hgilbert (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the preparations are not the only thing that make BD since it is a "holistic" enterprise. Evaluating the difference between preparations should be done on the basis of some set of standards and there may be evidence that BD preparations are good for certain agricultural outcomes (though whether they rise above all others is not addressed well in the literature). However, there is a larger question as to whether BD as a system lives up to the hype. I don't see any sources about this. jps (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Query

The following was recently inserted regarding the astronomical/logical planting calendar: " based on wide range of sources from traditional folklore to early ecological theories". Is there any evidence that this is the basis for the planting calendar? So far as I know no one has ever claimed its origin to be either traditional or in early ecological theories. We should find a citation or remove the claim.hgilbert (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Steiner's writings, he bases a lot of his argumentation on religion, folklore, spirituality, and an appreciation for the nascent environmental movement (seeing Man as a part of nature in the John Muir sense). I am surprised that you think it a problematic sentence. It seems almost plainly obvious to me. jps (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This, for example, seems to support my claim. I suppose you may have a different take. I'm happy to read what it is. jps (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

sounds like WP:OR to me. In addition, the source you give has little or nothing to do with the bd planting calendar. I can add a CN tag if you like. hgilbert (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you think Steiner based the planting calendar on? Perhaps the phrase isn't even necessary, though. No big deal. I'm not sure how you can say that a discussion of when spring begins is not about the planting calendar, but whatever. I don't really care that much. jps (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing / neutraility

Some substantive claims (added in 2008) in the article are sourced to this piece, which appears to be nothing more than a Masters thesis. What is more, it states: " This research was supported by Fetzer Winery, Jim Fetzer, Benziger Family Winery, the Land Institute, the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association of North America, and the Dept of Crop and Soil Sciences at Washington State University."

It probably shouldn't be used. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to have been published as a later article; I'll fix it up. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Self-sufficient seed production

See Plant_propagation An important issue in any organic farming, natural farming and biodynamic farming is that one can produce one's own seed (hence many take care to choose crop cultivars that produce very fertile seeds -heirloom crops, ...-) . However, using crops that do not produce viable seeds (and so can only be propagated vegetatively) seems to be more ecologic in some ways, as it prevents the accidental propogation (by birds, ...) of these non-native crops into the surrounding environment.

Perhaps useful to mention in article KVDP (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV etc

I've taken the liberty to remove the last paragraph of the introduction because it brings nothing much more to the article than the section "Criticism as pseudoscience", also, I think the latter section should be renamed "Criticism" only and mention somewhere why it is being questioned. I think if we could tilt the discussion more towards the effect that bidynamism has on the microbiology of soils, we would have everyone's agreement here and we could get rid of the non-balanced POV. Or perhaps, the Criticism section should be higher in the article. uuuǝıɹ 12:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've restored it per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:LEDE. I believe it gives proper weight to the criticisms given the fringe theories involved. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz, for restoring the important pseudoscience identification. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a summary of article content, and the pseudoscience accusation is prominent and crucial. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - this is needed for neutrality. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

With that material back in place there seems no need for the neutrality tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We should not have a POV tag hanging at the top of the article for so long. Tags such as these should not be used as a "badge of shame". I agree the tag is not needed as long as this topic is prominently linked to pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)