Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:21:44.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biodynamic agriculture research progress and priorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2009

M. Turinek ,
S. Grobelnik-Mlakar ,
M. Bavec  and
F. Bavec
M. Turinek
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Institute for Organic Farming, University of Maribor, Pivola 10, 2311 Hoče, Slovenia.
S. Grobelnik-Mlakar
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Institute for Organic Farming, University of Maribor, Pivola 10, 2311 Hoče, Slovenia.
M. Bavec
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Institute for Organic Farming, University of Maribor, Pivola 10, 2311 Hoče, Slovenia.
F. Bavec*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Institute for Organic Farming, University of Maribor, Pivola 10, 2311 Hoče, Slovenia.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biodynamic (BD) agriculture became the subject of research efforts during the past decades, whereas a part of the scientific community looks at the BD method with skepticism and marks it as dogmatic. Nevertheless, as explored in this review, a fair share of the available peer-reviewed research results of controlled field experiments as well as case studies show effects of BD preparations on yield, soil quality and biodiversity. Moreover, BD preparations express a positive environmental impact in terms of energy use and efficiency. However, the underlying natural science mechanistic principle of BD preparations is still under investigation. In addition, quality determination methods, based on holistic approaches, are increasingly being investigated and recognized. BD farming strives, as manifested in several publications, to positively impact cultural landscape design as well. Summarized data showed that further research is needed and thus encouraged in the field of food quality comparison/determination, food safety, environmental performance (e.g., footprints), and on the effects of BD farming practices on farm animals.

