Talk:Biodynamic agriculture

Talk:Biodynamic agriculture/Archive1 Talk:Biodynamic agriculture/Archive2

Reminder: NPOV tagging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's get crystal clear here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the lead without context is misleading for several reasons as discussed before. I still think it's inappropriate to use "astronomical" and think this should be revisited. There are also several sources that are either unreliable or being used too broadly. For example [1] is used to source the statement that "[Biodynamic farming] is considered to be one of the most sustainable", which is kinda like using [2] to say "Cold fusion is considered to be the energy of the future" or something. a13ean (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Wrong ISS - this is the one that is not affiliated with a university, is a small non-profit run by a few people, publishes stuff like this: [3] and the other major hit for it on google is this: [4]. a13ean (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of non-peer reviewed sources to remove

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joachim Raupp

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

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

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

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

Criticism or

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

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

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

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

I cannot be anything but skeptical of this proposal because of Hgilbert's demonstrated persistence in removing criticism from the article [5][6][7] and in removing the word or category "pseudoscience": [8][9][10][11][12]

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

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

Undue weight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"One of the first modern ecological farming systems"

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

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

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

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

Mineral sprays

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tertiary sources

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

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

• less helpful

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

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

Unreliable sources

Please list the sources that are of concern here

Usage of reliable sources

Please list problems with how sources are used here

Unsourced claims

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

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

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

General comment

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

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

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

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

BARDD study

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

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

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

Holistic approach

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

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

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

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

Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Studies evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing / neutraility

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

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

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