No matter how good the intentions of a certain individual or group there are certain people commonly known as critics that stand on their way. No matter how enriching the acts of naturally inclined leaders and good Samaritans all over the world detractors are always waiting for the right time to bring them down. This also holds true for principles that only aim to uplift the quality of life of the human species. Let’s take a look at how some derail the progress of biodynamic gardening and farming.

In a certain publication editorial, a man with the name of Peter Treue stated that similar outcomes can be produced with the use of organic farming ways instead of hailing too much praise on biodynamic preparations. It was also noted that this person happened to criticize even the organic farming system. Furthermore he tagged biodynamic means of agriculture as something that is associated with magic, alchemy, and an akin to geomancy.

With this on hand let’s take a look at geomancy and figure out if it really has some sort of connection with biodynamic principles. There are many forms of this practice all over the world one of which involves the Arabic tradition that is founded on sketching sixteen random lines of dots in sand. In Africa a traditional component of geomancy is performed by throwing handfuls of dirt in the air and observing how the dirt falls. A very ancient form of geomancy originated in West Africa which utilizes the same sixteen geomantic figure of the Arabic and Western countries but with different names and meanings.

In China a certain diviner enters a trance and start making markings on the ground that are to be interpreted by a specific associate in the form of a young and illiterate boy. There are also geomancy patterns that are evident in rocks and soil which is called as scrying. Moreover, a series of binary trigrams are generated at random and the resulting figures are picked to form combinations. The figures gathered are not added or reorganized just like the common geomancy practices rather it is taken in order to form a single hexagram.

Now you judge for yourself if these ideas have something to do with biodynamic forms of agriculture. Now going back to detractors, in 1994 Holger Kirchmann ended up in a conclusion that Steiner’s guidelines were both leading and or paranormal nature. Thus it cannot really give positive contributions to the formulation of sustainable agriculture. Furthermore his hypothesis cannot be empirically cleared since his description of cosmic forces cannot be really manipulated and measured.  

A more recent review of biodynamic methods was done in 2004 and was spearheaded by Linda Chalker-Scott. She focused on the issue of research articles about the comparison of biodynamic principles and preparations with conventional agricultural ways. According to her there should be separation of the terms biodynamic and organic. This is why she believed that there are no really substantial amounts of scientific testing for biodynamic preparations thereby reducing the accuracy of claims that its practice can bring about an increase in soil quality and crop production.

As always each and every person is entitled to an opinion. Some may not believe in the benefits of biodynamic gardening and farming and some might take it side. The important thing is that people are aware that there should steps taken in order to preserve each element of the environment so as to ensure continuity in the provision of food sources.