Keywords

biodynamicresearchbasic experimentscase studiesquality assessmentlandscape development
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 146 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Steiner, R. 1924. Geisteswissenschaftliche Grundlagen zum Gedeihen der Landwirtschaft. Rudolf Steiner Verlag, Dornach.Google Scholar
2Reganold, J.P. 1995. Soil quality and profitability of biodynamic and conventional farming systems: A review. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10:36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Demeter International e.V. 2008. Demeter International e.V. – A World-wide Network. http://www.demeter.net/ (verified 10 December 2008).Google Scholar
4Ryan, M. and Ash, J. 1999. Effects of phosphorus and nitrogen on growth of pasture plants and VAM fungi in SE Australian soils with contrasting fertiliser histories (conventional and biodynamic). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 73:51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Carpenter-Boggs, L., Reganold, J.P., and Kennedy, A.C. 2000. Effects of biodynamic preparations on compost development. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 17:313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Carpenter-Boggs, L., Kennedy, A.C., and Reganold, J.P. 2000. Organic and biodynamic management: effects on soil biology. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:1651–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Reeve, J.R., Carpenter-Boggs, L., Reganold, J.P., York, A.L., McGourty, G., and McCloskey, L.P. 2005. Soil and winegrape quality in biodynamically and organically managed vineyards. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 56:367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Zaller, J.G. 2007. Seed germination of the weed Rumex obtusifolius after on-farm conventional, biodynamic and vermicomposting of cattle manure. Annals of Applied Biology 151:245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Raupp, J. and König, U.J. 1996. Biodynamic preparations cause opposite yield effects depending upon yield levels. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Zimdahl, R. 1999. Fundamentals of Weed Science. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
11Goldstein, W., Barber, W., Carpenter-Boggs, L., Daloren, D., and Koopmans, C. 2004. Comparisons of conventional, organic and biodynamic methods. Michael Fields Agricultural Institute. Available at Web site http://www.michaelfieldsaginst.org/education/comparison.pdf (verified 30 June 2008).Google Scholar
12Rupela, O.P., Gopalakrishnan, S., Krajewski, M., and Sriveni, M. 2003. A novel method for the identification and enumeration of microorganisms with potential for suppressing fungal pathogens. Biology and Fertility of Soils 39:131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Mäder, P., Fließbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., and Niggli, U. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296:1694–1697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Fließbach, A., Oberholzer, H.R., Gunst, L., and Mäder, P. 2007. Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118:273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Oehl, F., Frossard, E., Fließbach, A., Dubois, D., and Oberson, A. 2004. Basal organic phosphorus mineralization in soils under different farming systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36:667–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Zaller, J.G. and Köpke, U. 2004. Effects of traditional and biodynamic farmyard manure amendment on yields, soil chemical, biochemical and biological properties in a long-term field experiment. Biology and Fertility of Soils 40:222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Wada, S. and Toyota, K. 2007. Repeated applications of farmyard manure enhance resistance and resilience of soil biological functions against soil disinfection. Biology and Fertility of Soils 43:349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Scheller, E. and Raupp, J. 2005. Amino acid and soil organic matter content of topsoil in a long term trial with farmyard manure and mineral fertilizers. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 22:379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Pfiffner, L. and Mäder, P. 1997. Effects of biodynamic, organic and conventional production systems on earthworm populations. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 15:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Anderson, T.H. and Domsch, K.H. 1993. The metabolic quotient for CO2 (qCO2) as a specific activity parameter to assess the effects of environmental conditions, such as pH, on the microbial biomass of forest soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 25:393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Janzen, H.H. 2004. Carbon cycling in earth systems – a soil science perspective. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104:399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Raupp, J. 2001. Forschungsthemen und Ergebnisse eines Langzeitdüngungsversuchs in zwei Jahrzehnten; ein Beitrag zur Bewertung von pflanzenbaulichen Langzeitversuchen. Berichte über Landwirtschaft 79:71–93.Google Scholar
23Reganold, J.P., Palmer, A.S., Lockhart, J.C., and MacGregor, A.N. 1993. Soil quality and financial performance of biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand. Science 260:344–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Droogers, P. and Bouma, J. 1996. Biodynamic vs. conventional farming effects on soil structure expressed by simulated potential productivity. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60:1552–1558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Janzen, H.H. 2006. Greenhouse gases as clues to permanence of farmlands. Conservation Biology 21:668–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Pimentel, D., Herperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seidel, R. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55:573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Ryan, M. and Ash, J. 1999. Effects of phosphorus and nitrogen on growth of pasture plants and VAM fungi in SE Australian soils with contrasting fertiliser histories (conventional and biodynamic). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 73:51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Ryan, M.H., Small, D.R., and Ash, J.E. 2000. Phosphorus controls the level of colonisation by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in conventional and biodynamic irrigated daily pastures. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40:663–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Frey-Klett, P., Garbaye, J., and Tarkka, M. 2007. The mycorrhiza helper bacteria revisited. New Phytologist 176:22–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Burkitt, L.L., Small, D.R., McDonald, J.W., Wales, W.J., and Jenkin, M.L. 2007. Comparing irrigated biodynamic and conventionally managed dairy farms. 1. Soil and pasture properties. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47:479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Burkitt, L.L., Wales, W.J., McDonald, J.W., Small, D.R., and Jenkin, M.L. 2007. Comparing irrigated biodynamic and conventionally managed dairy farms. 2. Milk production and composition and animal health. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47:489–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Nguyen, M.L. and Haynes, R.J. 1995. Energy and labour efficiency for three pairs of conventional and alternative mixed cropping (pasture-arable) farms in Canterbury, New Zealand. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 52:163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Probst, B., Schüler, C., and Joergensen, R.G. 2008. Vineyard soils under organic and conventional management – microbial biomass and activity indices and their relation to soil chemical properties. Biology and Fertility of Soils 44:443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Kahl, B.J. 2006. Entwicklung, in-house Validierung und Anwendung des ganzheitlichen Verfahrens Biokristallisation für die Unterscheidung von Weizen-, Möhren- und Apfelproben aus unterschiedlichem Anbau und Verarbeitungsschritten. Habilitationsschrift. University of Kassel, Witzenhausen, Germany.Google Scholar
35Meelursarn, A. 2006. Statistical evaluation of texture analysis from the biocrystallization method: Effect of image parameters to differentiate samples from different farming systems. PhD thesis. University of Kassel, Witzenhausen.Google Scholar
36Andersen, J.O., Huber, M., Kahl, J., Busscher, N., and Meier-Ploeger, A. 2003. A concentration matrix procedure for determining optimal combinations of concentrations in biocrystallization. Elemente der Naturwissenschaft 79:97–114.Google Scholar
37Andersen, J.O., Henriksen, C.B., Laursen, J., and Nielsen, A.A. 1998. Computerised image analysis of biocrystallograms originating from agricultural products. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 22:51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Vereijken, J.F.H.M., van Gelder, T., and Baars, T. 1997. Nature and landscape development on organic farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63:201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Ho, M.W. and Ulanowicz, R. 2005. Sustainable systems as organisms? BioSystems 82:39–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40Beismann, M. 1997. Landscaping on a farm in northern Germany, a case study of conceptual and social fundaments for the development of an ecologically sound agro-landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63:173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Colquhoun, M. 1997. An exploration into the use of Goethean science as a methodology for landscape assessment: the Pishwanton Project. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63:145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Greenwood, D.J., Whyte, W.F., and Harkavy, I. 1993. Participatory action research as a process and as a goal. Human Relations 46:175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Helmfried, H., Haden, A., and Ljung, M. 2008. The role of action research (AR) in environmental research: learning from a local organic food and farming research project. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21:105–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Stevenson, F.J. 1994. Humus Chemistry: Genesis, Composition, Reactions. Wiley Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
45Turinek, M., Grobelnik-Mlakar, S., Bavec, M., and Bavec, F. 2008. Biodynamic agriculture from past to present. Agricultura 6:1–4.Google Scholar
46Koepf, H., Schaumann, W., and Haccius, M. 1996. Biologisch-dynamische Landwirtschaft. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
47Regulation (EC) No. 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Available at Web site http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/2002/R/02002R1774-20060401-en.pdf (verified 10 December 2008).Google Scholar
48Hurter, M. (ed.)2007. Zur Vertiefung der biologisch-dynamischen Landwirtschaft. Verlag am Goetheanum, Dornach.Google Scholar
49Biodynamic-Research-Team. 2008. Biodynamic-Research.net – Information and Communication Network for Research on Biodynamic Agriculture. Available at Web site http://www.biodynamic-research.net/ (verified 10 December 2008).Google Scholar
50Berner, A., Hildermann, I., Fließbach, A., Pfiffner, L., Niggli, U., and Mäder, P. 2008. Crop yield and soil fertility response to reduced tillage under organic management. Soil Tillage Research 101:89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar