chatham

F ALK SCHOOL OF SUST AINABILITY & ENVIRONMENT

Master of Arts in Food Studies

The Undersigned Thesis Committee Approves the

Thesis of Sarah Olsen on April 26, 2019

"Certifying Spirituality: Biodynamics in America"

Nadine Lehrer, Ph.D., Chair

Assistant Professor, Food Studies, Chatham University

Frederick Kirschenmann
Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture

This thesis is accepted in its present form by the Falk School of Sustainability as satisfying the
thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Food Studies
 Certifying Spirituality:
Biodynamics in America

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the

degree of Masters of Food Studies

Chatham University
Sarah Olsen
May 2019
Contents
1. Introduction -1

1.1 Background

2. Literature Review - 5

2.1 Spirituality and Agriculture - 5

2.2 History and Practice of Biodynamics - 12

2.3 Organics in the U.S. - 21

3. Methods - 23

4. Results- 35

4.1 Conference Participant Observation -35

4.1 Survey Results- 40

5. Conclusion - 59

6. Works Cited- 66

7. Appendix A- 68
 Certifying Spirituality: Biodynamics in America

Introduction:

First described by Rudolf Steiner in a series of lectures in 1924, biodynamics is an agri-

cultural model that focuses on the farm as an organism that can be affected, both positively and

negatively, by the farmers interacting with the spiritual (non-physical) world. In other words, ac-

cording to Steiner, the ways in which a farmer tends his/her plants and animals in relation to

planetary phases and movements, and his/her treatment of spiritual creatures, all influence physi-

cal properties of the earth and therefore the functioning of his/her farm (Steiner, 1993). The be-

liefs underlying biodynamic agriculture were originally developed through Steiner’s philosophy

of anthroposophy, best outlined in Steiner’s Esoteric Science, where he described the evolution

of the spiritual earth and its connections to ancient civilizations, and to human development and

evolution. Steiner’s spiritual teachings are based on a combination of traditional Christian beliefs

with various other ancient lineages, such as Greek and Buddhist teachings.

Steiner claimed, and his followers believe, that Steiner possessed a form of clairvoyance

that allowed him to see beyond this earth and make connections between the spiritual world and

the physical world. In its essence, biodynamic agriculture is a spiritual practice that derives from

a particular understanding of nature and the earth, and that also relies heavily on the beliefs and

practices of the farmer who implements its techniques. As such, a focus on personal spiritual de-

velopment and understanding on the farmer level is considered central to fully understanding

biodynamics’ interactions with and effects on soil, plants, and animals (Klocek, 2013).

Demeter Certified Biodynamic® is a label that indicates that a farm is certified as biody-

namic, which in this case means the farm uses the practices outlined by Steiner in the Agriculture

!1
Lectures from 1924. From nearly the beginning of the movement in the late 1920’s, the organiza-

tion Demeter has been a leader in both organizing the biodynamic community and certifying

farmers who use these practices. In fact, Demeter is the only official certifying agency for biody-

namics both in the United States and abroad and has trademarked the term Certified Biodynamic

in the United States. Previously, Demeter USA had had a sister organization, Stellar, which up

until June of 2018 was an accredited National Organic Program (NOP) certifier, so that farmers

who wanted to certify as both biodynamic and organic could do so seamlessly. This also allowed

farmers to only pay one (slightly higher) fee to become certified both USDA Organic and Deme-

ter biodynamic. Now farmers who wish to certify as both biodynamic and organic can work with

the California Certified Organic Growers (CCOG) to do so, or they can certify just as biodynam-

ic through Demeter.

Despite the option of working with CCOG, the loss of accreditation by Stellar (and its

subsequent demise as an entity) has also turned into somewhat of a crisis moment for Demeter

and its members. Some members have argued that the loss of Stellar can be attributed to broader

mismanagement by the leadership of Demeter, and at the time of my research, emails had started

circulating among the biodynamic community calling for farmer members to leave Demeter and

start a new organization to certify their farms (Reid, 2018). While this has not yet come to pass,

the question among farmers of whether to continue certifying organic, or even whether to contin-

ue with the Demeter biodynamic certification, has made this an interesting moment to explore

the contours of biodynamic certification in the U.S.

Despite the longstanding existence of biodynamic certification, even the base concept of

certifying biodynamic farming is inherently fraught. Core to the beliefs and practices of biody-

!2
namics are that they are rooted in the personal practices of the farmer, and that they allow for

each farmer to interpret Steiner's teachings differently and apply the practices under their own

individual discretion. Steiner stated many times in his lectures that the practices he was propos-

ing were new and needed to be experimented with and improved upon. At the end of his lectures,

for example, he told farmers that his principles “will lead to brilliant results if worked into your

agronomical practices on an experimental basis” (Steiner, 1993, p. 168-169). His untimely death

just a year after his lectures, however, left the movement of biodynamics without a clear leader

or singular path. Given this lack of a clear way forward, this raises the question of how Demeter

navigates this conundrum of being asked to certify practices that include a farmer’s experimenta-

tion or his/her spiritual connection to the earth and other planets?

Essentially, Demeter’s approach has been to use the agriculture lectures given by Steiner

to pull the physical techniques away from the spiritual practices for its certification. For example,

to be considered a biodynamic farmer, the prep called 500 horn manure must be sprayed on the

land. To make this prep the farmer must follow certain steps such as filling a cow horn with ma-

nure and burying it over winter, along with stirring the final product in water for a certain

amount of time. None of these steps (or certifying that one follows them) require a spiritual be-

lief to participate but their roots in spiritual beliefs cannot be overlooked. Demeter does examine

each individual farm and farmer in a way that considers the unique circumstances for the specific

plot of land being certified and develops a unique plan for becoming certified. For example, if a

farmer cannot have animals living on their land (say, for food safety or other reasons), Demeter

will take this into account when certifying the land even if the farming practices normally require

some form of livestock integration. Demeter does not look, however, into the individual spiritual

!3
beliefs of the farmer or the farmer’s connection to anthroposophy (Chhabra, 2017). Elizabeth

Candelario, who was the director for Demeter USA1, has been quoted saying “We are certainly

not in the business of certifying people’s spirituality. However, the standard does not represent all

of the ways farmers practice biodynamic agriculture, just like one type of yoga (let’s say Ashtan-

ga) does not describe the entirety of what yoga may mean to the yoga movement” (Chhabra,

2017). Demeter’s insistence that they only certify the practices, not the beliefs, however, is

complicated, in that it gives way to what could be seen as certifying a “watered down” version of

Steiner’s original methods. In other words, a farmer could become certified biodynamic without

a full understanding of the spiritual basis for the techniques, or without holding any of the spiri-

tual beliefs that the practice is based on. This concern is at the root of the current controversies

surrounding Demeter USA today. My research will show that a split in the biodynamic commu-

nity has formed, with many members wanting the movement to focus back on Steiner’s funda-

mental teachings as laid out in his original works, and many other members looking to de-em-

phasize the focus on Steiner’s specific spiritual beliefs and instead expand to include more farm-

ers with more diverse sets of beliefs.

The goal of this research, then, is to better understand what certifying a spiritual approach

to farming does (or doesn’t do) to the nature of that spiritual approach, and what it means when

people take different approaches to understanding and codifying these practices. For example,

are certified farmers practicing biodynamics as the spiritual approach that it was originally in-

tended to be, even if those spiritual beliefs are not part of the certification checklist? Or are

farmers becoming certified biodynamic because the marketing aspect of the label acts as a draw

1 Elizabeth Candelario resigned as the director of Demeter in early 2019 after this research was mostly completed.

!4
over any spiritual connection to the earth? If the latter, does that “water down” the nature of bio-

dynamics or undermine its goals as an agricultural system? Or does it open biodynamics up to

new approaches, more experimentation, and a greater diversity of farmers? Relatedly, how do

biodynamic farmers feel about the biodynamic label? What does having such a label for a com-

modified agricultural product mean (if anything) for how spirituality is or is not embedded in

modern day agriculture?

This thesis is organized by sections. The first section is the literature review which will

provide a comprehensive understanding of biodynamics and related issues. The second section

will be a description of the methods used in this study. The next section will be an analysis of my

results to more thoroughly examine how biodynamics has been shaped as a certification system

and what the future might hold for the movement. Finally, I will discuss my overall findings and

conclusions of the research. This will include recommendations for how the biodynamic com-

munity can shape discussion around certification into the future, given the emergence of the two

“camps” of biodynamic farmers noted above. I contend that by including as many viewpoints as

possible into the discussion of how to approach Steiner’s spirituality, biodynamic farmers have a

better chance of remaining unified and setting themselves apart in a market full of labels and

confusion. These conversations surrounding the role of labels, and the shaping of spiritual beliefs

as part of biodynamic practice are integral to the future of the biodynamic label in the United

States, and to having a unified certifying agency that can meet the needs of the community it

serves.

Literature Review:

Spirituality and Agriculture

!5
 This literature review is organized into three sections. The first section discusses spiritu-

ality in agriculture in general and gives a brief overview into the relationship between specific

spiritual traditions and biodynamics. In the second section, I define what biodynamics is and how

it relates to anthroposophy. It is also in this section that I describe what anthroposophy is and

how it relates to American culture and understanding. The third section draws a comparison be-

tween biodynamics and USDA-certified organic agriculture, as both have had to grapple with

similar questions around certification. This section notes how they espouse similar backgrounds

and practices but are rooted in somewhat different spiritual traditions.

Biodynamics is one example of a system based on spirituality in agriculture. A spiritual

focus in food production, however, has appeared in nearly every civilization since the dawn of

agriculture. According to the book Religion and Sustainable Agriculture: World Spiritual Tradi-

tions and Food Ethics edited by Todd LaVasseur, religious and spiritual beliefs not only shaped

the way different cultures eat but also how they produce the food they eat. In particular, respect

for the land as a spiritual entity, or respect for the land as a gift endowed by a creator, are seen in

western and non-western, monotheistic and polytheistic traditions, and are thus, argues

LaVasseur’s text, inherent in humanity’s search for spiritual perfection.

The essays in that text, although drawn from multiple locations and traditions, cover a

broad range of spiritual practices that are reflected as well in Steiner’s vision of anthroposophy

and agriculture. The first essay, for example, explains how the Mayan civilization believed that

all elements are alive and “have their own mission” (Paz y Paz, 2016, p. 25). Steiner’s teachings

mirror this, in his assertion that elemental beings have a purpose on this earth and humanity is

responsible for caring for them. The Mayans also followed a very accurate calendar that incorpo-

!6
rated the lunar phases and solar phases of the year and used this calendar for planting and har-

vesting, which the biodynamic calendar also does.

