Mar 24, 2023
Does Biodynamics Work?
Many people will ask, "Does biodynamics work?" or "Where's the science?" and these are natural and even healthy questions. But when we consider where the money comes for large double-blind studies with proper controls, there's little incentive for major corporate investments when there's nothing to patent or control for profit. Since biodynamics is common knowledge, the only funds available for research tend to come from private donors who wish to enhance the evidence base for biodynamics and help renew the earth, which is an integral of the mission of the Josephine Porter Institute.
When dealing with living systems, it is much harder to provide conclusive field evidence because there are so many uncontrollable factors. Even if we only consider the variations in weather patterns, that is more than enough to induce huge differences even on adjacent farms. During a major drought, few trials will tend to show "improvement" and during a time with ideal rainfall, even the worst application rates may show deceptive results under ideal conditions.
When we consider the complexity of biodynamics, we also include the phases of the moon which are constantly changing. How can we "control" for the moon when it is always having an effect on everything on earth? To do so, we would need a laboratory in space outside the gravitational influence of the planetary bodies! We're talking about the practical limits of the scientific method where we must employ thinking to fill in the gaps. We cannot afford to abstract a plant from the Earth and perform laboratory tests in outer space merely to control for the moon's influence. But that inability does not mean that the moon's influence is "unscientific" but rather that our science (and economy) is not capable of such scientific inquiry.
Most scientific epiphanies precede data collection. A scientist without any imagination is not likely to make creative intuitive connections between the data they collect. Biodynamics is such a creative intuitive leap. The science must follow afterwards, but those who utilize biodynamics can attest to significant changes in plant health, disease resistance, pest resistance, and flavor improvements.
When dealing with living systems, it is much harder to provide conclusive field evidence because there are so many uncontrollable factors. Even if we only consider the variations in weather patterns, that is more than enough to induce huge differences even on adjacent farms. During a major drought, few trials will tend to show "improvement" and during a time with ideal rainfall, even the worst application rates may show deceptive results under ideal conditions.
When we consider the complexity of biodynamics, we also include the phases of the moon which are constantly changing. How can we "control" for the moon when it is always having an effect on everything on earth? To do so, we would need a laboratory in space outside the gravitational influence of the planetary bodies! We're talking about the practical limits of the scientific method where we must employ thinking to fill in the gaps. We cannot afford to abstract a plant from the Earth and perform laboratory tests in outer space merely to control for the moon's influence. But that inability does not mean that the moon's influence is "unscientific" but rather that our science (and economy) is not capable of such scientific inquiry.
Most scientific epiphanies precede data collection. A scientist without any imagination is not likely to make creative intuitive connections between the data they collect. Biodynamics is such a creative intuitive leap. The science must follow afterwards, but those who utilize biodynamics can attest to significant changes in plant health, disease resistance, pest resistance, and flavor improvements.