Content uploaded by Selina Fraine
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Selina Fraine on Apr 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
2058279 | Bethan Wood | 5th May 2015 | Word Count: 11,137
Is biodynamic farming
the sustainable
agriculture of the future?
Table of Contents
1.
2 | P A G E
Abstract
Biodynamic agricultural is an innovative and potentially sustainable method of farming developed in the
1920’s by Dr Rudolph Steiner. It was developed in order to tackle the growing problem of soil erosion
that was occurring at the time. The practice incorporates the idea that agriculture is holistic: a collective
spiritual, ethical and ecological approach to the production of our food. Biodynamic farming disallows
the use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers and instead opt to use something very unique: preparations.
These preparations are made up of totally natural substances which are usually sourced from the farm
itself. The application of these preparations to the farm follows a strict calendar that incorporates growing
seasons, and lunar and cosmic cycles.
The objects of this work was to define sustainability and assess how sustainable biodynamic farming is in
relation to the definition. To investigate the effects of preparations on soil quality, and assess whether it
would be feasible for biodynamic farming to be the sustainable agricultural practice of the future.
The research found that in terms of sustainability biodynamic agriculture is one of the most sustainable
agricultural practices in modern day farming. It has no adverse effects on the environment, produces no
waste, as everything that would typically be deemed as waste, is recycled to other parts of the farm.
Generally, most biodynamic farms are run as a community effort and tend to run alongside residential
schemes that aim to support the needs of individuals with a wide range of learning difficulties and mental
health issues. Running a farm in this manner incorporates many factors of social sustainability. The only
issue found with biodynamic agriculture’s overall sustainability is its economic standing. Most
biodynamic farms run on a charity basis to fund their therapeutic residential schemes, in doing so there is
then a potential to lose their grants and donation funding from third party providers. Thereby, if funding is
cut, this can then be of a massive loss to the farm as it may no longer be able to support its residents or
run at a profit. This study found that preparations 500-508 do have beneficial effects on the soil and its
quality. The main findings were that compost treated with biodynamic preparations contained 10% less
Carbon Dioxide (CO2), had a higher ratio of dehydrongenase enzyme to CO2 production and had
increased microbiological movement. Additionally it was also found that the treated compostswere
typically of a higher average temperature and increased organic matter content. All of these findings are
factors which enable decomposition to occur faster, which produces a greater quality of soil. If soil is of
good quality then the quality of crops grown in the soil will also be better. The final section of this
research focuses on how we can sustainably meet our worlds food demand. This study found that we still
need to rely on conventional agriculture to meet our global food demand. This is because currently, our
alternative options are just not sustainable enough yet and need more time to develop. overall,
biodynamic farming could be a feasible option for the future. However in order for this to happen,
additional measures must be taken in order to make biodynamic agriculture more sustainable. Moreover,
more information surrounding the practice needs to be made public, as people will not have faith in a
practice that is known to be secretive.
3 | P A G E
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
Over the past century agricultural researchers have widely recognised that sustainable agricultural
production systems are becoming increasingly more important as land becomes more scare and
population increases. This highlights that there is a need to develop more suitable methods and definitions
to measure sustainability within the agricultural field (Pacini et al., 2003). The development of “cleaner”
and “low input” methods of farming are required in order to produce enough food for the world’s
population in accordance with conserving land and habitats. Currently only 4% of the UK’s land is
farmed based on the concept of sustainability (Pacini et al., 2003).
Presently, the human population is increasing. As it increases the demand for food will also rises in direct
correlation. It is estimated that the global food demand will double over the next 50 years (Tilman et al.,
2002). This could result in substantial environmental damage, a study by Carpenter et al., (1998) states
that, agriculture can lead to the loss of natural ecosystems and adds globally significant and
environmentally harmful amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus to terrestrial ecosystems. The damaging
impacts caused by agriculture has led to the desire for sustainable farming systems to increase in
accordance with the movement to protect wildlife, prevent land degradation and to decrease
environmental harm caused by farming practices (European Commission, 2006). Fundamentally,
sustainability is based upon three pillars; economic, social and environmental, if one pillar is weak the
whole system is deemed unsustainable. A universal definition for sustainable does not currently exist, so
for the purposes of this research this definition of sustainable development will be used.
Sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Sustainable Developement Commission, 2012).
Presently, the UK has the infrastructure in place to start delivering sustainable development, however it
lacks the legislative foundation it needs in order for it to be a feasible (Ross, 2010). For sustainable
agriculture to exist with a universal definition the infrastructure for sustainable development in required.
Currently, there are many different variations and theories to “sustainable agriculture”. For the purpose of
this research the definition provided by The Brundtland Commission of the UN (1987) will be used:
“The management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological
and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of
human needs for present and future generations. Such development... conserves land, water, plant and
animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, economically
viable and socially acceptable.”
The development of a universal definition for sustainability would aid agriculturalists all over the world
to measure sustainability. This would be of value as the scale of agriculture is increasing to meet food
demand. Presently half of global usable farming land is already in pastoral or intensive agriculture
(Tilman, et al., 2002); by having a universally agreed and globally recognised sustainability measurement
farmers would be able to develop sustainable farm’s. For a universal definition to be established, the
implementation of sustainable development needs to occur first.
4 | P A G E
1.2 Conventional Agriculture
The concept of conventional agriculture was developed in order to justify and provide a comparative
foundation for alternative methods of agriculture (Hansen, 1996). “Conventional agriculture is
characterised as capital-intensive, large-scale, highly mechanised agriculture with monocultures of crops
and extensive use of artificial fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides, with intensive animal husbandry”
(Knorr & Watkins, 1984, p. 148). This type of agriculture became very popular during the Second World
War. The UK government encouraged its people to utilise land to its full potential when faced with food
shortages (Robinson & Sutherland, 2000). The “Dig for Victory” campaign encouraged people to
transform parks, gardens and even ditches into land for the growth of vegetables (Education Scotland,
2014). This intensive, industrialised farming caused a large amount of degradation to valuable land and
contributed to the population decrease of many species of farmland birds (RSPB, 2009). The decline of
the raptor species Falco columbarius (or Merlin) occurred because of the heavy use of organochlorine
pesticides during and after the Second World War (Boatman, et al., 2004). These problems are widely
associated with “conventional” or “industrial” agriculture, which is perceived to be unsustainable by
many researchers (Dahlberg, 1991). It is generally understood that this method of agriculture is not a
sustainable option because it causes environmental damage, does not aim to conserve habitats, nor does it
consider future human needs. Furthermore, a study by Rasul & Thapa (2004) states that this method of
farming is known to degrade land and water resources, in addition to producing smaller yields after
chemical fertilisers are used; thereby showing that conventional farming has exceeded the carrying
capacity of the land once yields decrease.
Nevertheless, this method of farming (conventional or industrial agriculture) is currently widely used
across the world on large-scale farms.
1.2.1 The Green Revolution
From the 1940’s to the 1960’s, the development of the Green Revolution movement began. The Green
Revolution is a series of research, technological advances and high investment into the agricultural sector
in an effort to maximise crop yields and decrease diseases susceptibility within crops to combat the risk of
human starvation and malnutrition (Pingali, 2012). “The success of the Green Revolution was caused by
the combination of high rates of investment in crop research, infrastructure, and market development and
appropriate policy support that took place during the first Green Revolution” (Pingali, 2012, p. 12302).
The most notable breakthrough to come from this movement was the invention of genetically modified
organisms (GMO’s) by Norman Borlaug (Briney, 2014). This development of improved agronomy:
hybridised high yielding crops and modernised chemicals fertilisers and pesticides (International Food
Policy Research Institute, 2002) greatly aided developed and developing countries all over the world to
produce enough crops to feed their population. In some countries such as Mexico, they were able to
produce more than what they needed for their population and were able to export to other countries
(Briney, 2014).
Initially, the production levels and crop variety did increase however, it did not take long for people to
realise that this was a short-term solution (King, 2008). The three main varieties of seeds: wheat, rice and
millet; that were developed for the Green Revolution required heavy irrigation and applications of
chemicals fertilisers in order for the crops to be successful (Sebby, 2010). This meant that if there was
5 | P A G E
decreased access to fertilisers or water supplies then crops failed. India suffered from back-to-back
droughts in the 1960’s, which caused detrimental effects to their food production (Pingali, 2012).
Conventional agriculture does not prohibit the use of chemical fertilisers or the use of GMO’s. In fact
chemicals and GMO’s are used widespread (Pimentel et al., 2005). In order to achieve higher yields this
system requires high-energy inputs, which results in the heavy use of fossil fuels and technological
innovations to supplement the required energy needed (Gomiero et al., 2011). GMO crops were
developed to help increase yields, decrease costs for food production and to help crops become resistant
to pests and diseases (Phillips, 2008). However, a study conducted by Gurian-Sherman, (2009) found that
the use of GMO crops does not increase yields. His study showed that the yields of corn and soybeans did
increase, although not due to genetically engineered traits but rather traditional selective breeding.
Furthermore, conventional farming also requires high- energy inputs to achieve high yields (Food and
Agricultural Organisation for the United Nations, 1999). Consequently, The Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) was introduced to help “the agricultural sector to meet strategic food requirements and to
reduce poverty” (Donald et al., 2002, p.171). Shortly afterwards The Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 was introduced to help protect wildlife and habitats from the exploitation that occurred during and
after the Second World War. Since these policies introductions, alternative and potentially sustainable
agricultural practices have become popular and been developed further; this includes organic,
hydroponics and biodynamic agriculture. Biodynamic agriculture will now be considered further.
1.3 Biodynamic agriculture
“Biodynamic agriculture was introduced as a possible solution to farmer’s concerns about their
weakening soils and overall well-being of their fields and crops” (McCullough et al., 2012, p. 1364).
Biodynamics is an innovative sustainable method of farming which philosopher Dr Rudolph Steiner
developed in the 1920’s. It is fundamentally based on his philosophy of “anthroposophy”. Biodynamic
farmers view a farm as a “total” organism and attempts to develop a sustainable system where everything
within the system is respected and has a proper place (Biodynamic Association, 2014; Mason, 2003:14).
The Biodynamic Association (2014), states that biodynamic agriculture incorporates the idea that
agriculture is holistic: a collective spiritual, ethical and ecological approach to the production of our food.
Rathore et al., (2014) and Pfeiffer (1940) states that the main principles of Biodynamic Agriculture are:
• To create a diverse and balanced farm ecosystem that can support itself from within the farm
(Mason, 2003)
•To restore the soil through the incorporation of organic matter
•To treat soil as a living system
•To create a system that brings all factors which maintain life into balance
•To encourage the use and importance of green manure, crop rotation and cover crops
•Treat manure and compost in a biodynamic way, and have knowledge of enzymes and hormones.
6 | P A G E
From these principles it can be recognised that no artificial materials or harmful chemicals are used in the
practices of biodynamic agriculture as mentioned in the previous section. This is also stated by Reganold
et al., (1993). Instead of chemicals, only natural substances that have been sourced on the farm itself are
used in the preparations of fertilisers, sprays and manures. In doing this it allows minimal outside inputs
creating a closed system as all the inputs are retrieved from within the farm itself (Carpenter-Boggs,
2011). To ensure stewardship of the Earth is maintained, it is the belief in biodynamic farming that the
restoration and harmonisation of the farm’s life forces are reinforced to enhance the quality, flavour and
nutrition of the farm’s produce (Mason, 2003). A study conducted by Woodward-Clyde (2000) highlights
that there has been a decline in the public’s confidence in modern industrialised farming and processing
methods, the study also states that it is due to an increase in the consumer’s awareness of food-borne
hazards such as pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and artificial ingredients. The public also commonly
perceives that organically and biodynamically farmed foods are healthier than the conventional ones,
however there is little scientific evidence available to support this theory (Tassoni et al., 2013).
Biodynamic farming is viewed as the first alternative method of farming (Chalker-Scott, 2014), which
incorporates a sustainable system that can produce quality crops in an organic way, without the use of any
harmful chemicals (Diver, 1999).
1.3.1 Preparations
Biodynamic agriculture shares many practices with organic methods of farming, including soil-building,
crop rotations, and composting (Diver, 1999). However, the key aspect of biodynamic agriculture is to
work closely with nature with the use of special “preparations” that are applied to the soil, crops and
composts (Reevea et al,. 2010). They are considered to be the most important feature of biodynamic
farming and are probably the most difficult part of biodynamics to understand (Ellis, 2010). The
preparations themselves as shown in Table 1 are unique to biodynamic agriculture and only consist of
specific minerals or plants, which are treated or fermented with animal organs, water, and/or soil (Stenier,
1974). The preparations are applied to the farm in the form of manures, and sprays in accordance to a
strict planting calendar. This calendar incorporates lunar and cosmic cycles as well as the seasons,
planting and spraying in relation to this will increase the growing capability of the crops (Thun, 2015). It
is thought that the use of preparations “produce compost that develops faster with less loss of nitrogen,
fewer odour problems, and greater nutrient holding capacity, by stimulating organisms present in the
feedstock” (Klett, 2006, p. 34). The preparations are conveyed as having a positive impact on the
environment in terms of energy use and efficiency (Turinek et al., 2009).
Primarily, the purpose of these preparations is not to add nutrients to the soil but to stimulate the soil’s
natural process of energy and nutrient cycling (Carpenter-Boggs et al., 2000b). There is some research
that suggests that the soil quality of a biodynamic farm is greater than that of a conventional farm because
of the preparations used. Reganold et al., (1993) found that soils from biodynamic farm’s had a higher
biological and physical quality in addition to a considerably greater organic matter content and microbial
activity than that of soil from conventional farm’s. This study concluded that the use of preparations on
the soil decreases the soil density, which increases penetrability, and the thickness of the topsoil is also
greater.
7 | P A G E
Table – Preparations used in Biodynamic Agriculture (Steiner, 1974)
1.3.2 Validity of Biodynamic Agriculture
Biodynamic farming faces a lot of criticism about its credibility, and has been referred to a pseudoscience
by Turner (2014) and Saltini (2010). A pseudoscience is defined by the Oxford Dictonary as “a
collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method”. A review by
Reganold (1995) found that many of the biodynamic agricultural practices were to be of a questionable
scientific quality. His study concludes that it is due to the lack of additional secondary reviewing and
verification from other scientists, which is a key process in modern scientific research. Preparations, and
the effects of the cosmos and lunar cycles are also a cause for criticism. These preparations and the
association with the spiritual science of anthroposophy sets biodynamic farming apart from other
agricultural practices and is the only agricultural practice that believes that lunar cycles and cosmic forces
can influence the whole farm. The creation of the preparation methods were not “developed through
scientific methodology, but rather through Steiner’s own self-described meditation and clairvoyance”
(Chalker-Scott, 2004, p. 1), which means the methodology is not scientifically proven through modern
scientific techniques. Currently, the underlying natural science of the preparations is still under
investigation (Turinek et al., 2009). Steiner himself believed that his spiritualistic founded methods did
not need to be confirmed through traditional scientific reviewing, as they were “true and correct” unto
themselves (Kirchmann, 1994). In terms of research, Biodynamic farming is still in its infancy, as there is
a lack of additional and scientifically reviewed research to suggest that these preparations do have any
benefit to the soil and the produce of the farm. Nevertheless, there are thirty published, scientifically
certified, peer reviewed studies that suggest that these preparations do in fact have a recognisable impact
on the farm, produce and its soil quality (Turinek et al., 2009). For further reading please consult
(Carpenter-Boggs et al., 2000a; Rathore et al., 2014; Reeve et al., 2005; Villanueva-Reya et al., 2014).
Research has found that there is an increased microbiological movement within the soil, in addition to
having a higher level of nutrients and and an increased rate crop development when biodynamic
preparation were used in comparison to a conventional farm (Reeve et al., 2010; Reganold et al.,1993;
Carpenter- Boggs et al., 2000a;Koepf 1993). However in contrast, studys by Carpenter-Boggs et al.,
(2000b) and Tassoni et al., (2013) found there to be no benefits of using the preparations.
1.3.3 Community Supported Agriculture and Camphill Communities
Another fundemental concept of biodynamic farming is the requirement to partake in Community
Supported Agriculture (CSA). The CSA movement was developed in Japan in the 1990’s and was
8 | P A G E
incorporated into the Biodynamic movement (King, 2008). CSA is the direct relationship between a
farmer and the people who eat the food the farmer grows (Soil Association, 2001). This means that the
community of people that work on the farm or are shareholders get a direct cut of the farm’s produce,
therefore sustaining the farm’s growth and ensuring a market for its produce (Cone & Myhre, 2000).
Biodynamic farms can also have other community support systems; these are called Camphill
Communities (CC) and the Garvald Movement.
A CC can be a residential care home with education facilities or they can be residential farm that
incorporate Steiner’s philosophy of anthroposophy by adopting a holistic therapeutic approach to
supporting individuals. These individuals may have a range of complex needs such as learning difficulties
or mental health issues. These communities aim to help these individuals find purpose in their lives and to
develop their social, spiritual and practical skills and overall potential (Camphill Scotland, 2014). For
example Loch Arthur biodynamic farm in Dumfries and Galloway is a CC farm (Jardine, 2015, Personal
communications). Loch Arthur farm actively recruits members for their community it supports and
provides work and residential schemes for young adults.
The Garvald Home Farm in South Lanarkshire is the only farm to incorporate the Garvald movement
(Brett, 2015). This movement is very similar to a CC; it focuses on the social therapy aspect of Steiner’s
work and applies it to the residents on the farm that can have a range of learning or mental health issues
(Garvald Edinburgh, 2014). However, the Garvald Movement is not restricted to just farming, they have
many centres around the world that are open to help people bring structure to their lives CSA
communities and CC are different support systems; CSA tends to focus more on a business partnership
between farmer and shareholders whereas CC and the Garvald Movement focuses on the therapeutic side
of Steiner’s work by helping individuals to develop their skills and potential.
1.4 Aims and Objectives
The aim of this dissertation is to analyse and assess whether biodynamic agriculture is a more sustainable
than conventional agriculture and evaluate if it can be a sustainable option for the future. This will be
achieved by completing the following research questions:
1. To define sustainable agriculture and determine to what extent, biodynamic farming is
sustainable.
2. To evaluate the effects biodynamic preparations have on soil quality.
3. To assess whether biodynamic farming is a sustainable option for the future?
Chapter 2 – Methodology
2.0 Methodology
In order to answer the above research questions, this dissertation will be compiled by means of a desk
based literature study, which will evaluate the key issues within this subject area, in order to develop a
clear understanding of biodynamic farming. I chose to write my dissertation on biodynamic agriculture as
9 | P A G E
it had engaged my interest in class the previous academic year. This interest is also where the research
questions chosen stemmed from. During the class the topics that I wanted to know more about the
sustainability of the practice, the effect preparations have on the soil quality of farms and finally assess
whether or not biodynamics could be the sustainable farming practice of the future. I wanted to research
past the misconceptions of biodynamics and find the truth.
This study will be conducted in a number of phases:
2.1 - Phase 1: Initial desk based research and assessments
This will incorporate utilising already existing research to investigate agricultural sustainability and the
differences between conventional and biodynamic agricultural practices. In order to achieve well-rounded
desk-based research, numerous textual sources will be used. This includes: literature reviews; academic
books and journals articles; government publications and policies.
Data will be searched for in a methodical way using the following resources:
•Access to the SRUC Library (Scotland’s Rural College Library) though SCONUL access scheme
will be sought in order to broaden my access to current agricultural research and publications.
•The University of Glasgow Library Service (online and print books)
•University of the West of Scotland Library Service (online and print)
•Google Scholar
•Science Direct
•Web of Science
When searching for appropriate research the following keywords and phrases will be used in a range of
different systematic combinations:
Key Words Key Phrases
•Biodynamic
•Agriculture
•Sustainability
•Environmental
•Conventional
•Farming
•Crops
•Disease
•Management
•Organic
•Profitability
•Scotland
•Sustainable Agriculture
•Ecological Systems
•Biodynamic farming
•Soil Quality
•Rudolf Steiner
•Community Supported Agriculture
10 | P A G E
•Soil
•Yields
•Policy
•Alternative
•Quality
•Biodiversity
•Productivity
•Biodynamic Preparations
•Crop Quality
•Conventional agriculture
•Yields per capita
•Rudolf Steiner
•Camphill Communities
The methodical use of keywords and phrases will be used for analysis in these search engines to help with
the selection of texts and information. These searches will be in addition to data sourced from elsewhere
such as from Non-Government Organisations (NGO’s).
Examples of these include the Biodynamic Association, Camphill Community Scotland, The Soil
Association, National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, the Nuffield Farming Scholarship
Trust and The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).
2.2 - Phase 2: Review of agricultural practices
Initially this study planned to involve the use of primary research in order to validate and assess data
found in the desk-based assessment. After ethical approval was sought and approved, four farmers were
invited to take part in the study by means on emails and phone calls. However unfortunately, due to lack
of communication between myself and the farmers invited and the strict timescale of the dissertation, this
primary research was no longer a plausible option. Nonetheless, this hindrance was foreseen as there is a
stigma attached to the biodynamic farming sector that they can be secretive and are not typically willing
to talk to outsiders, therefore it was overcome by making the study entirely desk based. I was able to
source a biodynamic produce price list from Organic North; this will be used to assess the economic
sustainability of a biodynamic farm. The main problems associated with biodynamic farming were found
to be the scientific validity of the preparations used and the lack of peer-reviewed published articles.
Chapter 3 – Results and Discussion
The results and discussion will examine the four research questions and attempt to provide answers for
each of the questions. Some of my research questions have next to no scientific research to support them,
and therefore lack definitive answers.
11 | P A G E
3.1 Research Question One: To define sustainable agriculture and determine to
what extent, biodynamic farming is sustainable.
Sustainability is all about surviving for the long term. This is why the desire for sustainable agriculture is
universal, however how to progress towards it remains elusive (Rigby & Cáceres, 2001). Even with a
basic infrastructure for delivering sustainable development, is still difficult to find an agricultural practice
that does not deplete natural resources such as soil fertility (Sanchez, et al., 1997). The desire for
sustainability is centred on the growing concern and need to develop technologies that enable farming to
take place without the depletion of natural resources and accommodates practices that do not have
detrimental effects on environmental (Pretty, 2008). The definition that will be used for agricultural
sustainability is one sourced from the FAO (2010):
“The management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological
and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of
human needs for present and future generations. Such development... conserves land, water, plant and
animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, economically
viable and socially acceptable.”
This definition has been used, as it is the most comprehensible in relation to this research. Biodynamic
farming is an example of an agricultural practice that is often referred to as sustainable. In its early stages,
the practice centred on Steiner’s belief in anthroposophy, that a farm is an entire entity. However, as it
developed further agriculturalists realised that this method can achieve sustainability through all three
pillars of sustainability and has the ability to be wholly self-sufficient. The question of whether
biodynamic agriculture is sustainable or not will now be assessed in relation to the 3 pillars of
sustainability:
3.1.1 Environmental Sustainability
For an agricultural practice to be environmentally sustainable, it needs to not have any adverse effects on
the environment, maintain and protect the earth’s natural resources for the future (Tilman et al., 2002).
Biodynamic agriculture complies with this, as it produces no waste products, as everything that would
typically be classed as waste is recycled to other sections of the farm. It is believed that the waste from
one part of a farm can be applied to another, creating a vital energy transfer between sections, thereby
resulting in an increase of capacity for self-renewal (Demeter Association, INC., 2014). Recycling waste
is a process that makes the farm sustainable. As previously stated a basic principle of biodynamics is that
they disallow the use of any chemical pesticides and fertilisers (Reganold et al., 1993). By disallowing
chemical use this helps it to be a sustainable farming practice as there is evidence to prove that these
chemical fertilisers have adverse effects on the environment (The Environmental Magazine, 2009).
Furthermore, the way in which a biodynamic farm treats the land leaves no room for soil erosion or
pollution therefore minimising adverse effects on the environment (Peigne & Girardin, 2004). Originally,
Dr Steiner developed the methodology for biodynamic agriculture due to growing concerns about
increased soil erosion and the decrease in soil fertility in the late 1800s and early 1920’s (Winkler, 2003).
Even from early days of this agricultural practice it can be seen that it was designed to be sustainable and
self-sufficient. Even by modern agricultural standards biodynamics is one of the most feasibly sustainable
options.
12 | P A G E
3.1.2 Economic Sustainability
From a business standing, a biodynamic farm can be both economically sustainable and
unsustainable. This is because of the niche market it caters to as not everyone wants to eat
biodynamic food and not everybody has the means to pay for certified biodynamic food.
Certified organic and biodynamic products are generally more expensive compared to their
conventional farmed counterparts, this can be due to many reasons. Loch Arthur Farm Shop
supplied a price list from Organic North for the month of March 2015. This price list was used to
compare the prices of vegetables grown in a biodynamic way and in a conventional way. The
prices for conventionally farmed produced were sourced from a well know local supermarket
chain. The comparison of prices is shown in Table 2. The data clearly shows that as expected,
biodynamic-farmed crops are more expensive per kg than conventionally farmed produce. For
example biodynamic-farmed sweet potatoes are 145% more expensive per kg than their
conventionally farmed counterpart.
Table - Price Comparison between supermarket produce and biodynamic produce
There is a dramatic difference in the price of crops between these two farming methods for a number of
reasons. The most substantial reason is that the majority of the current population have lost faith in
modern conventional farming, and have become more aware of food-borne hazards coming from
pesticides, hormone treatments and artificial ingredients (Woodward-Clyde, 2000). In other words it has
become more socially acceptable to be healthier and eat organic and biodynamic food, as it can be traced
back to the farm it was grown on. This is the biggest driver to increase the price of biodynamic produce, if
there is more demand for “clean grown” produce then it puts more pressure on the farmer to grow it,
thereby increasing the prices. There are other contributing reasons why the price of biodynamic crops are
more expensive, The Food and Agricultural Organisation for the United Nations (2015) state that it is
because:
•The demand of organic/biodynamic food is greater than the supply, which in turn increases
prices;
•The production costs can be higher because of greater labour inputs per unit of
output;
•Legislation demands the mandatory segregation of biodynamic and conventional
produce when being processed and transferred. Due to biodynamic produce being in a
smaller quantity this segregation also increases costs;
•The marketing and the distribution chain for biodynamic products is a relatively
inefficient system, typically limited to small farm shops and shareholders of farms.
13 | P A G E
Produce rarely makes it to major supermarket chains. This again creates higher costs
because of relatively small volumes of produce.
Biodynamic farms are relatively very small scale compared to conventional farms; even so a
biodynamic farm still requires more human labour than a conventional farm. Due to the increased
human labour, biodynamic produce becomes a more time-consuming process in terms of sowing,
fertilising, harvesting and finally handling. This amount of human contact is about triple that of a
conventional farm and this is before its recipients receive the produce. Consequently, all of these
factors contribute to the price of biodynamic crops automatically rising in comparison to a
conventional farm which mass produces crops, and has the ability to sell them cheaper as they are
a greater quantity with less labour as they are mostly mechanised and do not require as much
manpower as biodynamic (Koepf, 1986). Being able to sell their produce at a higher cost can
greatly benefit a biodynamic farm. Most biodynamic farms, such as Loch Arthur and Garvald
Home Farm in South Lanarkshire, choose to stay away from major supermarket contracts in
favour of small farm shops catering to a local market (Brett, 2015, Personal Communications;
Jardine, 2015, Personal Communications). Mainly, they do this as the farm is there to support the
community and not to support the wider population. By staying away from major supermarket
contracts the farm untilises the trend to eat locally and the income gained from this is enough to
allow them to be economically sustainble (Bessière, 1998).
Fundamentally a farm, no matter how they choose to treat their land is a business. To be
economically sustainable, the business must be able to operate without a loss and with a potential
margin for profit. This again is where a biodynamic farm can be unsustainable and run at a loss. A
CSA run biodynamic farm has more potential to be sustainable as it has shareholders who buy
shares in order to automatically receive the farm’s produce. This therefore provides the farm with
a capital up front inputs that can provide a stable income regardless of how much the farm
produces or how well the crops grow in each growing season (Cone & Myhre, 2000). In doing
this, the competition to gain major supermarket contracts is eliminated and there is no quotas or
demands to meet. This decreases the pressure on the farmer to source income from elsewhere and
decreases the potential for the land to exceed its own carrying capacity. The shareholders are also
the farm’s labourers, which also cuts outwards costs in wages. By running the farm in this way, it
makes it more economically viable and feasible to be sustainable and self-sufficient.
In contrast however, if a biodynamic farm operates as a CC, then it is mainly operating as a
charity that helps to support individuals with a range of disabilities (Camphill Communities,
2014). This is where there can be a potential loss in sustainability. As a charity they base their
income mainly on how many people are paying for the use of the farms therapeutic schemes,
donations and grant funding. In the case of Loch Arthur Farm in Dumfries, residents have a third
party sponsorship to cover the cost of their rent and then they work on the farm in exchange for
their food (Jardine, 2015, Personal Communications). This process is instead of basing their
income on how many crops they can produce and sell. Overall this creates an inefficient system
and can mean that deficit in income may occur if one income factor disappears. For example if
their third party sponsorship disappears there may not be enough workers for the farm or enough
income to support the farm. As this creates a loss it can thereby be defined as an unsustainable
system.
Each biodynamic farm is unique and there are certain differences in the way that each farm
operates their business. Consequently, this means that there is not a definite answer to whether or
14 | P A G E
not this farming practice can be wholly economically sustainable. It is entirely dependable on the
individual farm in question.
3.1.3 Social Sustainability
In a social standing, biodynamic agriculture encompasses the main principles of social sustainability,
cultural diversity, social equity and above all acceptance of everyone (Hodgson, 2009). This is achieved
by building communities that support individuals with a range of complex needs such as physical or
mental disabilities; these individuals can sometimes require specialist help. For the purpose of a CC, they
aim to help people develop their character and confidence, improve their life skills, provide them with
structured day and enable a safe learning and working environment (Camphill Scotland, 2013). The farm
and their shops are used as the medium to bring the people of the community together by providing a
social and working environment. It has been shown that by living in a socially stimulating and active way
can greatly improve people’s quality of life (Fisher & Li, 2004). This highlights that a CC run biodynamic
farm is indeed run in accordance to social sustainability.
Overall, biodynamic farms have the potential to be wholly sustainable and self-sufficient. Their biggest
hindrances is how sustainable they can be economically, as they mainly operate as a charity there is
always the chance that the farm can run at a loss due to the withdrawals of third party funding,
sponsorship and grants. In terms of social and environmental sustainability biodynamics is sustainable;
there are no adverse effects on the environment and all waste produced is recycled to other parts of the
farm. Socially sustainable communities are equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a
good quality of life. A biodynamic farm incorporates each of these principles in it day to day running,
therefore making it feasibly sustainable.
3.2 Research Question Two: To evaluate the effects biodynamic preparations have
on soil quality.
This question is the highest debated topic within biodynamic farming. Scientists have researched for years
to find out whether or not biodynamic unique preparations alter soil quality or not. Unfortunately, there is
still no definitive answer as some research states that the preparations have a great effect on the soil and
others state that there is no significant difference between soils treated with preparations and soils that
have not been. There is also a lack of peer-reviewed articles discussing the efficiency of the preparations
and whether they have any effect on the soil (Reeve et al., 2010). As I was unable to conduct the planned
primary research surrounding soil quality, this question will be answered by the comparison of four peer-
reviewed research articles.
The first article assessed by Carpenter-Boggs et al., (2000a) investigated the effects of preparations 502-
507 on compost over a 13 month trial. Untreated compost was used as the control. Overall the study
found that preparation treated compost to be of a greater quality than the untreated control. The study
found that the biodynamic treated compost contained 10% less Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and had a higher
ratio of dehydrongenase enzyme to CO2 production. As there is more CO2 being produced this means that
the decomposition within the compost is more complete. Furthermore, this higher ratio also suggests that
15 | P A G E
the compost supports more efficient bacterial communities or a larger proportion of anaerobic
metabolism. The treated compost was also significantly higher in temperature and this is typically caused
by more microbiological activity which also contributes to faster decompostion oand greater control over
weeds and pathogens. It was also found that the treated compost contained 65% more nitrate that the
control which suggests that this compost was more mature, meaning it had more access to Nirtogen (N2),
allowing more complete decomposition to occur. This study found significant differences between the
treated and untreated composts’, in particular the biodynamically treated compost to be of a greater
qualty.
A second study by Carpenter-Boggs et al., (2000b) investigated the effects of preparations 501-508 over
the course of two years. The soil in the control group was not treated at all. Overall this study found that
there were no significant differences between the treated soils and untreated soils. The only minor
difference found was a small influx in fatty acids in the treated soils in the first year of the study, however
this was rendered negligible. Now, this is an interesting result as the previous study by Carpernter-Boggs
published in the same year did find significant differences between the treated and untreated soils as
previously stated. This is an example of why this question is very hard to provide a definitive answer for
as the research itself does not come to a definitive conclusion.
The third study analysed by Reganold et al., (1993) observed the effects of preparations 500-508 had on
soil over two biodynamic farm’s. This was compared against the soils of two conventional farm’s. In this
study some differences between the two were found. The preparation treated soil had a better structure
and more readily broke down to a seedbed. The drainage and aeration of the treated soils were better
which is better for crop and grass growth. The soil was also of a lower bulk density in comparison to the
conventional soil. The article stateds that this is beneficial as it allows machinery to pass over more easily
and also makes it easier for roots to grow through. The treated soil was also found to have a greater
organic matter content and materialised nitrogen content. The higher amounts of organic matter within a
soil is a good thing, it means more nutrients for the crops, which means more growing potential
(Lewandowski, 2002). Nonetheless despite all of these significant difference between the two soils,
Reganold et al., (1993) found that there was no differences in soils below 20cm from the surface.
The final study examined is by Reeve et al., (2010), this study analysed the effects of biodynamic
preparations on a mixture of grape pomace and manure over a period of two years two years. The water
extracts of the composts where then used to fertigait wheat seedlings, with and without inorganic
fertilisers. The control group is the untreated mixture. This experiment found that there was a slightly
higher dehydrongenase enzyme activity in the preparation treated soil. It is suggested that this change is
due to a higher microbiological content which can contribute to a higher rate of decomposition.
The observations of all four studies are consistent in establishing that biodynamic preparations do have a
small effect on soil quality. The general consensus between articles is that the use of preparations provide
the soil with increased organic matter content, contributing to higher concentrations of dehydrongenase
enzyme activity, which results in higher decomposition rates. All four of these studies have similar
contributing authors, as they are the only experts in this field of agriculture. Even still the results are not
biased and vary considerably.
16 | P A G E
3.3 Research Question Three: To assess whether biodynamic farming is a
sustainable option for the future?
This section will discuss the feasibility of biodynamic agriculture being one of the sustainable options for
the future. There is very little research and published material for this subject therefore it will be based
entirely on my own observations.
Currently, there is an ever-growing range of sustainability claims and indicators. Collectively however, all
fail to establish operational and practical ways to understand what sustainability actually means, and to
deliver it effectively (Guttenstein et al., 2010). As previously stated, it is estimated that the global food
demand will double over the next 50 years (Tilman et al., 2002). This means more land will need to be
utilised for farming. However, it is reported that half of our planets terrestrial farmland is already being
used to its full potential (Carpenter et al., 1998; Tilman et al., 2002). Land shortage is one of the biggest
issues surrounding the eminent increase in food demand. How humans choose to use land has a great
impact on environmental quality and the state of ecosystems and socio-economic development. Generally,
land use is considered to be sustainable if the environmental pressures of human activities do not exceed
the ecological carrying capacity (Ruggiero et al., 2012). The majority of the earth’s farmland is exploited
due to the industrialised nature of our modern farming practices. Once land has been used beyond its
carrying capacity, the soil very rarely regenerates back to a fertile state, leaving it barren and useless
(Brown & Kane, 1995). Exploitation on this scale cannot continue to occur. Our already existing farming
land needs to be treated in a more sustainable way. If we nurture our land, instead of exploiting it, the
likelihood of it being able to farm it for years to come increases.
This is where biodynamic agriculture can be of a massive advantage to the agriculture sector. Unlike most
modern agricultural techniques, this practice is entirely environmentally and socially sustainable. As
previously discussed in Section 3.1, farming in a biodynamic manner generates no waste products, is very
self-sufficient and does not harm the environment at all; therefore it is incredibly sustainable in an
environmental sense. A study by Tavernier & Tolomeo (2008) states that sustainable agriculture is an
approach that needs to clearly maximise economic and social benefits while at the same time maintaining
environmental quality. Again, this is where biodynamic agriculture is a forward thinking movement. Even
in its early days of development biodynamic agriculture incorporated the main principles of social
sustainability. The way in which biodynamic farms are typically run includes a strong presence in
community life, supporting individuals with learning difficulties, encouraging social equity and cultural
diversity. All of these factors contribute to a socially sound sustainable environment (Hodgson, 2009).
Despite all of these good sustainable qualities it is not believed that we would be able to rely on
biodynamic agriculture solely to produce enough food to meet the demand. Even in a perfect world, being
sustainable and self-sufficient is not efficient enough as even the most developed countries in the world
do not have to the ability to introduce the infrastructure and legislation to guide the introduction of
sustainable development (Ross, 2010). Without the foundation for sustainable development, there is no
footing for a wholly sustainable agricultural practice to exist. This highlights how much research and
planning that still needs to occur for feasible sustainable agricultural practice to exist.