Similarly, ancient Hindu texts talk about natural phenomena such as rain, clouds, or sun

as responsive to human interaction and note that they should not be taken for granted by humani-

ty (Adkikari, 2016). Although new farming techniques in Nepal use chemicals and hybrid seeds

to grow large yields (with large environmental impacts), Adhikari notes that in some small areas

of Nepal subsistence farming still relies on traditional Hindu practices for land and agriculture –

virtue in doing the right ecological and ritual activities to care for that land and resources; not

harming a primal element (of which Hinduism has five, including water); and linking a person’s

acts to their ancestors and their decedents. (Adkikari, 2016). In other words, many of Steiner’s

teachings around the protection of elements, observation and interpretation of planetary move-

ments, and his appeals to ethics, virtue, and times past parallel those seen in other ancient civi-

lizations and agricultural traditions. These traditions include but are not limited to the Mayan and

Hindu traditions described in LaVasseur’s compilation.

Not only are there parallels between Steiner’s anthroposophy and other spiritual tradi-

tions, there are also instances in which anthroposophy has been used explicitly within the context

of other spiritual traditions. Maximilian Abouleish-Boes highlights the SEKEM institute in Egypt

which promotes regenerative agriculture (specifically biodynamics) for the reclamation of desert

land for growing food. The founder of SEKEM, Dr. Ibrahim Abouleish, spent over 20 years in

Austria studying biodynamics before moving back to Egypt to support sustainable agriculture in

his homeland. Ibrahim connects Islamic beliefs to his biodynamic agricultural practices, noting

for example that biodynamics and Islam both focus on primal elements like the sun, and can be

!7
taken as two sides of the same coin. Asking humanity to focus on the natural rhythms of the uni-

verse is essential to how he blends a Christian centered, European focused set of spiritual prac-

tices and agricultural guidelines and implements them for the betterment of his own culture and

land. Importantly, then, the SEKEM institute provides an example of how biodynamics has been

blended and incorporated into a different religious context than the one which Steiner suggested.

In thinking about the adaptation of biodynamics within other religious or spiritual con-

texts, in this case in the U.S., it is especially important to reflect on the spiritual tradition of the

people who lived on the North American landscape before European expansion and colonial ex-

ploitation. Dennis Wall and Virgil Masayeva tell the story of how the Hopi people were brought

to their land in northern Arizona, given an ear of blue corn, and told that the corn was both life

and spirit. They go on to explain that the Hopi people have retained their connection to the earth

through their connection to corn as a sacred entity with each corn plant being its own individual

being. Singing to each plant is as vital to growth as photosynthesis in many Hopi farmers’ minds

(Wall and Masayeva, 2004). The way the Hopi farm works with the natural rhythms of their dry

climate includes maintaining their spiritual beliefs even as they modernize with today’s technol-

ogy (Wall and Masyeva, 2004). Steiner reflected similar sentiments talking about how agricul-

ture should harmonize with the needs of the earth. Specifically, Steiner often referenced what he

called peasant wisdom in his lectures, hearkening back to a time when people around the whole

earth were more connected with the planetary rhythms. He often spoke about how ancient peo-

ples could communicate with the earth and understand it better than modern humanity could

(Steiner, 1993). In the U.S. context, then, one can note biodynamics’ call for a cultural spiritual

approach to the earth, similar to the one practiced by many Native Americans. In other words,

!8
what was for Steiner an historical hearkening can also be read as a modern connection to peoples

across the world (including the U.S.) who have not necessarily lost, as Steiner lamented, their

tradition of spiritual agriculture, despite pressures to do otherwise.

Rebecca Kneale Gould, professor of religion and environmental science, also compares

Steiner’s call to reconnect with the earth to that of key American philosophers of nature Henry

David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Gould notes that, unlike the more communal ap-

proach seen in several indigenous approaches to agriculture, the concept of individualism is

prominent in at least both Steiner and Thoreau’s teachings. although how they are interpreted

through spirituality differs greatly. Steiner, Thoreau, and Emerson all shared a conviction that

“humanity has lost a previously inherent, authentic way of engaging with the world, what Emer-

son famously called “an original relation to the Universe.”” (McDermott, 2013, p. 21). And both

Steiner and Thoreau emphasized that spiritual understanding would not come from looking in the

places where it is typically found in Western culture (the church) but rather from an ability to

discover it through perceiving nature and connecting with humanity through the earth. However,

they use different language to explain and relate to their followers, with Steiner using Christian

metaphors and Thoreau using non-Christian, nature-oriented language. In addition, while all

three focus less on looking for spiritual understanding and more on cultivating the ability to dis-

cover spirituality, Steiner called himself clairvoyant while Emerson and Thoreau believed that

their act of seeing could be developed by anyone and is a practice not a gift (McDermott, 2013).

Similar views regarding past and present abilities to connect with nature have been

echoed in the U.S. by early proponents of modern organic agriculture. Liberty Hyde Bailey, an

American horticulturalist of white European descent, posited in his book The Holy Earth: The

!9
Birth of a New Land Ethic (written in 1915) that the earth is a holy gift from God to the people

and with that, humanity has a burden of care. He argues that in modern times humanity has not

cared for the earth as we should have. Bailey specifically mentions how farmers are the care-

givers of the earth and they should be supported in the efforts to do no harm. To be supported in

this, all people must be educated about how the earth functions and how best to care for it; if all

people are educated, then the burden does not fall explicitly on the farmer but on all humankind.

He argues that community is the best way to support proper earth caregiving and that a farmer

without a community is more likely to be destructive to the earth but with community support,

techniques can be used to care for the earth. The main theme of the book is that humanity needs

to change its fundamental thinking about the earth. Instead of believing that the earth is here to

provide for us we need to shift our view to one of mutual benefitting (Linstrom, 2015). This tenet

is common to many descriptions of both organic and biodynamic agriculture, and also one that

connects frequently to approaches from other cultures and spiritual traditions.

One finds a similar view in Wendell Berry, one of the most notable figures in American

environmentalism and a fifth-generation farmer from Kentucky. His 1977 book, The Unsettling

of America, is a critique of modern agriculture and its role in destroying American land and cul-

ture. He is critical of America’s desire to destroy anything small and its motto of “bigger is bet-

ter” (Berry, 1977, p 81). Berry notes that despite agricultural research and its success of being

able to grow more food, farmers have been suffering more and more and that the culture of rural

America has been destroyed. The drive for profit has left the land with no future. A review from

the New York Times in 1977 written by Donald Hall points to Berry’s disdain for big business,

arguing that “we are the imperialist invaders of our own land” (Hall, 1977, p. 270). Berry also

!10
criticizes the land-grant colleges as not properly preserving rural life as they were meant to. He

claims that they have trained specialists who practice science, not agriculture and that these

graduates are keen to serve the greatest power (agribusiness) (Berry, 1977). This book is as im-

portant today as it was back in 1977 because the arguments remain fairly unchanged. In the af-

terword to the third edition written in 1995, Berry says that the book’s tragedy is that even 20

years later it is still true (Berry, 1977). He critiques then President Clinton for his remarks on the

inevitability of big agriculture and bemoans the national conversation surrounding farming. He

ends this afterword with a hope that the government will someday value local economies and

ecosystems (Berry, 1977). Like the other texts and traditions highlighted in this section, Berry

speaks (in an American context) to concerns that Steiner also noted when he spoke of the draw

for many farmers towards chemicals as quick way to restore fertility to their broken lands after

WW1. Steiner was assertive in his belief that peasant farming practices were being laid aside at

this time and that the focus on a faster path to agricultural productivity was ill-advised (Steiner,

1993).

While these authors are not the only ones who speak of spirituality and the ethical dimen-

sions of farming, they are notable examples where a critique of industrialized or “modern” agri-

culture is paired with a call for nurturing the land with an ethic of care and reverence. They all

speak to a need for “heart” or for belief to return to or be maintained in agriculture, in ways that

are mirrored in Steiner’s approach to biodynamics. They also illustrate how widespread these

kinds of traditions around spirituality in agriculture are – diverse yet connected by certain com-

monalities in approach. This will be important as we consider how the biodynamic community

1! 1
today is debating how to draw (or thicken or change) boundaries around biodynamics both as a

spiritual approach to agriculture and as a certification system.

History and Practices of Biodynamics


Biodynamics is a form of sustainable and regenerative agriculture that has been growing

in popularity both in America and around the world, following the indications given by its

founder Rudolf Steiner about agriculture. Steiner, a trained scientist and philosopher who also

claimed to have clairvoyant tendencies that led him to a great understanding of the spiritual and

physical world, was born in Austria in 1861. He founded the anthroposophy movement that was

based on his teachings and lectures about the spiritual world and humanity’s connection to the

earth and spirit bodies. Through anthroposophy (which I will explain below), many practices

were developed including Waldorf education and biodynamics. The foundations of biodynamics

came when Steiner was asked by farmers across Europe to give a course on agriculture, because

they felt their lands were being depleted by modern chemicals and the practices they were using.

Steiner died in 1925, just a year after his famous agricultural lectures were given (Biodynamic

Association, n.d.).2

Steiner based his insights and philosophy of anthroposophy loosely on Christian beliefs.

He saw Christ’s death at Golgotha as the start of a new evolution of the earth, and drew a line

between the Christian traditions of a Christ figure to the ancient Greek understandings of the

planets and cosmos and back to the Buddha’s understanding of human spirit and development

2 There are two common translations of these lectures into English. For the purpose of this research the original
translation by Malcolm Gardiner will be used (Steiner, 1993). This translation has many benefits including the trans-
lations of the question and answer sessions given by Steiner after each lecture and the editor’s notes provided by
Gardiner who is considered an expert on anthroposophy and biodynamics by his peers.

!12
(McDermott, 2013). From this base Steiner explained four elements (earth, wind, water, and fire)

supported by elemental beings, which he argued were the lowest beings on the spiritual hierarchy

and the beings with which humans have the most interaction and influence over. Steiner alludes

to the idea in his agricultural lectures (Steiner, 1993), that the elemental beings of the world have

been harmed in two ways. The first being the uprooting of traditional agricultural and the use of

unnatural chemicals on the land and the second being a loss of connection with humans who

used to understand and communicate with them through the earth. Steiner also connects the ele-

mentals to other spiritual beings associated with four evolutionary patterns of the earth (Saturn,

Sun, Moon, and Earth) and to the zodiac – based around a connection to the warmth of the sun.

These insights into the elementals and the zodiac are important in understanding the effects of

the biodynamic preparations and the biodynamic calendar. Steiner indicated that a thorough un-

derstanding of these forces would be integral in understanding biodynamics as a whole system

(Steiner, 2008).

The basics of biodynamics as described in the lectures given in 1924 also include descrip-

tions of the preparations Steiner designates as useful for helping the earth rejuvenate from the

harms he noted, and a proposal for the concept of the farm as a living system. The preparations

(preps) are perhaps the most well-known aspect of biodynamics and also the least understood by

the consumer. Each prep is given a number and a name. In lecture four Steiner discusses the

preparations named 500 and 501, which are the horn manure and horn silica respectively. These

preps are made using the horn of a lactating cow. The use of cows’ horns is specified because

Steiner taught that the digestive system of a cow had both astral and etheric qualities that allowed

!13
it to connect to the earth and the spiritual realm at the same time. The horns are the connection to

the etheric (spiritual), and the manure (digestive track) is the connection to the astral (earth)

realm. It is because of this that Steiner indicates that a biodynamic farmer should put manure into

a horn and bury under the earth during wintertime. Wintertime is specified because it is when the

earth is resting and most receptive to spiritual forces. In spring the horn should be dug up and the

manure removed, at which point the 500 preparation is finished and ready to be used on the farm.

It is used by placing a small amount of the manure in water and stirring it for an hour; it is then

sprayed in large droplets across the land in the late afternoon (Steiner, 1993).

The next preparation is 501 which is called horn silica. This prep is made by grinding

quartz to a fine powder and mixing it with water to form a dough like consistency. The dough is

stuffed into a cow horn and buried in spring when the ground is dry. After digging it up in fall

(when burying the horn manure), the horn silica is to be sprayed (after stirring for an hour) in

fine droplets in the morning (usually in spring) (Steiner, 1993).

The other preparations are for the compost pile. Steiner explains how to make these

preparations in lecture five. The first of these is the yarrow prep (503) that is used to work with

sulfur in the compost pile. To make this prep the yarrow flower is moistened and then stuffed

into the bladder of a stag. It is then hung up in a sunny spot for the entire summer and buried in

the fall. The next prep is chamomile (504) which is to help calcium enter the compost pile. This

prep is made by making sausages out of the intestines of the cow that are stuffed with

chamomile. This is then buried underground for the winter (without the summer hanging in the

sun used for yarrow). Stinging nettle is the next prep (505) that is used to bring iron to the com-

post pile. This prep is made by putting wilted nettle straight into the ground with no animal con-

!14
tainer and burying it over winter. (Steiner does not indicate how to find it again in spring so

many techniques have been developed by modern farmers including wire netting and glass jars

with perforated lids). For prep 506, white oak bark is grated off a freshly cut tree limb and

stuffed into the skull of a cow. It is then submerged in a swampy area over winter (Steiner indi-

cated a rain barrel can be used as long as the water is not stagnant all the time). The next prep is

Dandelion (507) which is stuffed into pockets made of the mesentery or peritoneum (lining of the

digestive cavity) of a cow. They too are buried over winter and dug up in spring. The final prep is

Valerian (508). This prep is slightly different as it is not buried but instead the flowers are juiced

and the juice is then diluted in water and stored in the sun for later use. All of these preps are tak-

en out of their animal packages (except for the valerian) and put into the compost pile in small

amounts every time the compost is turned; the valerian is sprayed on top (Steiner, 1993).

These preparations are required for Demeter’s biodynamic certification. However, the

preparations are only a small part of what Steiner indicated in his lectures in 1924. Another main

point was his view that the farm should be self-sustaining and that everything for the farm’s fer-

tility should be made on farm. Like proponents of many of the other spiritual traditions discussed

in the section above, Steiner believed the farm was a holistic ecosystem that spoke to the spiritu-

al beings in its area. As such, he argued that the preparations are most helpful when made in the

area in which they are used. He asserted that the earth could provide everything it needed for

itself and that humanity’s involvement should be about focusing these elements into correct in-

teraction for that particular piece of land. This included not adding anything produced outside of

the farm unless the land was sick and needed extraordinary care. In these lectures he also cov-

!15
ered animal husbandry and the basics of the spiritual science on which he based his conclusions

(Steiner, 1993).

Aside from biodynamics, Steiner developed many entities and practices that still exist in

the world today including Waldorf education, Camphill communities, eurythmy, and the growing

product line of Weleda remedies that are readily available in markets across the United States

today (especially at Whole Foods). All of these are based in the unique spiritual teachings of an-

throposophy. The Waldorf schools are very active in the United States (with 1200 schools in the

U.S.) and their teaching style is based on Steiner’s assertion that children learn through experi-

ence and that children’s creativity and imagination should be encouraged along with practical

and artistic skills (McDermott, 2013). Just as Steiner looked at the earth as a combination of

physical and spiritual elements, he looked at a person as a combined soul and body and argued

for nurturing and valuing the soul being as much as the physical body. This understanding also

helped form the foundation of the Camphill communities which bring people with special needs

together with caregivers who all live and work together for the betterment of these communities.

Camphill has played a vital role in the biodynamic movement because many Camphill communi-

ties around the world have biodynamic farms and gardens (Camphill Association of North Amer-

ica, 2017). Similarly related, Weleda products are medicinal products made using biodynamical-

ly grown herbs and other plants. This brand was started by Rudolf Steiner and some of his con-

temporary doctors who all had the desire to connect the body back with natural rhythms (Weleda,

2019).

Steiner had many contemporaries that carried on his work after his death. Ehrenfried

Pfeiffer was a student of Steiner and focused on Steiner’s insights into natural sciences and bio-

!16
dynamic agriculture. Pfeiffer was born in Germany and his step-father was Steiner’s economist

for the building of the Geotheanum, a building and landscape where Steiner envisioned his work

would live on through the practical study of his insights (the second Geotheanum still stands to-

day and is the center of the anthroposophical society in Europe) (Pfeiffer, 2011). Pfeiffer was en-

couraged by Steiner to study chemistry during his time at university, especially mineralogy,

botany, and ecology (Pfeiffer, 2011). Pfeiffer became a lecturer on agriculture under Steiner’s

guidance but missed the agriculture lectures because he was asked by Steiner to stay behind to

care for an injured worker at the build site of the Geotheanum (Pfeiffer. 2011). As Pfeiffer was

not present for the actual lectures, much of his understanding of biodynamics came from Stein-

er’s personal teachings to him from their time at the Geotheanum and from his continued re-

search after Steiner’s death. After Steiner’s death in 1925, Pfeiffer became a leader in the anthro-

posophical movement and was written about by many of his contemporaries as a leader in the

new biodynamic movement going forward, despite the loss of Steiner. He would often tour to

places beyond Europe to give lectures on agriculture (Pfeiffer, 2011). Pfeiffer used gifts of land

across Europe and America to study biodynamics more in-depth and eventually wrote what is

still considered a definitive textbook on biodynamics, Soil Fertility, its Renewal and Preserva-

tion (Pfeiffer, 2011).

Pfeiffer worked closely with a group from the Threefold farm in Spring Valley, NY – the

first major community of biodynamic farmers in the United States, who started farming there in

1926. In the 1930s Pfeiffer made many trips to Spring Valley and Maine, both of which had labo-

ratories studying the effects of biodynamics on the soil. During his time in New York, Pfeiffer

insisted there was a need for a biodynamic school in the area. This became the foundation for the

!17
Pfeiffer Center which continues to teach a one-year course in biodynamics and holds many

workshops throughout the year. This was the first school for biodynamics in America and the

community of biodynamic farmers based there grows larger each year. A school in Kimberton,

PA was also established and gave rise to the large community of biodynamic farmers in that area

which now includes three Camphill communities and several independent biodynamic farms.

During the 1960’s and 70’s Pfeiffer lived and worked in the United States, and New York became

his permanent residence (Pfeiffer, 2011).

Pfeiffer’s Introduction to Biodynamics is a series of lectures by Pfeiffer and includes a

short biography of him written by Herbert H. Koepf. The Pfeiffer lectures were published be-

tween 1948 and 1956 in the Biodynamics Journal, which is still the leading journal for biody-

namic research in the United States (published by the Biodynamic Association of America). The

first lecture is about Rudolf Steiner and his initial insights into agriculture. In this lecture, he de-

scribes Steiner’s first instruction for biodynamic agriculture, the 500 horn manure preparation

(Pfeiffer, 2011). Pfeiffer quotes Steiner in this lecture saying “The most important thing now is

that the blessings of the preparations be carried to as large an area of land as possible, over the

whole earth, for the healing of the earth and in order to improve the nutrient value of the field

crops as widely as this can be done. That should be the aim. The experiments can still be made

later” (Pfeiffer, 2011, p. 9). This has been taken as an indication that Steiner wished the move-

ment to grow and to grow quickly even if it was not understood by everyone involved (Steiner,

1993), a tenet that in many ways matches Demeter’s approach to certifying practices without cer-

tifying belief.

!18
 The second lecture is Pfeiffer’s understanding of all the preparations Steiner indicated.

He gives the chemical makeup of each prep and explains its recipe and application. He also cov-

ers the topic of yeast growth when the preps are applied, which he concludes to mean that the

preps are alive and contain active microorganisms. He gives many examples on how the chemi-

cal and elemental make-up of the soil and the preps changes over the time underground and how

this can help the soil and plants access key trace minerals. The third lecture is a series of ques-

tions and answers that Pfeiffer brings about biodynamics. One of the key issues is who can be

involved in biodynamic agriculture. Pfeiffer makes clear his belief that biodynamics should be

accessed by all who wish to improve their land; nowhere in these lectures does Pfeiffer indicate

that the farmer should be well versed in Steiner’s more spiritual lectures (Pfeiffer, 2011). In es-

sence, Pfeiffer’s book can be considered as the more scientific study of the effects of biodynam-

ics while Steiner’s lectures cover the practical guidelines and the spirituality behind the efforts.

Dennis Klocek is a modern anthroposophist who focuses on the alchemical interactions

between the preps and the land and how these interactions work in the spiritual and etheric

worlds. His book, Sacred Agriculture: The Alchemy of Biodynamics, looks at how the four ele-

ments of the earth explained by Steiner – mineral, water, air, and fire – have the ability to trans-

form the physical properties of the earth, and how elemental beings are influenced by humanity’s

work on the land. Klocek spends a lot time in these sections describing the shape and form of

these microscopic elements, and focuses on “sheaths” and how what the preps are placed in af-

fects how they will interact with the earth and universe (Klocek, 2013). This book in many ways

goes beyond Steiner’s work and provides new insights into how some believe biodynamics

!19
works, although it relies on research and explanations that cannot be proven in typical scientific

research.

Stewart Easton, an historian of western civilization who has also taken on Steiner’s teach-

ings, explains how Steiner viewed the evolution of human consciousness and its detriment to un-

derstanding the spiritual world. Easton wrote Man and the World in the Light of Anthroposophy,

which is considered one of the most influential anthroposophic writings. Easton explains that

since the 15th century, humanity has pulled itself away from the spiritual world. This led to the

rise in understanding of the mechanical and physical world but an abandonment of the elemen-

tals, who need humanity’s caregiving to thrive. A key part of biodynamics is the nurturing of the

ecosystem, in which “every element is related to everything else,” an aspect that he argues has

been misunderstood in modern industrialized agriculture (Easton, 1989, p. 441). For example,

Easton argued that planting and harvesting vegetables according to lunar cycles can increase

yields, and that when insecticide kills earthworms their decaying bodies produce high amounts of

nitrogen -- increasing the crops’ yields but becoming detrimental over time as future earthworms

are eliminated (Easton, 1989). Easton further explains that when a biodynamic farmer uses the

preps (specifically 500 and 501) he feeds the elementals that are seeking contact with humanity.

In this way biodynamic agriculture not only rejuvenates the land but also the land’s connection to

the spiritual realm, which is vital to a healthy ecosystem (Easton, 1989). Each of these writers –

Pfeiffer, Klocek, and Easton – are in essence taking different approaches to trying to explain the

spiritual science of anthroposophy. Their work took biodynamics from Steiner’s descriptions to

more concrete explanations of how the spiritual world connects to humans and the physical

world.

!20
 

Certainly, however, Steiner and his followers were not the first to bring spirituality into

agriculture; rather, they are part of a long line of traditions from all over the globe with a spiritual

understanding of the earth that drives an ethic of caring for the land. Through Steiner’s anthropo-

sophical teaching and clairvoyant observations, biodynamics developed as an agricultural prac-

tice and gained popularity in Europe and around the world. Biodynamic approaches to the cos-

mos mirror many indigenous forms of connection to the earth, and biodynamics also fit into the

post-indigenous American landscape of spiritual agriculture with its ties to Christianity and its

focus on organic or non-synthetic practices. As described above, these teachings came mainly in

the form of lectures given while Steiner was alive, and also from explanations by many authors

since Steiner’s death. But importantly, Steiner also encouraged his followers not to believe his

words explicitly but rather to explore them and come to their own conclusions and understand-

ings. This desire of Steiner’s for his followers to explore for themselves is especially important

to biodynamics. In his agriculture lectures, for example, he expressed a hope that the people

would experiment and work from his initial findings to discover new methods for regenerating

the earth (Steiner, 1993).

Organics in the U.S.

While anthroposophical institutions are fairly widespread in the United States (especially

Waldorf schools), biodynamics is nevertheless a much less well-known agricultural system than

many others that similarly subscribe to a philosophy of sustainable agriculture or prioritize an

ethic of care for the earth. One example of this is the organic movement.

!21
 Organic Struggle, by sociologist Brian Obach, traces the history of organic agriculture in

America, starting with Robert Rodale’s book Organic Farming and Gardening, which was pub-

lished in 1942. Obach writes about the initial organic movement’s connection to the spirituality

or religious beliefs of the farmers, crediting Albert Howard as the key founder of the organic

movement in Europe and Rudolf Steiner as one of his contemporaries. Obach notes that Howard

found Steiner to be unscientific and Howard’s views were shared by many prominent scientists at

the time, but he also notes that Rodale was clearly influenced by both and the Rodale Institute

published works by followers of both men (Obach, 2015).

Obach highlights how during the 1970’s organics began to grow exponentially but with

no unifying body to guide it. At the same time, it faced strong opposition from the U.S. govern-

ment and agribusinesses who felt that organic agriculture was foolish and costly, and that if

farmers went back to exclusively organic agricultural 50 million people would starve. Neverthe-

less, in the first effort to organize organics, Rodale officially certified 85 farms as organic (by

1972). By the 1990s, organic certification had become part of the purview of the U.S. Depart-

ment of Agriculture, albeit not without controversy. Demeter USA – which was founded in 1985

as an outgrowth of the older Demeter International – was in fact a key critic of the move to fed-

eralize the organic certification in the 1980s and 1990s along with some chapters (New York and

Vermont) of the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA). This was because they felt

small farmers would lose their voice as the program got bigger and more popular. In other words,

small farmers were worried about the commercialization of the certification and the loss of their

niche market (Obach, 2015). This is an interesting point, as it has been echoed recently inside the

biodynamic community as the Demeter label too has become more popular.

!22
 Broadly speaking, this kind of certification of food products has been seen as a way to

standardize and uphold certain sets of agricultural practices by conveying those standards to con-

sumers in the marketplace. Typically, interested consumers will then pay more for these certified

products, which in turn increases financial viability for farmers using the practices, to help them

compete with lower cost commodities for consumer dollars. Standards such as organic and bio-

dynamic convey information about how foods were produced, particularly for attributes that are

not readily visible to consumers in the product itself (e.g. what kinds of pesticides, or in the case

of biodynamics what kinds of preps, were or were not used) (Obach, 2015). Currently, Demeter

USA has over 1,000 certified farms (compared with more than 14,000 certified organic farms

(Bialik and Walker, 2019)), although many farmers are practicing biodynamic techniques without

being certified. Although biodynamics and biodynamic certification have existed for almost 100

years, consumer interest in purchasing biodynamic products has increased in recent years

(Demeter USA, 2019). Like the organic movement, however, biodynamics is facing problems

during its expansion, such as ensuring its integrity despite commercialization and providing

guidelines to farmers who might not understand Steiner’s anthroposophical teachings that allow

the label to represent a somewhat standardized set of agricultural practices. This thesis picks up

here, at the nexus between biodynamic agriculture and its certification through Demeter.

Methods:

This research utilized two different methods of data collection, along with past personal

experiences and communication with members of the biodynamic community, to better under-

stand how biodynamic farmers understand and approach questions of certification. First, in No-

!23
vember of 2018 I attended the Biodynamic Association’s bi-annual conference. The Biodynamic

Association conference is the largest gathering of biodynamic farmers and researchers in the

United States with around 800 people attending and growing larger with every conference held.

Given the large geographic nature of the country along with farmers’ generally busy schedules

this conference is one of the only times leaders in the community congregate to discuss the future

of biodynamics as a movement. The Biodynamic Association is not associated with Demeter and

is a member-based non-profit (https://www.biodynamics.com/who-we-are). 3

Attending this conference allowed me the opportunity to observe how farmers and re-

searchers are reacting to the current upheaval with Demeter and biodynamic certification. Some

of the seminars dealt explicitly with this topic, but the most important opportunities for observa-

tion came about during break and mealtimes. During these times many people were eager to re-

lay what had been discussed during sessions to others who may not have attended them, and the

conversations in the hallways and meals proved to be insightful and at times very hopeful. Some

of the key players in the biodynamic community were on hand at this conference including

members of the Agricultural Section of the Anthroposophical Society’s school of Spiritual Sci-

ence, whose mission is to help guide the spiritual scientific study of biodynamics and continue

research into Steiner’s insights. The members of the Agricultural Section have devoted their

lives to the work of Rudolf Steiner and his teachings about agriculture and are the most well-

known members of the North American biodynamic community. Some of the members are Sher-

ry Wildfeuer who is the author of a biodynamic planting calendar widely used in North America

3To attend the conference you do not need to become a member of the association but the price does become dis-
counted with membership. To obtain the discounted price I did become a member of the Biodynamic Association to
attend this conference and my membership is retained while writing this paper

!24
and a retired farmer at Camphill Community Kimberton Hills in Kimberton, PA; and Anthony

Mecca, leader of farmer training for the Biodynamic Association, interested in bringing young

farmers to an understanding of the spiritual basis of biodynamics and bringing biodynamics to

the larger agricultural community without losing sight of its foundational practices. Another key

player at the conference was the then-president of Demeter, Elizabeth Candelario. She led a sem-

inar, along with other staff members at Demeter, that focused on the rules the federal government

has in place to maintain a certifying label. This had been a contentious issue for the past several

years since she took office as President. In my participant observation, however, I focused not

only on such VIPs of the biodynamic community in America; I also spent a lot of time, especial-

ly during meals and breaks, with beginning farmers and minority groups. The theme of this con-

ference was related to social justice, so many of the seminars focused on this issue. One group

that was especially present was Native American biodynamic farmers, as members from the local

(Portland, OR area) Native American tribes were invited to participate in the conference and of-

fer their understanding of agriculture.

By observing these specific groups, I hoped to gain a better understanding of the past,

present and future of biodynamics and how these groups are reconciling their beliefs with one

another. I participated in a variety of seminars about spirituality, practical methods, anthropo-

sophical theories, and politics/federal requirements. Because of my interest as related to this the-

sis, I attempted to focus my schedule on the spiritual foundations of biodynamics and the future

of Demeter and the certification system. This narrowed my focus and provided a consistency in

my observations. However, because people tend to attend conference sessions based on specific

interests, it also meant that many of the seminars I observed were attended by the same people,

!25
and this structure did not allow for a vast observation of the group as a whole during workshops.

To compensate for this, I actively chose to sit, eat, and converse with people who did not attend

the seminars I had participated in. Even so, I may have missed many themes and important con-

versations that were happening outside of my focus; in other words, the conclusions I drew from

my participant observation may not be inclusive to the conference as a whole but rather offer in-

sight into some specific themes. During my time at the conference and in each small group set-

ting, I did identify that I was doing research on spirituality and biodynamics, and only those who

were willing to be named are identified. Other individuals who made comments and insights that

I found particularly useful but did not want to be identified or were unaware of my research have

been kept anonymous.

Along with participant observation at the conference, I also created and distributed a sur-

vey that focused on respondents’ journeys and understandings of spirituality and biodynamics.

This survey was sent to all participants of the conference and was available to be taken a week

before the conference, during the conference, and for two months after the conference concluded.

In addition to the survey being sent to conference participants it was sent in December 2018 to

the membership of the Biodynamic Association as a whole, and to all farmers who are certified

biodynamic through Demeter. Follow-ups were sent out twice to each group with the hope of in-

creasing response rates.

