Like Waldorf Education, Biodynamic farming is inseparable from its anthroposophical context. It is that context that I feel Peter Staudenmaier has not understood, and it is his misunderstanding that is at the root of so much of his misinformation and the outright fabrications of this article.

As is typical, Peter Staudenmaier cannot resist imputing ill will to anthroposophists, citing author Stewart Easton to demonstrate the supposed disdain that the cult-like adherents of Steiner‘s biodynamics hold towards mere organic farmers. This is a rather transparent ploy. The purported condescension in Easton’s simple statement has been added by Mr. Peter Staudenmaier.

"Unlike most farmers who farm in what they speak of as an "organic" manner, the biodynamic farmer recognizes fully that the earth has indeed lost much of its fertility and is losing more every day, and that it is simply not enough in the present age merely to refuse to use herbicides, insecticides and chemical fertilizer, and to manufacture compost from waste farm products in the traditional manner. These things in themselves are good as far as they go, but much more I needed to restore its lost fertility to the earth. The ‘organic’ farmer may well farm ‘biologically’ but he does not have the knowledge of how to work with dynamic forces—a knowledge that was given for the first time by Rudolf Steiner."

Easton ‘s statement is probably shared by many practicing biodynamic farmers, and represents what many would consider a simple fact. This does not mean that biodynamic farmers do not frequently make common cause with other organic farmers and supporters of sustainable agriculture. The movement is not nearly as insular as Mr. Peter Staudenmaier makes it out to be.

Biodynamic farming is based on Steiner‘s revelation of invisible cosmic forces and their effects on soil and flora. Anthroposophy teaches that the earth is an organism that breathes twice a day, that ethereal beings act upon the land, and that celestial bodies and their movements directly influence the growth of plants. Hence biodynamic farmers time their sowing to coincide with the proper planetary constellations, all a part of what they consider "the spiritual natural processes of the earth." [Footnote: Lindenberg, p. 134.]* Sometimes this "spiritual" approach takes unusual forms, as in the case of "preparation 500."

To make preparation 500, an integral component of anthroposophist agriculture, biodynamic farmers pack cow manure into a steer’s horn and bury it in the ground. After leaving it there for one whole winter, they dig up the horn and mix the manure with water (it must be stirred for a full hour in a specific rhythm) to make a spray which is applied to the topsoil. All of this serves to channel "radiations which tend to etherealize and astralize" and thus "gather up and attract from the surrounding earth all that is ethereal and life-giving." [Footnote: Steiner, Lecture Four from the 1924 Course on Agriculture.]**

Non-anthroposophist organic growers are often inclined to dismiss such fanciful aspects of biodynamics as harmless, albeit pointless, appurtenances to an otherwise congenial cultivation technique. While this attitude has some merit, it is not reciprocated by biodynamic adherents, who emphasize that "The ‘organic’ farmer may well farm ‘biologically’ but he does not have the knowledge of how to work with dynamic forces—a knowledge that was given for the first time by Rudolf Steiner."[Footnote: Easton, p. 444]*** For better or worse, biodynamic farming is inseparable from its anthroposophic context.

This, I feel, is an accurate description of biodynamic farming. It is obvious that Peter Staudenmaier is highly suspicious of the non-sense-perceptible aspect, but he has not factually misrepresented it. That aspect makes more sense when explained by someone sympathetic to the aims of biodynamic farming should be obvious. With farming in particular a theoretical method can be judged by its effectiveness. Farmers are known for being practical and for being suspicious of highfalutin theories. The broad dissemination of biodynamic agriculture is therefore evidence of its practical success. If biodynamic farming is indeed inseparable from its anthroposophical context then this is powerful evidence that Steiner‘s understanding of invisible cosmic forces has real efficacy in practical reality.

* Once again Lindenberg yields a quote that is accurate. Peter Staudenmaier does his best to spin the respect for the earth and its spiritual aspects which are is inherent in Biodynamic farming into something both silly and dangerous, but the fact itself remains undisputed.

** I must note that Peter Staudenmaier has not cited a publisher or page-number for these short-phrase "quotations". The two phrases he quotes: "radiations which tend to etherealize and astralize" and "gather up and attract from the surrounding earth all that is ethereal and life-giving" are taken out of context, as Steiner never described the purpose of the preparation in those words. The first is taken from a sentence found on page 99 of the present German edition, "Dadurch, daß das Kuhhorn äußerlich von der Erde umgeben ist, strahlen alle Strahlen in seine innere Höhlung hinein, die im sinne der Ätherisierung und Astralisierung gehen." The 1958 translation by George Adams (page 74) from which Peter Staudenmaier probably took this reads, "Through the fact that it is outwardly surrounded by the earth, all radiations that tend to etherealize and astralise are poured into the inner hollow of the horn." Thus, it is not the spray that is made by mixing the contents of the horn that possesses the qualities, but the contents of the horn while it is in the earth. This is perhaps a minor point, but also very telling of the exactitude of Peter Staudenmaier‘s scholarship.

The second quote comes from the next sentence in the text, "And the manure inside the horn is inwardly quickened with these forces, which thus gather up and attract from the surrounding earth all that is ethereal and life-giving." The gathering up and attracting is done inside the buried cows horn, and not by the Preparation 500 once it has been spread.

In treating such a complex subject as the making of Preparation 500 and its use in such an offhand manner, Peter Staudenmaier has failed to adequately explain Steiner‘s carefully grounded indications. But then, his goal is merely to show how silly it all is, rather than to actually understand it.

See, Steiner, Rudolf. Agriculture. London: Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association, 1972. Page 74.

***

"Unlike most farmers who farm in what they speak of as an "organic" manner, the biodynamic farmer recognizes fully that the earth has indeed lost much of its fertility and is losing more every day, and that it is simply not enough in the present age merely to refuse to use herbicides, insecticides and chemical fertilizer, and to manufacture compost from waste farm products in the traditional manner. These things in themselves are good as far as they go, but much more I needed to restore its lost fertility to the earth. The ‘organic’ farmer may well farm ‘biologically’ but he does not have the knowledge of how to work with dynamic forces—a knowledge that was given for the first time by Rudolf Steiner."

Easton ‘s statement is probably shared by many practicing biodynamic farmers, and represents what many would consider a simple fact. This does not mean that biodynamic farmers do not frequently make common cause with other organic farmers and supporters of sustainable agriculture. The movement is not nearly as insular as Mr. Peter Staudenmaier makes it out to be.

Although not a farmer himself, Steiner introduced the fundamental outlines of biodynamics near the end of his life and produced a substantial body of literature on the topic, which anthroposophists and biodynamic growers follow more or less faithfully. Biodynamics in practice often converges with the broader principles of organic farming. Its focus on maintaining soil fertility rather than on crop yield, its rejection of artificial chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and its view of the whole farm or plot as an ecosystem all mark the biodynamic approach as an eminently sensible and ecologically sound method of cultivation. But there is more to the story than that.

What is missing from this largely accurate summary is the fact that Steiner‘s indications in the Agriculture Course are just that: indications, and not prescriptions. Beyond the rather obvious concerns such as viewing the farm as an ecological unit to be run on a sustainable basis, Steiner gave indications concerning other forces that influence the practices of farming. For example, he called attention to the role of the planets in the growth of plants. While this may at first appear rather nebulous, it can be quite easily tested in practice, and this is what Steiner encouraged. If Steiner says that the position of Mars in relation to the earth has an influence on the growth of rye, then this can be quite easily tested: plant some rye in a supposedly auspicious moment, then plant some more in a separate plot a week or two later and compare the growth of the two. You will very quickly determine whether Steiner‘s indications work in practice or not. And I would suggest that the experience of thousands of biodynamic farmers indicates that Steiner‘s indications do work in practice. If Mr. Peter Staudenmaier is troubled as to how Mars could possibly influence the growth of rye, then that is a problem for him to work out. Disparaging the obvious success of Biodynamic farming from a theoretical position that it ought to be impossible is simply not scientific.

Next to Waldorf schools, the most widespread and apparently progressive version of applied Anthroposophy is biodynamic agriculture. In Germany and North America, at least, biodynamics is an established part of the alternative agriculture scene. Many small growers use biodynamic methods on their farms or gardens; there are biodynamic vineyards and the Demeter line of biodynamic food products, as well as a profusion of pamphlets, periodicals and conferences on the theory and practice of biodynamic farming.

Finally, a factually accurate paragraph! It appears that Mr. Peter Staudenmaier is more familiar with biodynamic agriculture than with Waldorf education. He has neglected to mention the success of biodynamic agriculture in South America, the Philippines, and Australia, and Egypt, but that is probably an oversight. And biodynamic agriculture is not limited only to small growers; there are quite a few larger farms that employ the techniques, though Peter Staudenmaier would be correct to point out that biodynamic techniques are not very easily applicable to large-scale factory farming.

Students in Waldorf schools hear fairy tales only in the first (and sometimes the second) grade. During that time, they do not read them; they hear them (and fairy tales are certainly not the only thing in the curriculum for those grades). After that the curriculum moves on to more challenging things. So Mr. Peter Staudenmaier‘s claim that fairy tales are a staple of the Waldorf curriculum is only true for Kindergarten and first grade. Usually by second grade the curriculum has the teacher telling stories of great men and women of history and their achievements, told in a manner appropriate for the age group.

A recent article I wrote was a list of lens bargains for the Sony Alpha (formerly Minolta Maxxum) lens mount. The article was titled Sony Alpha (Minolta Maxxum mount) lens bargains.

I also wrote a review of my main wide-angle lens, the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. And predictably review was titled Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Review.

A couple years ago I wrote an article called How Ebay profits from software piracy, based on my experiences with one transaction. Those are the most recent articles on my photography blog.

Several years ago I wrote a review of the CompactDrive PSD PD7X. This is a portable hard drive casing that ran off of AAA batteries and allowed you to dump the contents of CompactFlash drive cards on to your portable hard drive in the field. In the days of 16 gig CF cards, it is not terribly useful anymore. It back when he spent $200 for a one gig card, it made a lot more sense.

I also written a review of Genuine Fractals 3.5, were I compared it to Photoshop CS bicubic interpolation, and found Photoshop to upsize better than genuine fractals. The article is titled Genuine Fractals 3.5 Review.

Before that I wrote a review of the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D. I am still very pleased with the camera, and think that the 7D still takes better pictures than my Sony Alpha 100. Read my review at Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Review.

My latest article is titled Flatbed scanner comparison: The Canon CanoScan 4400F vs the CanoScan 8600F. in this article I attempt to answer the question, "What is the difference between the Canon CanoScan 4400F and the CanoScan 8600F?

Daniel

I would certainly like to discover the source of Peter Staudenmaier’s hilarious understanding that jazz and popular music are considered to harbor demonic forces; as usual, he has no footnotes for that claim.This is a distressing trend for this article.

I’m not sure I understand the accusation that there is “no jazz or popular music“ in Waldorf schools. Does Peter Staudenmaier mean that these subjects do not occur in the curriculum? Or does he mean to imply that there is some sort of blanket ban on such things anywhere on school grounds? As far as the curriculum goes, the music does generally lean towards folk and classical music, but that is the discretion of the individual class teachers and music subject teachers.* The music program varies depending on the size of the school and the talents of the teachers. Singing is required from Kindergarten onwards, in ever increasing complexity, and in larger Waldorf schools choral singing is introduced by the sixth grade. Every student participates. European Waldorf students are as interested in popular music as students anywhere in the world.

*As an aside, how many US public schools have jazz or popular music in the curriculum? How many US public schools have any music in the curriculum? I personally have included a section on the development of popular music in the 20th Century – with numerous recorded examples – in a 12th grade course on the history of the 20th Century that I teach at a Waldorf School. This fact alone disproves Peter Staudenmaier’s claim in its absolute formulation.

Anthroposophy‘s peculiar predilections also shape the Waldorf curriculum. There are no sports at European Waldorf schools and no jazz or popular music; these phenomena are considered to harbor demonic forces. Instead students read fairy tales, a staple of Waldorf education. Taken together with the pervasive anti-technological and anti-scientific bias, the suspicion toward rational thought, and the occasional outbreaks of racist gibberish, these factors indicate that Waldorf schooling is as questionable as the other aspects of the anthroposophist enterprise.

Continuing his tirade and litany of absurd and distorted claims against Waldorf schools, Mr. Peter Staudenmaier here presents a string of inane claims that even the simplest investigation easily disproves. For example, the statement “there are no sports at European Waldorf schools” is particularly absurd. I have walked the grounds of the first Waldorf School in Stuttgart, and there is a track, basketball courts, and a gym with equipment for volleyball and gymnastics. The students use all all these facilities, as can be observed on any school day. Numerous other Waldorf schools I have visited on three continents are similarly equipped.* While I cannot say with certainty that every last one of the hundreds of Waldorf Schools in Europe have a sports program, there is no reason to believe they do not. Further, there is nothing in the Waldorf pedagogy that could be construed to be against sports.** But there are more problems with this paragraph that I will address tomorrow.

*What is interesting from an American perspective is that there are no intermural competitive sports in the German Waldorf schools. This becomes understandable when you discover that there are no intermural competitive sports in the German public schools either. Such sports are the domain of local associations independent of the schools –like the US Little Leagues – and Waldorf students can, and do, participate just like their peers in German public schools.

**When asked about sports in the Waldorf School, Steiner responded thus (to an audience in England):

"[Question:] How should instruction in gymnastics be carried out, and should sports be taught in an English school, hockey and cricket, for example, and if so in what way?

[Steiner:] It is emphatically not the aim of the Waldorf school method to suppress these things. They have their place simply because they play a great part in English life, and the children should grow up into life. Only please do not fall prey to the illusion that there is any other meaning in it than this, namely, that we ought not to make children strangers to their world. It is an error to believe that sports are of tremendous value in development. They are not of great value in development. Their only value is as a fashion dear to the English people, but we must not make the children strangers to the world by exclusion from all popular activities. You like sport in England, so the children should be introduced to sports. One should not meet with philistine opposition what may possibly be philistine itself.

Regarding "how it should really be taught", there is very little indeed to be said. For in these things it is really more or less so that the child imitates what someone does first. And to devise special artificial methods here would be something scarcely appropriate to the subject."

Rudolf Steiner, The Kingdom of Childhood. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1995. Pages 134-135.

Mr. Peter Staudenmaier‘s further conjecture, that his ten-second investigation "suggests" that everything tens of thousands of parents over eight decades know about the school that they have chosen to send their children to is completely wrong, is the height of incompetent scholarship. Waldorf’s reputation has not been won on a multi-million dollar advertising campaign. Rather, Waldorf’s reputation is the result of decades of results. And the Waldorf movement is not the fastest growing pedagogical movement in the world because it abuses and mis-educates children. Almost every Waldorf school in the world (over seven hundred and counting) started as a parent initiative, and grew from the enthusiasm of parents who are deeply concerned with their children’s education. If Mr. Peter Staudenmaier‘s allegations here were even remotely accurate there would simply be no Waldorf movement and Steiner‘s pedagogical indications would be a footnote in history.