Some researchers believe that a “large-scale shift towards organic farming would not only increase the
world's food supply, but might be the only way to eradicate hunger” (Halweil, 2006, p. 1). This is
17 | P A G E
surprising to most as many assume that organic yields are less than that of a conventional farm. However
this is not the case, a seven-year study from Maikaal District in central India involving 1,000 farmers
found that average yields for cotton, were as much as 20% higher on the organic farms in comparison to
the nearby conventionally managed ones (Eyhorn, Mäder, & Ramakrishnan, 2005). Organic farming is
similar to biodynamic farming, as both practices ban the use of GMO’s , synthetic chemical fertilisers and
pesticides (Organic Farming Research Foundation, 2013). The only differences between the two practices
is biodynamic’s holistic approach to food production and their incorporation of lunar and cosmos cycles.
With the similarities in mind would it then be possible for a large-scale shift towards biodynamic
farming?
Personally, after reviewing the research used in this dissertation, I do not believe it would be wise to
conduct a widespread shift to one agricultural practice across the world. This is because not all
agricultural practices can support all of the different types of crops and livestock that humans require for
food. Also not all climates can support every type of farming. This is why agricultural diversity is needed;
a world where several sustainable agricultural practices that can produce enough for the global food
demand needs to exist. Furthermore, for biodynamic agriculture to exist as one of our future sustainable
options more research would need to be conducted and more information needs to be made open to the
public. The world of biodynamic agriculture is still a very closed community; and because of this the
public can still be very sceptical and wary of it. Until more is know about biodynamic farming, it cannot
be a sustainable option for the future as there will be little faith in its capabilities. Nevertheless, we cannot
keep relying on conventional agriculture when it causes so much damage to our fragile planet. Even still,
right now it is practical to continue in this way, as it is the main supplier of our food. Until we have the
ability to rely on sustainable methods for farming, we need conventional agriculture to meet our global
food demand.
3.4 Limitations and Ethics
The anticipated limitations of this research included the planned primary research. Ethical approval was
initially declined, for a small security alteration. This delayed my research considerably due to the
processing period for resubmission. Once my ethics form was approved, my research was hindered
further. Biodynamic farmers can be very secretive about their agricultural practices as in the past they
have received a lot of scrutiny and criticism. This delayed my research further, as the biodynamic farmers
invited to partake in this study were not inclined to discuss methods, preparations, and yields.
Furthermore due to miscommunication and the strict time scale of the dissertation, I was unable to
conduct any primary research I had planned. However as this was foreseen issue the dissertation was
changed to a desk based literature study, which brings me to my next limitation. Obtaining sound peer-
reviewed literature was difficult, as biodynamic agriculture is still a relatively new agricultural practice
and is widely un-researched. Due to the lack of peer-reviewed articles available some information sourced
could be relative and incorrect.
Chapter 4 – Conclusion
4.0 Conclusion
Biodynamic agriculture has been around since the 1920’s, however it is still very much in its infancy.
Everyday it is being developed and is slowly becoming incorporated into the modern agricultural world.
18 | P A G E
Despite the mystery and criticism that surrounds biodynamic agriculture, the practice itself is as
sustainable and self sufficient as you can get in this current era.
The research taken place in this dissertation has shown that biodynamic agriculture is indeed a very
sustainable agricultural practice. Where this practice lacks in economic sustainability, it makes up for in
environmental and social sustainability. It is one of the most environmentally friendly farming practices
in the world and is well on its way to being one of the sustainable options for the future. From literature
analyses it was found that biodynamic preparations 500-508 do have beneficial effects on the soil quality
(Carpenter-Boggs et al., 2000a; Reeve et al., 2010; Reganold et al., 1993). The benefits identified were
increased microbiological movement, higher organic matter content and higher concentrations of
dehydrogenase enzyme activity. Finally the research highlighted that there is a need for more sustainable
agriculture to exist and that a large-scale move to sustainable agriculture may be the way forward.
Nonetheless, the world still lacks the basic foundation for delivering sustainable development. Until this
changes the world will still need to rely upon conventional agriculture in order to meet the current and
further food demand.
4.1 Further Research
Biodynamic agriculture is still an area of agriculture that very little research has been conducted. What
little research that has been published has not all been peer-reviewed. I suggest that further peer-reviewed
research needs to be conducted in order to prove the validity of biodynamic preparations and the effect
they have on the soil and crops. In addition to this, more research in to how agricultural sustainability can
be used to achieve world food demand should be taken place. Then the results of this research can be
directly applied to biodynamic agriculture and how it can progress towards being a global farming option.
References
Bessière, J. (1998). Local Development and Heritage: Traditional Food and Cuisine as Tourist Attractions
in Rural Areas. Journal of the European Society for Rural Sociology, 38(1), 21-34.
Biodynamic Association. (2014). What Is Biodynamics? Retrieved January 12, 2015, from Biodynamic
Association: https://www.biodynamics.com/what-is-biodynamics
Boatman, N., Brickle, N., Hart, J., Milsom, T., Morris, A., Murray, A., Murray, K., Robertson, P. (2004).
Evidence for the indirect effects of pesticides on farmland birds. International Journal of Avian
Science, 146 (Supplement S2), 131-143.
Brett, S. (2015). Personal Communications.
Briney, A. (2014, March 23). Green Revolution: History and Overview of the Green Revolution. Retrieved
2015, from About Education:
http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/greenrevolution.htm
Brown, L., & Kane, H. (1995). Full House: Reassessing the Earth's Population Carrying Capacity.
London: Earthscan.
19 | P A G E
Brundtland Commission. (1987). Brundtland Commission - Our common future. . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Camphill Communities. (2014). About Camphill in England and Wales. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from
Camphill Communities: http://www.camphill.org.uk/about
Camphill Scotland. (2013). Support in Camphill. Retrieved April 27, 2015, from Camphill Scotland:
http://www.camphillscotland.org.uk/camphill/support-in-camphill/
Camphill Scotland. (2014). What is Camphill? Retrieved March 1, 2015, from Camphill Scotland:
http://www.camphillscotland.org.uk/scottish-communities/
Carpenter, S., Chair, N., Caraco, D., Correll, R., Howarth, S. A., & Smith, V. (1998). Nonpoint Pollution
of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Issues in Ecology, 8(3), 1-13.
Carpenter-Boggs, L. (2011, July 26). The Science Behind Biodynamics. Retrieved February 5, 2015, from
Extension: America's Research Based Learning Network:
http://www.extension.org/pages/28756/the-science-behind-biodynamics#.VNOUelXkfLe
Carpenter-Boggs, L., Kennedy, A., & Reganold, J. (2000a). Organic and Biodynamic Management:
Effects on Soil Biology. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64(5), 1651-1659.
Carpenter-Boggs, L., Reganold, J., & Kennedy, A. (2000b). Effects of Biodynamic Preparations on
Compost Development. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 17(4), 313-328.
Cavusgil, T., Knight, G., & Riesenberger, J. (2013). International Business: The new realities (3rd ed.).
Essex: Pearson.
Chalker-Scott, L. (2004, September). The Myth of Biodynamic Agriculture . Retrieved February 4, 2015,
from Washington State University: Puyallup Research & Extension Center:
http://puyallup.wsu.edu/~linda%20chalker-scott/horticultural%20myths_files/myths/biodynamic
%20agriculture.pdf
Chalker-Scott, L. (2014). The Science Behind Biodynamic Preparations: A Literature Review. Better
Crops with Plant Food., 23(6), 24-25.
Cone, C., & Myhre, A. (2000). Community-Supported Agriculture: A Sustainable Alternative to Industrial
Agriculture? Human Organization, 59(2), 187-197.