The survey is an important aspect to this research because it allowed for individuals to

voice their opinions outside of the group context that the conference offered. The results were

anonymous and participants were made aware that no identifying information was being tracked.

This allowed survey participants a platform for discussing personal topics such as spiritual be-

!26
liefs and farming practices without the fear of judgement or critique. In addition, sending out the

survey to members of two different organizations, Demeter USA and the Biodynamic Associa-

tion of North America, helped diversify the survey sample. 4 Demeter USA is the certifying

agency to the biodynamic label in the United States, whereas the Biodynamic Association could

reach farmers who may be practicing biodynamic techniques but for a variety a reasons choose

not to become certified through Demeter. Given the Biodynamic Association’s large membership

(~1,300 individuals) and its separation from Demeter as a separate organization, I felt these were

the best groups to distribute the survey to the broadest swath of people who are interested in and

practicing biodynamics in the U.S. Considering both Demeter and the Biodynamic Association

have membership fees I acknowledge that I am missing farmers who are practicing biodynamic

techniques but prefer not to pay money to become a member of any organization or attend con-

ferences. This group would not be a part of any membership list that would indicate their interest

in biodynamics, and as such I was not able to reach them through this project. There is also no

way to know how large or widespread this group may be. While these individuals might offer

some fascinating insights into the role of organizational membership and spiritual beliefs, I could

find no way to distribute the survey to them in a consistent manner, so their views and opinions

are not reflected in this research.

The survey questions were designed knowing that spirituality and biodynamics can be a

contentious subject, especially in the way certain ideas are phrased and understood. With this in

mind, I composed the questions with minimal jargon and allowed for many opportunities to write

4 These groups have some overlap between membership, but steps were taken to try and reduce the possibility of
double responses. This included a description of the survey at the very beginning that was the same for each group,
instructions that asked people to only complete the survey once, and the ability to exit the survey without recording
a response.

!27
in answers. Samples of the questions were sent to farmers and researchers who were familiar

with my research topic, and changes were made to reflect a more open understanding of what

anthroposophy is and how it is viewed in biodynamics. At the end of the survey, participants

were given the opportunity to write in a response if they felt there was anything they would like

to add or topics they were missing and felt were important to understand. The opportunity to

provide many of their own insights into each question and in response to the survey as a whole

was designed to alleviate any concerns people may have had over phrasing or question content

by giving them a platform to discuss such issues.

The survey was divided into six sections and had a total of 56 questions. Care was taken

to make survey taking as easy as possible and the layout was designed to work on both computer

and mobile devices seamlessly. The first section consisted of questions to weed out people who

were not farmers, as this research is focused on current farmers’ experiences. Questions in this

section also focused on the individual’s role on the farm, access to land, and how long the farm

and land had been under biodynamic or organic practices. The second section covered certifica-

tion choices. This included whether or not the farm was certified USDA Organic and/or Demeter

Biodynamic, benefits and inhibitors to each kind of certification, and customers’ reactions to

each. The third section contained questions about what is grown/produced on the farm and

through what channels the products are marketed. The first three sections were relatively

straightforward and the survey experience up to this point was designed to be fast and easy to

complete.

Section four asked about the specific biodynamic practices of the farmer and how the

farm is organized around these principles. The first question asked whether or not livestock is

!28
integrated into the farm system, as Demeter encourages all certified farms to have livestock inte-

grated in some forms (they are willing to make exceptions in some cases) (DEMETER & ASSO-

CIATION, INC., 2017). This question also provided the opportunity for respondents to explain

how they do so (or why they do not) in a write-in section. The second question was about

whether or not the farm produces its own compost on site, which is another recommendation by

Steiner that is discussed in the Demeter farm standards. Both questions were designed to better

understand how different farmers are taking the principle of the farm organism as described by

Steiner and making it work for them and their land.

The next few questions focused on the biodynamic preps themselves. Using the preps

500-508 are required by Demeter as they are the ones described by Steiner in the agricultural lec-

tures (i.e. these are a non-negotiable aspect of the Demeter standards). The survey asked if preps

were used and if so, which ones and how often. Preps beyond 500-508 were discussed including

those not commonly known or ones that are specific to a certain type of products (such as tree

paste for orchards). How farmers acquire their preps is also an important aspect to biodynamics

and one that is particularly important to maintaining the integrity of the prep. At the Biodynamic

Association conference in November 2018 the president of Demeter discussed the difficulties

that can arise when certifying farms in terms of sourcing preps. At one time, only one commer-

cial retailer of preparations was allowed under the Demeter standard (those from the Josephine

Porter Institute) but farmers were allowed to make or acquire their own preps locally. In recent

years other experienced biodynamic farmers wanted to create businesses making preps in their

regions. A standard for prep making thus had to be designed by Demeter and integrated into the

current certifying standards. It is for this reason that where farmers acquire preps is particularly

!29
important because it provides insights into the farmer’s own specific beliefs about farm individu-

ality (preps ideally should be made in the area they are used, according to Steiner) and availabili-

ty of prep making training sessions or ready-made preps.

This section also included the practice of using the biodynamic planting calendars as a

means for farm planning. The calendars are not mentioned specifically in the lectures given by

Steiner but have since been developed from some of his teachings and the teachings of his fol-

lowers. Demeter does not require the use of these calendars to become certified and their use is

not universally accepted, but it is a relatively common practice. This survey asked if respondents

used the calendars and if so, how much they let it guide them (i.e. how strictly they followed the

times laid out). Section four continued by asking how the survey respondent was introduced to

biodynamics and their familiarity with the lectures and other published works about biodynam-

ics. It ended with a question about which (if any) formal training programs about biodynamics

the survey taker participated in. Which training programs a farmer took would give insight into

how they might view biodynamics and what practices and beliefs they might hold most impor-

tant. Also, their answers could be based on (and provide insight into) trainings available regional-

ly, and how much time and cost each program is. Survey participants were given the option to

select numerous programs and add in a program that was not listed in the survey. This section as

a whole was designed to make it easier to understand how each farmer viewed biodynamics as a

physical practice unrelated to spiritual beliefs and insights.

Section five, on the other hand, dealt with spiritual beliefs and practices, specifically in

relation to anthroposophy and biodynamics. The section began by asking if the participant was

familiar with anthroposophy and if they felt connected to it as a spiritual practice. Their familiar-

!30
ity with other anthroposophic based practices, such as Waldorf education, Camphill communi-

ties, and the Christian Community Church, were also asked about. The survey participant was

then asked if they feel there is a strong anthroposophic community near them and if they feel

connected to the community. The next questions in the survey were perhaps the most difficult to

understand and the most difficult to answer because they asked about the specific beliefs of the

survey participant. The wording of these questions was designed not to alienate people, but given

the nature and sensitivity of the questions, some participants may have disagreed with the phras-

ing used. To mitigate this, each question was a yes/no/unsure question that also asked the partici-

pant to explain in their own words their answer to each question. The questions in this section are

perhaps the most important for the research in this paper so they were all carefully considered to

provide the opportunity for eliciting the most thorough and thought-provoking answers. Ques-

tions included asking if knowledge of anthroposophy was vital to understanding biodynamics

and if believing in these anthroposophic practices made biodynamics effective. Questions about

Demeter’s role in certifying spiritual beliefs was discussed, as well as a question about whether

or not an individual’s beliefs should play a role in how Demeter certification works. These ques-

tions were purposely designed to not give a specific definition of what anthroposophy was but

rather asked the participant to relate to these questions through their own experiences. This was

done so that a bias was not created, and every individual could answer how they wanted to with

no pressure to define their beliefs beyond the word anthroposophy.

The final section dealt with demographics and asked the farmers’ age and experience lev-

el along with their gender identity. They were then asked if they felt the biodynamic community

was inclusive, and they were allowed to explain how they felt the community could be more in-

!31
clusive if they felt it was not. The final question asked if they had anything else they would like

to add. This was designed to give people the ability to provide feedback on the survey if they

found something particularly interesting or troubling, and also allow them a space to discuss a

topic not included in the survey but that might be very important to how they think about biody-

namics. This survey in its entirety would take between twenty and thirty minutes to complete un-

less the individual felt particularly passionate about the subject matter and decided to write more

in the open-ended questions. Participants were allowed to skip any questions they wanted and

were allowed to stop at any time with the ability to pick up where they left off at a later time.

They were made aware that no identifying information was kept, and that their answers were

completely anonymous. The survey was voluntary, and no direct benefits were provided for par-

ticipation. The full results of this survey (distribution of answers to each question) are included

in Appendix A.

The survey was distributed from November 10th, 2018 through February 15th, 2019

through the two different email lists mentioned, which totaled about 800 people given some

probable overlap, plus anyone who took the survey at the conference. At the beginning of the

survey an explanation was made of the contents and participants were asked not to complete it

more than once. Reminders were sent in December and January to each group through their or-

ganizations’ monthly online newsletter, attempting to follow best practices for survey methodol-

ogy laid out by Dillman et al. (2014) but with the constraint of emails being sent out according to

the two organizations’ timelines rather than at my discretion. The emails contained a link to the

survey and a brief explanation of the research project. At the Biodynamic Association conference

in November 2018, paper flyers were handed out and placed at the business and school informa-

!32
tion tables. These flyers contained both a link and a QR code to the survey, and the survey was

made mobile phone compatible for ease of access. At the beginning of the conference 80 flyers

were printed and set out on the information table; by the end of the conference all the flyers had

been taken. Despite these various efforts to reach out to the biodynamic farming community only

24 participants completed the survey with an additional 8 participants who started the survey but

did not finish and two others who were eliminated by the first screener question; those results

were not included in the final analysis. I choose to use an electronic survey for practical reasons

but the lack of a paper survey might have stopped some people from participating. Many people

in the anthroposophic community are not as attached to technology as the broader population and

might have been more willing to fill out this survey in person on paper.

While 24 people does not create a large enough pool to assume a good representation of

the larger population of biodynamic farmers in the U.S. or find definitive correlation in the data,

the insights of these 24 individuals provide a window into some of the thoughts and ideas of

some of the members of the biodynamic farming community. In particular, as the survey had

many open-ended questions that allowed participants to offer longer commentary, those respons-

es have offered significant insights to complement my participant observations.

Along with the conference observations and the survey, as I was writing this analysis I

drew from my own past experiences working on a biodynamic farm and working at an active

Camphill community. These experiences taught me a great deal about how best to communicate

about farming and anthroposophy. I had also participated in formal training sessions about bio-

dynamics at the Pfeiffer Center in Spring Valley, NY and at Hawthorne Valley Farm in Ghent,

NY. It is through these experiences that I have gained my own knowledge and understanding

!33
about the topics of this research, although in my conversations with others and in the survey it-

self I made every possible effort to remain unbiased and approachable. These experiences had

also given me many personal contacts within the biodynamic community and as such some peo-

ple who took the survey knew who I was personally and even perhaps could have trained me or

lived with me at some point. However, the survey is anonymous and all participants were made

aware of this. I did use some of my personal contacts to help pilot the survey and they were thus

made aware of the questions before the greater public; their insights into the questions were not-

ed but their personal answers were not recorded. However, each of these individuals was given

the option of taking the survey again officially through the internet link (many of them are either

Demeter certified or members of the Biodynamic Association). Their answers at that point would

have been anonymous and I would be unaware of any identifying factors.

The final aspects of my research are several personal communications emailed back and

forth between members of the biodynamic farming community. In the past year (2018) Demeter

has been under a lot of scrutiny from its members and many members have been discussing pos-

sible fallouts and futures through various email chains (including the email cited at the beginning

of this thesis calling for farmers to leave Demeter and start a new certifying body). While I was

never part of the original audience for these correspondences, a number of emails were forward-

ed to me by various contacts, and they provide even deeper insight into the current state of affairs

around biodynamic certification and how members are reacting to it. Given the turbulent times

biodynamics is facing in America – the sudden demise of Demeter’s sister organic certification

body Stellar, the turmoil leading to Elizabeth Candelario’s resignation as head of Demeter, and

various subsets of farmers calling for a radical break from Demeter – many people have become

!34
very passionate about openly sharing their beliefs and understandings of biodynamics and the

contours of certification, but this has also caused a lot of tension and disagreement in the com-

munity. The idea of my research was thus to use multiple methods to better understand these

evolving dynamics and to form a bigger picture of what biodynamics in America currently looks

like and what people hope for it in the future. The next section of this research will cover some

more in-depth discussion on the conversations and observations of the biodynamic conference as

well as the results of the survey.

Results

Conference Participant Observation:

The Biodynamic Association of America’s bi-annual conference (annual starting in 2019)

brings together people who practice, study, and teach biodynamics from across all of North

America. In November of 2018 the conference was held in Portland, Oregon at a conference cen-

ter and hotel that sold itself as one of the area’s first “green” hotels, from Wednesday, November

14th to Sunday, November 18th, 2018. It was a particularly sunny and warm week in the Portland

area which allowed for more spontaneous outdoor conversations and a relatively spirited at-

mosphere that might not have been achieved if the weather had been rainy or cold.

The first day of the conference I attended a full day trip out to two different biodynamics

vineyards. This included tours of each vineyard, wine tastings, and a lunch made from produce

grown at the first vineyard (which also had a vegetable farm and livestock (turkeys, sheep, pigs,

highland cattle)). This day provided a lot of opportunity for small group discussion, but the con-

versation rarely transitioned to spiritual practices and focused more on practical techniques for

!35
wine making on a farm that does not use chemicals. During larger group discussions the conver-

sation at one point turned to the history of biodynamic wine in America and one of the vineyard

owners said, “There was a time you had to keep it (being biodynamic) a secret but it is now be-

coming more and more popular” – this can be seen as an indication of the growth of the move-

ment and increased recognition of biodynamics by consumers.

The second day of the conference consisted of half day workshops, during which I partic-

ipated in a two-part series titled In Anticipation of the 100th Anniversary of Biodynamic Agricul-

ture, How do we Responsibly Present Its Spiritual- Scientific Foundations to the World?” This

workshop was led by the leaders of the American group of the Agriculture Section of the Anthro-

posophical Society’s school of Spiritual Science. The Anthroposophical Society is a global group

of people committed to preserving and studying Steiner’s teachings across many disciplines and

each section is focused on one of those disciplines (i.e. agriculture). This workshop was held as

an invitation for open commentary on the future of spiritual teachings in agriculture and how to

better serve the biodynamic community. The stated goal of one of the leaders was to “prevent

biodynamics from disconnecting from anthroposophy” as it grows, and “provide biodynamics as

an entry point to anthroposophy.”

This meeting was in general very laid back but with certain very tense moments of dis-

agreement. This included a time when one participant asked how to join the agriculture section

and this request was dismissed numerous times by the leaders of the seminar who seemed un-

willing to provide pathways to membership. In addition, during a discussion of the benefits and

challenges in the biodynamic movement, one participant suggested that “we [biodynamic farm-

ers] are fighting each other” and asked “what kind of social tools can we gain from anthroposo-

!36
phy?” This was in response to a larger disagreement over the need for outreach and social justice

in the community. The most interesting aspect of the meeting for me happened after the seminar

when I approached one of the seminar leaders (who I knew from my time spent in the biodynam-

ic community). When he asked me how I felt about the meeting and I admitted that there was a

very tense feeling in the room at times he seemed shocked and said that in terms of meeting

about the direction of anthroposophy, he felt this meeting had been very relaxed and conflict

free. This led me to believe that either such big picture meetings among members of the anthro-

posophical community can be very tense and include many disagreements, or that I held a differ-

ent threshold for what might be considered acceptable levels of conflict than he did. One thing

that was especially helpful about attending this seminar as well as some of the subsequent ones I

describe, is that they offered me some insights into perspectives of long-standing biodynamic

movement participants to hold next to those of the newer participants with whom I spoke at

meals and breaks.

For example, I had many informal conversations with young farmers and those who are

new to biodynamics. These groups of people were easy to talk to because they were not as insu-

lar as some of the biodynamic VIPs or well-established members of the community. These new

and young farmers were generally by themselves or in small groups. Those who are long-term

conference attendees tended to run in larger crowds and could have been seen as more intimidat-

ing by outsiders, even if that was not their intention. Most of the young farmers I met had either

just finished or were still participating in an apprenticeship at a biodynamic farm. Many of them

had started farming by WWOOFing, essentially volunteering or interning via the organization

Worldwide Opportunities on Organic Farms, a global network of farms and freelance farmers

!37
who connect to serve each other through a trade of work for housing and sometimes education.

Many of these newer farmers and apprentices were very interested in the teachings of Steiner but

also felt overwhelmed by the information and literature they were encountering on biodynamics.

They were eager to hear about the opportunities for formal education beyond this conference. As

I spoke with and listened to them, many of them mentioned that they didn’t know that biodynam-

ics was connected to anthroposophy and in fact many of them had never heard of anthroposophy

even after spending a year or more on biodynamic farms.

Another group at this conference of particular importance (especially in relation to my

survey results) were the native people who had lived for centuries in the areas around Portland.

The beginning of the conference started with a blessing from a member of this native community

and their influence was spoken about many times both formally and informally throughout the

conference. One conversation I had with a Native American woman was interesting, though, be-

cause it focused on what parts of biodynamics Steiner had pulled from global indigenous peo-

ples. She expressed an admiration for biodynamics for making these beliefs and practices acces-

sible to a broader population but also lamented the fact that biodynamics was solely focused on

Steiner and anthroposophy. She stated that she felt that even though the biodynamic community

had attempted to include her she felt as though her beliefs and teachings would never be fully

accepted by the biodynamic community as it is today. This viewpoint was also expressed by a

few of the survey respondents.

On Friday I attended a seminar led by Elizabeth Candelario (executive director of Deme-

ter at the time of this conference) and other members of her staff. This seminar was titled Grow-

ing Biodynamic Certification with Integrity and focused on the current state of the Demeter label

!38
and the controversies surrounding this. It should be noted that a week before this conference, an

email chain that included many of the Demeter certified biodynamic farmers was sent around

calling for a break from Demeter and the establishment of a new organization that would certify

the biodynamic label instead of Demeter (Reid, 2018). This email called for Elizabeth to resign

and stated that Demeter was no longer qualified to inspect farms. The loss of the USDA certifier

Stellar had been a major blow to the community, and the email connected this loss to many

grievances with Demeter and its leadership including mismanagement and fraud. While this

break with Demeter, so far, has not come to fruition, it is important to note that this seminar took

place just a week after this email was sent and seen by, presumably, a large portion of the com-

munity (including myself).

During the seminar the major focus was on the Demeter label and the need for growth

(especially in the wine industry) with Elizabeth saying, “we are a mouse and we want to be an

elephant.” She presented challenges that the federal government enforced in terms of keeping a

label up to standard and enforcing rules surrounded the use of the name biodynamic on non-cer-

tified products. One of the biggest complaints out of this meeting and the previously-mentioned

email was that the majority of the marketing money from the organization was being spent on the

wine industry to the detriment of other products and producers. This cannot be substantiated as

Demeter’s financials for the last few years of Elizabeth’s tenure as president have not been re-

leased. During this seminar the small room was packed, with even the standing room filled. Peo-

ple were willing to listen to Elizabeth and her team but also often broke out into side conversa-

tions that varied from pleasant to very intense and angry. In the hallway afterwards, the discus-

sions I heard focused on how people would probably for the next year certify with Demeter, but

!39
that some were uncertain what they would do after that. Those who seemed very disillusioned

with the organization in general particularly spoke of the loss of Stellar as being a product of

poor management.

This conference and the larger conversations it brought up can be segmented into two dif-

ferent but highly related discussions. The first is the larger conversation about what it means to

be biodynamic and how biodynamics can develop and evolve but still maintain its roots in an-

throposophy. The second conversation is one specific to America and Demeter USA. This is a

more practical discussion on whether or not Demeter USA still works for every biodynamic

farmer’s needs and what those needs are. This discussion on the future of certification can only

be answered, however, if the first question of where biodynamics is headed can be talked about

as well in the larger community.

Survey Results: Detailed results of all the survey data can be found in Appendix A.

Twenty-six people completed the survey and out of those, 24 were farmers or gardeners

whose results were included in the descriptions below. Out of those 24 there were 2 people who

were home vegetable gardeners and the other 22 were practicing agriculture as a livelihood.

Eighteen of the 24 identified as the owner or manager of the farm at which they work (3 said

they were not) and 3 others identified themselves as an assistant manager, a livestock manager

who worked as part of a team, and a contractual lease owner. Twelve of 21 respondents owned

their land, 2 leased the land, 3 rented the land, 3 were working on land owned by a trust or non-

profit, 2 worked as employees, 1 managed client properties, and 1 was a beekeeper who had oth-

er farmers host their hives. When asked how long their land had been under their management,

!40
20 respondents gave a range between 1 and 40 years with the average being between 12 and 13

years of management and the median being 9 years. This shows a relatively diverse group in

terms of length of commitment to a particular piece of land. This is important in biodynamics,

considering the homeopathic practices and valuing of long-term relationships with the land.

Question five asked how long the land in the respondent’s care had been under organic

practices, even before they began management – 2 people said the land had always been under

organic practices and of the 15 remaining respondents, the average number of years was between

16 and 17 and the median was 12 years. Five said their land had been farmed with organic prac-

tices for 30 or more years (this may be significant because it predates the passage of the Organic

Food Production Act in 1990, 29 years ago). Of the remaining 12 respondents, 2 responded that

their land had been farmed organically for 20-25 years, 5 said 10-19 years, and 5 responded un-

der 10 years with 1 of those being 0 years. Question six asked how long the land in their care had

been under biodynamic practices, even before they began management -- the average response

was 10.5 years and the median was 6 years. Answers ranged between 0 and 50 years with 2 re-

spondents answering more than 40 years, 2 saying 20-29 years, 4 at 10-19 years, and 12 at less

than 9 years, of which 7 were 0 years. These answers suggest that these farmers are growing on

land with varied histories (from short to long) of organic and biodynamic management. All re-

spondents’ farms were located in the United States.

Question eight asked if the respondent’s farm was certified USDA Organic. Eight an-

swered yes, 15 answered no, and 1 answered “other” with the explanation that the farm is on a

Waldorf school campus and they were unsure of its current standing under certification (though

they assured that organic principles were followed). When asked about the benefits of organic

!41
certification, 22 agreed that it enhanced marketability, 16 that it increased profit, 16 that it im-

proved ecosystem health, 15 that is gave them guidelines to follow, and 15 that it increased sup-

port from the organic community. When asked about inhibitors to becoming USDA certified or-

ganic, 17 respondents agreed that cost of certification was a barrier, 5 that there was a lack of or

over saturation of the market for organics, 10 felt that guidelines were restrictive, 10 felt they

were unclear (with 5 respondents answering yes to both restrictive and unclear), 4 noted a lack of

certifiers, and 4 wrote in additional answers – including a lack of consultants or educators, low-

ering of standards (“becoming mainstream”), paperwork, preference for local over organic, and

doubt that government standards are best for their land.

When asked if their customers generally seek out the USDA Organic label when buying

products, most said yes, and just under half said that they believed their customers generally

trusted the USDA Organic label to be a good representation of good agricultural practices; even

so, only 2 thought that their customers understood the specifics of USDA organic practices.

Do you believe your

Do you believe your cus-
tomers generally seek
out the USDA Organic
label when buying prod-
ucts?
customers generally
trust the USDA Organ-
ic label to be an ac-
curate representation
of good agricultural
practices?
Do you believe your
customers generally
understand the
specifics of USDA Or-
ganic practices?

Yes 15 Yes 10 Yes 2

No 3 No 7 No 21

Unsure 6 Unsure 3 Unsure 1

When asked how often they discussed their choices regarding USDA organic with their cus-

tomers, 1 farmer said s/he did so always, 5 did so frequently, 11 did so sometimes, 3 did so

!42
rarely, and 2 stated that they never did. Statistical analysis revealed no significant relationship

between whether farmers were certified organic and whether or not they discussed this choice

with customers (chi square = 4.50, p = 0.97).

Question fifteen asked respondents if their farm was certified biodynamic through Deme-

ter -- 8 answered yes, 14 answered no, 1 was in transition and 1 answered “other” with the same

explanation of being on a Waldorf school campus and unsure about certification specifics. Of the

8 who answered yes, 5 of them were also USDA Organic certified, compared with 3 of the 14

who answered no. In other words, certified biodynamic farmers were also significantly more

likely to be certified organic (chi square = 28.52, p-value = 0.00). When asked about the benefits

of becoming certified biodynamic through Demeter, 23 said it improved ecosystem health, 21

said it gave them guidelines to follow, 21 said it gave them support from the biodynamic com-

munity, 18 said it enhanced marketability, and 13 said it increased profit. When compared with

the answers from question nine (which was the similar question about USDA organic certifica-

tion) some interesting patterns emerge.

Benefits of certification* USDA Organic Demeter Biodynamic

Improves ecosystem health 16 23

Provides guidelines to follow 15 21

Provides community support 15 21

Enhances marketability 22 18

Increases profit 16 13

*8 of 24 farmers were certi-

fied organic (15 were not); 8
were certified biodynamic
(14 were not).

!43
Principally, while respondents saw benefits to both organic and biodynamic certification, some

saw greater benefits to biodynamic certification in the areas of improved ecosystem health, help-

ful guidelines, and supportive communities. At the same time, they were more split on whether

organic or biodynamic certification (or both) increased profit, and felt that organic certification

increased marketability as much or more than biodynamic certification. Thus respondents saw

some differences between organic and biodynamic certifications in terms of what benefits they

provided.

Question seventeen asked about inhibitors to becoming certified biodynamic through

Demeter – 16 felt cost of certification was a barrier, 11 felt there was a lack of certifiers, 8 felt

the market was lacking or over-saturated, 5 felt guidelines were restrictive, 5 felt they were un-

clear, and 5 wrote in answers like: “Demeter’s lack of transparency,” “getting a whole team of

people on board without clear evidence or knowledge of biodynamics,” “lack of resources on

how to transition,” and “public’s misconceptions or lack of knowledge about biodynamics.” One

other person responded that they had no idea how to respond to these questions.

Comparing responses to questions about barriers to organic and biodynamic certifications

also provided some interesting insights. When asked if cost was an inhibitor, over half of respon-

dents felt it was a barrier for both certifications. In terms of the availability of markets, respon-

dents’ assessments of the market saturation varied widely (with half seeing both organic and bio-

dynamic markets as neither lacking nor oversaturated), but there was a slight tendency for farm-

ers to believe that the market for organics was better than the one for biodynamics. When asked

about restrictive guidelines being a barrier, there was a wide range of responses, and a slightly

!44
increased sense among some biodynamic farmers that organic guidelines were more restrictive

than biodynamic guidelines, which is perhaps surprising given that biodynamics requires ar-

guably more (in terms of rules and requirements) from its farmers. Even so, most respondents

felt that guidelines were clear for both certifications, although slightly more farmers found or-

ganic guidelines less clear than biodynamic guidelines, which is surprising for the same reasons

(although it may make sense in a body of explicitly biodynamic farmers). Finally, more respon-

dents felt that biodynamics suffers from a lack of certifiers, as compared to organics. This could

be in response to only Demeter being able to certify biodynamics but multiple agencies being

licensed to certify under USDA Organics.

Is a lack of certifiers a barrier to certification? Number of farmer respondents

Yes for both organic and biodynamic 2

Yes for organics (but not biodynamics) 0

Yes for biodynamics (but not organics) 8

No for both organic and biodynamic 7

When asked whether they think their customers generally seek out the Demeter label

when buying products, 2 respondents answered yes, 15 respondents answered no, 6 answered

that they were unsure and 1 did not answer. This is interesting because 10 respondents had an-

swered that they believed customers generally sought out USDA organic but not Demeter biody-

namic certification, and only 1 respondent answered the opposite way. This too supports previous

responses suggesting that survey participants saw organic certification as more well-known and

well-established, with more certifiers and more customer recognition, even as several of them

!45
saw fewer other benefits (ecosystem health, supportive communities) and greater barriers (clarity

of guidelines, restrictiveness) to organic certification.

Question nineteen asked if respondents believed customers generally trusted the Demeter

label to be an accurate representation of good agricultural practices. Twelve responded yes, 2

said no, and 9 were unsure. When compared with the similar question about USDA organics 6

respondents said that their customers trust organic but they were unsure if customers trust biody-

namics, 6 said that their customers do not trust organic but do trust biodynamic labels, 1 respon-

dent said that they trust organic but not biodynamic, 1 said that customers trust neither label, and

3 were unsure about both. This shows an interesting dynamic among respondents with some be-

lieving that their customers trust USDA organic more and some saying that they believe their

customers trust Demeter biodynamics more.

Question twenty asked if respondents believed their customers understood the specifics

of biodynamic practices. Zero said yes, 23 said no, and 1 said they were unsure. This is in line

with the similar question about organics with 20 respondents answering no to both questions.

Do you believe your Do you believe your Do you believe your

customers generally
seek out the Deme-
ter label when buy-
ing products?
customers generally
trust the Demeter
label to be an accu-
rate representation
of good agricultural
practice?
customers under-
stand the specifics
of Biodynamic prac-
tices?

Yes 2 Yes 12 Yes 0

No 15 No 2 No 23

Unsure 6 Unsure 9 Unsure 1

No Answer 1 No Answer 1 No Answer 0

!46
 Relatedly, more respondents (five vs. one) said that they always discuss biodynamics

(rather than organics) with their customers, although 9 said they rarely or never discuss biody-

namics with their customers, compared with only 5 who rarely or never discussed organics with

their customers. Thus, there may be a connection (although not a statistically significant one for

this data set) between farmers feeling like customers are not seeking out biodynamic certifica-

tions and them deciding not to discuss it.

Question twenty-two asked which products the respondents produced. Seventeen grew

vegetables, 14 grew fruit, 4 grew grapes for wine, 1 grew nuts, 4 grew grains, 5 produced hay, 9

produced meat, 11 had dairy or egg operations, 17 grew herbs, 1 had a tree farm, 1 was a bee-

keeper, and 1 grew starches (taro, sweet potato, breadfruit, and cassava). Most of the respondents

in fact produced multiple products (see Appendix A for more details). As for value-added prod-

ucts, 2 bottled milk, 1 made additional dairy products, 6 made fermented or canned products, 8

made dried herbs or teas, 3 made processed meats, 4 made wine, 8 made medicinals, and 5 others

had enterprises ranging from forest therapy to education to olive oil, grain, and DIY tincture and

salve kits. In terms of marketing, 9 sold wholesale, 16 sold through off farm direct sales (CSA,

farmers market, etc.), 15 sold on-farm direct (farm stand), and 6 gave other answers that included

“to clients,” internet, barter, and no sales.