Dahlberg, K. A. (1991). Sustainable Agriculture: Fad or Harbinger? BioScience, 41(5), 337-340.
Demeter Association, INC. (2014). Biodynamic Farm Standard. Philomath, Oregon: Demeter
Association, INC.
Diver, S. (1999). Biodynamic Farming and Compost Preparations. Retrieved February 2, 2015, from
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.405.2968&rep=rep1&type=pdf
20 | P A G E
Doane, D., & MacGillivray, A. (2001). The SIGMA project - Economic Sustainability: The business of
staying in business. London: New Economics Foundation.
Donald, P., Pisano, G., Rayment, M., & Pain, D. (2002). The Common Agricultural Policy, EU
enlargement and the conservation of Europe’s farmland birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 89(3), 167–182.
Education Scotland. (2014). Dig for Victory. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from Education Scotland:
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/20thand21stcenturies/worldwarii/digforvic
tory/
Ellis, J. (2010). Is there a role in UK Agriculture for Farming by the Cycles of the Moon? London:
Nuffield Farming Scholarships Trust. Retrieved March 22, 2015, from
http://www.nuffieldinternational.org/rep_pdf/1301559087Julian_Ellis_edited_report.pdf
European Commission. (2006). Environment - Exploring the value of sustainable agriculture. Retrieved
February 12, 2015, from European Commission - Research and Innovation:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/print.cfm?
file=/comm/research/environment/newsanddoc/article_3904_en.htm
Eyhorn, F., Mäder, P., & Ramakrishnan, M. (2005 ). The Impact of Organic Cotton Farming on the
Livelihoods of Smallholders - Evidence from the Maikaal bioRe project in central India .
Ackerstrasse: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture.
Financial Times. (2012). Definition of environmental sustainability. Retrieved April 17, 2015, from
Financial Times: http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=environmental-sustainability
Fisher, K., & Li, F. (2004). A community-based walking trial to improve neighborhood quality of life in
older adults: a multilevel analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 28(3), 186-194.
Food and Agricultural Organisation for the United Nations. (1999). Research Methodologies in Organic
Farming. REU Technical Series. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organisation for the United
Nations.
Food and Agricultural Organisation for the United Nations. (2015). Organic Agriculture. Retrieved April
18, 2015, from Food and Agricultural Organisation for the United Nations:
http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq5/en/
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). (2010). Sustainable agriculture and
rural development. Retrieved March 3, 2015, from Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations: http://www.fao.org/docrep/u8480e/u8480e0l.htm
Garvald Edinburgh. (2014). About Garvald Edinburgh. Retrieved April 22, 2015, from Garvald
Edinburgh: http://www.garvaldedinburgh.org.uk/about-garvald-edinburgh/
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., & Paoletti, M. (2011). Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural
Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences,
30(1-2), 96-124.
21 | P A G E
Gurian-Sherman, D. (2009). Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performace of Genetically Engineered
Crops. Cambridge: UCS Publications.
Guttenstein, E., Scialabba, N., Loh, J., & Courville, S. (2010). A Conceptual Framework for Progressing
Towards Sustainability in The Agriculture and Food Sector. Paris: The Food and Agriculture
Organisation .
Halweil, B. (2006, May). Can Organic Farming Feed Us All? World Watch Magazine, 19(3).
Hansen, J. (1996). Is Agricultural Sustainability a Useful Concept? Agricultural Systems, 50(2), 117- 143.
Hodgson, N. (2009). Social Sustainability. Social Sustainability Assessment Framework (pp. 1-5). Perth:
Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy.
Hopkins, R. (2011). The Transition Companion: Making Your Community More Resilient in Uncertain
Times. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.
International Food Policy Research Institute. (2002). Green Revolution: Curse or Blessing? Washington:
Internationl Food Policy Research Institute. Retrieved March 24, 2015
Jardine, M. (2015). Personal Communications
King, C. (2008). Community Resilience and Contemporary Agri-Ecological Systems: Reconnecting
People and Food, and People with People. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(1), 111-
124.
Kirchmann, H. (1994). Biological Dynamic Farming -- An Occult Form of Alternative Agriculture?
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 7(2), 173-187.
Klett, M. (2006). Principles of Biodynamic Spray and Compost Preparations (2nd ed.). Edinburgh,
Scotland: Floris Books.
Knorr, D., & Watkins, T. R. (1984). Alterations in food production. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Koepf, H. (1986). Organisation, economic, performance and labour requirements on bio-dynamic farms.
Star and Furrow, 66, 25-37.
Koepf, H. (1993). Research in Biodynamic Agriculture: Methods and Results. Kimberton, Pennsylvania,
USA: Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Incoporated.
Lewandowski, A. (2002). Organic matter management. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from University of
MInnesota : http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/tillage/soil-management/soil-
management-series/organic-matter-management/
Mason, J. (2003). Sustainable Agriculture (2nd ed.). Collingwood, Australia: Landlinks Press.
McCullough, M., Qenani, E., & MacDougall, N. (2012). Biodynamic Practices, Eco-label Wines and
Millennial. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2(12A), 1364-1372.
22 | P A G E
Morrison, J. (2011). The Global Business Environment: Meeting the Challenges (3rd ed.). London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Organic Farming Research Foundation. (2013). Organic FAQs - What is organic farming? Retrieved April
26, 2015, from Organic Farming Research Foundation: http://ofrf.org/organic-faqs
Pacini, C., Wossink, A., Giesen, G., Vazzana, C., & Huirne, R. (2003). Evaluation of sustainability of
organic, integrated and conventional. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 95(1), 273–288.
Peigne, J., & Girardin, P. (2004). Environmental Impacts of Farm-Scale Composting Practices. Water, Air,
and Soil Pollution, 153, 45–68.
Pfeiffer, E. (1940). Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening (2nd ed.). London: Anthroposophic Press and
Rudolf Steiner Publishing Co.
Pfeiffer, E. (1945). Practical Guide to the use of Bio-Dynamic Preparations (3rd ed.). London, UK:
Rudolf Steiner Publishing Co.
Phillips, T. (2008). Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Transgenic Crops and Recombinant DNA
Technology. Nature Education, 1(1), 1-3. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from Scitable by Nature
Education: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-
transgenic-crops-and-732
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Seidel, R., & Douds, D. (2005). Organic and Conventional
Farming Systems: Environmental and Economic Issues. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Reports. Retrieved from Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Reports.
Pingali, P. (2012). Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(31), 12302–12308.
Pretty, J. (2008). Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical
Transactions B, 363(1491), 447–465.
Rasul, G., & Thapa, G. (2004). Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in
Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives.
Agricultural Systems, 79(3), 327–351.
Rathore, A., Jain, R., Patangray, A., & Nayak, T. (2014). Biodynamic Farming: An Eco-Friendly
Approach. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(8), 49-51.
Reeve, J., Carpenter-Boggs, L., & Sehmsdorf, H. (2011). Sustainable agriculture: A case study of a small
Lopez Island farm. Agricultural Systems, 101(7), 572–579.
Reeve, J., Carpenter-Boggs, L., Reganold, J., York, A., & Brintond, W. (2010). Influence of biodynamic
preparations on compost development and resultant compost extracts on wheat seedling growth.
Bioresource Technology, 101(14), 5658–5666.
23 | P A G E
Reeve, J., Carpenter-Boggs, L., Reganold, J., York, A., McGourty, G., & McCloskey, L. (2005). Soil and
Winegrape Quality in Biodynamically and Organically Managed Vineyards. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture, 56(4), 367-376.
Reganold, J. (1995). Soil quality and profitability of biodynamic and conventional farming systems: a
review. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 10(1), 64-75.
Reganold, J. (2003). Effects of Biodynamic and Conventional Farming on Soil Quality in New Zealand.
Washington State University, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences. Pullman: Department of
Crop and Soil Sciences Washington State University.
Reganold, J., Palmer, A., Lockhart, J., & Macgregor, A. (1993). Soil Quality and Financial Performance
of Biodynamic and Conventional Farms in New Zealand. Science, 260, 344-349.
Rigby, D., & Cáceres, D. (2001). Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems.
Agricultural System, 68(1), 21±40.
Robinson, R., & Sutherland, W. (2000). Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great
Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39(1), 157–176.
Ross, A. (2010). It’s Time to Get Serious—Why Legislation Is Needed to Make Sustainable Development
a Reality in the UK. Sustainabilty, 2(4), 1101-1127.
RSPB. (2009, Septemeber 9). The explanation for farmland bird declines. Retrieved February 2, 2015,
from The RSPB:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/forprofessionals/farming/whyfarming/whyfarming/explanation/index.asp
x
Ruggiero, G., Verdiani, G., & Dal Sasso, S. (2012). Evaluation of carrying capacity and territorial
environmental sustainability . Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 43(2), 65-71.
Saltini, A. (2010). A Horror of Chemicals: The Teachings and Theories of Alternative Agriculture. In A.
Saltini, Agrarian Sciences in the West (Vol. VII, pp. 40-46). New Earth Antica.
Sanchez, P.A., Shepherd, K.D., Soule, M.J., Place, F.M., Buresh, R.J., Izac, A.N., Mokwunye, A.U.,
Kwesiga, F.R., Ndiritu, C.G., and Woomer, P.L. (1997). Soil Fertility Replenishment in Africa: An
Investment in Natural Resource Capital. In R. Buresh, P. Sanchez, & F. Calhoun, Replenishing
Soil Fertility In Africa (pp. 1-46). Madison, Wisconsin, USA: Soil Science Society of America
and American Society of Agronomy.
Sebby, K. (2010). The Green Revolution of the 1960's and Its Impact on Small Farmers in India. BA.
Thesis, University of Nebraska, 1-27.
Soil Association. (2001). A Share in the Harvest. Bristol: Soil Association.
Stenier, R. (1974). Agriculture, a course of eight lectures. London, England.
24 | P A G E
Sustainable Developement Commission. (2012). What is sustainable development? Retrieved April 15,
2015, from Sustainable Developement Commission: http://www.sd-
commission.org.uk/pages/what-is-sustainable-development.html
Tassoni, A., Tango, N., & Ferri, M. (2013). Comparison of biogenic amine and polyphenol profiles of
grape berries and wines obtained following conventional, organic and biodynamic agricultural
and oenological practices. Food Chemistry, 139(1-4), 405–413.
Tavernier, E., & Tolomeo, V. (2008). Farm Typology and Sustainable Agriculture: Does Size Matter?
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 24(2), 33-46.
The Environmental Magazine. (2009, July 20). How Fertilizers Harm Earth More Than Help Your Lawn.
Scientific American.
Thun, M. (2015). The Maria Thun Biodynamic Calendar 2015: 1. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K., Matson, P., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and
intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), 671-677.
Turinek, M., Grobelnik-Mlakar, S., Bavec, M., & Bavec, F. (2009). Biodynamic agriculture research
progress. Renewable Agriculture and Food System, 24(2), 146–154.
Turner, D. (2014). Neo-Naturphilosophie A Review of Michael Ruse’s Gaia: Science on a Pagan Planet.
Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 97(4), 477-485.
Villanueva-Reya, P., Vázquez-Roweb, I., Moreiraa, M., & Feijooa, G. (2014). Comparative life cycle
assessment in the wine sector: biodynamic vs. conventional viticulture activities in NW Spain.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 330–341.
Walsh, P. (2005). Dealing with the uncertainties of environmental change by adding scenario planning to
the strategy reformulation equation. Management Decision, 43(1), 113 - 122.
Winkler, E. (2003, November 18). Reviving Rush Farm – The Biodynamic Way. Retrieved April 17, 2015,
from Permaculture: http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/reviving-rush-farm-%E2%80%93-
biodynamic-way
Woodward-Clyde. (2000). International Green Market Signals. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from
Ministry for the Environment: http:// www.smf.govt.nz/results/6117_final.pdf
25 | P A G E
Appendices
Costs and timescale
Costs
This section details the financial cost of producing this research and the timescale of which it aims to be
achieved.
Table 2 - Travel costs
Visit to local Scotland’s Rural College Library: Barony College and farms around Dumfries and
Galloway over a five-week period.
Item Rate per week
Travel £22
Table – Costs per week
Item
Travel 5 weeks @ £22 £110.00
Total cost £110.00
Table - 17 week time scale of research
Timetable
Below is a Gantt chart timetable detailing the intended duration of this research. The chart details days
from the start of semester two, which has been set as 12 January 2015. The date for final submission is 5
May 2015. The contingency plan for this research can be found in the appendix.
Task List w/b
Jan
26
w/b
Feb
2
w/b
Feb
9
w/b
Feb
16
w/b
Feb
23
w/b
Mar
2
w/b
Mar
9
w/b
Mar
16
w/b
Mar
23
w/b
Mar
30
w/b
Apr
6
w/b
Apr
13
w/b
Apr
20
w/b
Apr
27
w
/
b
M
a
y
4
Initial
Research
26 | P A G E
Draft
research
proposal
Final
research
proposal
Proposal
submission
Supervisor
Meetings
Ethic’s form
submission
Farm’s
visitation
Dissertation
Proof
Reading
Final Edit
Dissertation
submission
Figure - Gantt chart
Furthermore the following table demonstrates the completion dates of the final report.
Task Completion Date
Introduction 20th February 2015
Materials and Methods 23rd March 2015
Results 13th April 2015
Discussion 30th March 2015
Conclusion 20th April 2015
Abstract 15th April 2015
Draft Edit 26th April 2015
Final Submission 5th May 2015
Table - Completion dates for Final Report
27 | P A G E
Contingence plan
Below is a table of foreseen obstacles that could hinder progress. This contingency plan will help in
planning processes in order to tackle problems and stay on track with research and writing.
Obstacle How Much
impact
Measures Who could help How far to plan
ahead
Writers block Could lose
valuable days’
worth of writing
Dog walking,
reading, moving
on to different
subject
Google, talking
with Bethan
Wood
(Supervisor)
Cannot plan for
this
Unforeseen
circumstances
Major/minor
meltdown
Improve and adapt Bethan Wood
(Supervisor) and
course convener
Plan for wasted
days
Exhaust
dissertation topics
Causes writers
block and not
being able to meet
word counts
Meet with
supervisor and
peers for support
Meet with Bethan
Wood
(Supervisor) and
peers for support
Meet with
supervisor
regularly
Technical issues Lose time and
possibly word
counts
Seek professional
help from IT, back
up regularly on
numerous media
IT support Leave time at end
and always have
back ups
Support system
breaks down
Lose direction and
focus
Actively seek out
other support
Bethan Wood Create an
emergency plan
Ethics form not
approved
Delays research
considerably
Double check
before submission
Bethan Wood Have additional
forms ready for
editing in case
first form is not
approved
Adverse weather
conditions
Restricts farm
visitations which
can hinder
research
Checking weather
forecasts before
planning visits
Weather
mediums, peers
Weather is only
predictable by
two weeks in
advance, so
planning will
have to occur
weekly.
Farmers not Hinders fieldwork, Meet with Meet with Meet with
28 | P A G E
wanting to be
interviewed
may have to
change dissertation
to desk based
study.
supervisor and
peers for support
supervisor for
support and
directional help
supervisor on
regular basis.
Table - Contingency Plan
29 | P A G E