Question twenty-five asked if livestock was integrated into their farming system. This is

generally a requirement of biodynamics with very few exceptions being made on an individual

basis. Fifteen respondents answered yes and 9 answered no. While explanations were varied,

many respondents simply explained how they have rotational grazing of multiple animals and

!47
use the manure on their fields. None of the “no” responses offered insights into their choice to

not integrate livestock. Question twenty-six asked if they produce their own compost on their

farm. Nineteen answered yes and 5 answered no. From both the livestock question and the com-

post question, we can see that most respondents followed Steiner’s recommendations to approach

the farm as living organism in these ways.

As for biodynamic preps, 15 respondents said they did use preps on their farm, 6 an-

swered no, and 3 were unsure. Fourteen of the 15 used Prep 500 (horn manure) and Prep 501

(horn silica) at least once a year. Thirteen people used compost preps at least once a year. These

first three preps are the ones mandated by Demeter to be used at least once a year, and all 8 of the

respondents who were certified biodynamic used all three of these preps at least once a year.

Slightly smaller numbers used the other preps – including Valerian spray (508 on its own),

Horsetail (508), Three Kings, Tree Paste, and even some of the less-well known preps such as

Pfeiffer compost field spray, cow pit pat, and deer tick peppering (these last 3 were write-in an-

swers).

As for how they acquired their preps, 8 traded or bought from another farm, 6 bought

them from a commercial retailer, 9 made them on their own farm, and 4 obtained them other

places (the Oregon Biodynamic Group, the biodynamic association of northern California, or

other regional networks). Overall, those respondents who were certified biodynamic tended to

use a greater variety of the preps and use them more often. Those that were uncertified tended to

use all of the preps less often, with the required ones for certification being the ones most fre-

quently used. The lesser known preps also had a tendency to be used less than once a year. This

could be because some of them are only designed for once a year use (three kings, to be used on

!48
Epiphany) or because they are used in a more medicinal role for curative use. These results

about preps are along the lines of what one would expect from this demographic of biodynamic

farms.

Respondents were next asked if they were familiar with the biodynamic planting calen-

dar. Twenty-two answered yes, 1 answered no, and 1 answered they were unsure. As for how of-

ten they used the planting calendar to guide their farming activity, 7 said they always used it, 10

used it frequently, 3 sometimes, 1 rarely, 2 never, and 1 respondent didn’t answer this question.

As for how often the respondents used the calendar to guide the application of the biodynamic

preps, 3 answered always, 10 answered frequently, 4 answered sometimes, 6 answered never, and

1 respondent didn’t answer this question. These results, indicating that most of the respondents

were familiar with the calendar, would be expected from biodynamic farmers. It is interesting to

see as well how often the calendar was used, with the most respondents using it frequently, but

not always. This shows a tendency towards flexibility and the need to get work done when it

needs to get done, even if the work doesn’t match the planting calendar’s guidelines. When the

planting calendar was explained to me during my training it was emphasized that the calendar

should be a guideline for work not an inhibitor. The data represents a tendency towards that

thinking.

Question thirty-four was a written response question that asked what respondents’ first

introduction to biodynamics was. Answers included anthroposophical medicine workshops;

workshops run by the Pfeiffer center or by specific farmers; college course work in agriculture or

anthropology, and being given the lectures or books by friends. Two respondents were first intro-

duced to biodynamics this year at the Biodynamic Association conference. Others were intro-

!49
duced through exploration in wine making or from apprenticeships at biodynamic farms. One

respondent said they were inspired because they were sick and were introduced to biodynamics

through the Pfeiffer center at the right time. When asked what first drew them to biodynamics as

a practice, many answered that they were drawn to the spiritual connection to the land or the

concept of the land as a living organism that needs healing. A few mentioned the holistic nature

of the practices and saw that they work well. A few also mentioned that they were drawn to it

because it felt like an ancient practice that was used by their ancestors.

When asked how familiar the respondents were with the agriculture lectures given by

Steiner in 1924, 10 answered very familiar, 12 answered somewhat familiar, and 2 answered not

familiar. Twenty had studied other published works about biodynamic agriculture, 3 had not, and

1 was unsure. As for more formal training, 15 had participated in on-farm workshops, 5 had

done apprenticeships on biodynamic farms, and several more had participated in workshops at

various institutes. This shows that respondents were generally well informed about biodynamics

and most had studied Steiner’s agricultural lectures at least a little. It was interesting to note that

the more longer-term formal trainings in biodynamics were in some ways underutilized among

this group of respondents (many had been to one-day workshops but not to longer courses), who

tended towards more informal on-farm trainings rather than classroom study. On farm work-

shops seemed to be the favorite way to learn about biodynamics, which is not surprising given

the practical nature of agriculture and the need to acquire hands on skills.

Respondents were also asked if they felt that the way they practiced biodynamics was

tied to their personal spiritual beliefs. Seventeen answered yes, 2 answered no, and 5 were un-

sure. When asked how familiar the respondents were with anthroposophy, 10 were very familiar,

!50
9 were somewhat familiar, and 5 were not familiar. Of these, 12 said they felt connected to an-

throposophy as a spiritual practice, 4 said they did not, 5 did sometimes, and 3 were unsure. As

for familiarity with other anthroposophic based practices beyond biodynamics (Eurythmy, Wal-

dorf Education, Camphill Communities, or the Christian community church), 21 answered yes

that they were familiar, 2 answered no, and 1 was unsure. Of these, 9 participated in one or more

of these anthroposophic practices from the previous question, 13 did not, and 2 were unsure. For

11 of the respondents, there was an active anthroposophic community in their local area outside

their farm, for 10 there was not, and 3 were unsure. In addition, 15 respondents said they felt

connected to other biodynamic practitioners as part of a community, while 3 answered no, and 6

said sometimes. This suggests that most of the farmers felt spiritually connected to their agricul-

tural practices (specifically biodynamics) and that most of them were also familiar with other

anthroposophic practices beyond biodynamics; however less than half (9) participated in these

other practices. The availability of an active anthroposophic community was split pretty evenly

(11 vs 10), but 15 of the respondents still felt connected to other biodynamic farmers. This sug-

gests that some of the farmers may have sought out a community of like-minded thinkers even if

one was not directly available to them in their location.

Question forty-six marked the beginning of the questions about personal spiritual beliefs,

which included a preface explaining the separation between practice (the preps and calendars)

and spirituality (anthroposophy and other Steiner teachings). When asked if biodynamic prac-

tices should be based in an inherent commitment to Steiner’s teachings of anthroposophy, 6 an-

swered yes, 8 answered no, 7 were unsure, and 3 answered “other.” Due to an error in the design

of the survey a text box to explain was not given, although this was mitigated slightly later in the

!51
survey when some open-ended questions allowed for greater insight. When asked if a deep

knowledge of anthroposophic teachings is important to understanding biodynamics, 10 answered

yes, 7 answered no, and 7 were unsure. In other words, survey respondents were fairly evenly

split as to how important they thought the spiritual side of anthroposophy was to biodynamic

practice. These questions are interesting too in that respondents diverged more from one another

in their opinions than they did on many of the other questions. This is perhaps not surprising in

that the questions echoed some of the same splits I observed at the Biodynamic Association con-

ference around the role of spirituality and Steiner in biodynamic agriculture and certification.

Question forty-eight asked if the spiritual beliefs of the practitioner play a role in the ef-

fectiveness of the biodynamic practices. Ten answered yes, 3 answered no, and 11 were unsure.

A follow-up to this question asked the respondents to explain their answer. Ten of the respon-

dents (all of the ones who answered yes) had answers that included manifesting results or having

an intention that allows for success. One respondent who answered no felt that chemistry and

biology were not affected by the beliefs of the applicator. Another respondent who answered no

thought that having a belief system model was detrimental to the adoption of biodynamics by

farmers. They likened it to the idea that one could share Christian practices, as many in the West-

ern world do, without necessarily believing in the Christian god or canon. Given the small scope

of this survey it cannot be known if these are common feelings among biodynamic farmers, but it

is notable that almost half the respondents felt that anthroposophical beliefs of the farmer were

part of what made biodynamics work, and a similar number considered this to be at least a possi-

bility (they were unsure). Among this sample, the presence of those who either explicitly or pos-

sibly (unsure) value biodynamics for its focus on the spiritual was notable, in particular because

!52
many of these same respondents also wrote that they did not necessarily follow all the specific

teachings of Steiner. For example, one respondent was very clear that “Dogmatic spirituality

must be removed… and [yet we must] create standards for land, animal, and social sectors in the

perspective of the 4 elements (earth, water, air, fire).” First, this is it important because it echoes

the approach of Demeter to certify biodynamic practices rather than related spiritual beliefs, even

as the practices are rooted in this belief system. Second, it is important because as Demeter and

biodynamics seek to expand their reach (as Elizabeth Candelario suggested they should in her

session on Demeter’s future), the thoughts and feelings of individuals with varied approaches to

Steiner and biodynamics will have to be considered more and more.

Relatedly, question forty-nine asked if Demeter certification incorporates an appropriate

amount of emphasis on the spiritual beliefs of the farmer. This question was written in such a

way that it could be answered whether or not the respondent believed Demeter should incorpo-

rate spiritual beliefs at all. One respondent said yes, 5 said no, and 18 were unsure. The sheer

number of respondents who were unsure about this suggests, alongside participant observation

data, that this is (or should be) an important and still open question for the biodynamic communi-

ty. A follow-up question was asked so respondents could explain their answer. One respondent

felt that Demeter was being gutted from the top down, leaving behind the integrity-based farmers

who had previously led the movement, and now the only focus was profit. They suggested that

Demeter return to its Steinerian roots. Another felt that Demeter focused too much on Steiner’s

spiritual teachings and was not inclusive to individual interpretation and beliefs. They felt that

Demeter would not allow certification if the practitioner was not an avid follower of Steiner even

if the practices of land stewardship and nutrient resources were followed. Two others wondered

!53
how to certify or judge an individual’s beliefs, and one other described Demeter more as an add-

on to USDA Organic that does not emphasize spiritual beliefs because they are not able to be

standardized.

When asked if the spiritual beliefs of the practitioner should play a role in biodynamic

certification, 3 answered yes, 12 answered no, 6 were unsure and 3 answered “other” which al-

lowed for a written explanation. One of these respondents answered that some emphasis should

be placed on whole farm systems thinking that integrates the spirit of biodynamics, and another

who answered yes said that they felt that way only if all spiritual beliefs (including those outside

anthroposophical teachings) were included. These responses are interesting because they show a

respondent population who was torn on whether or not Demeter could or should certify a particu-

lar spiritual approach, more than half of whom felt that the practitioner’s personal spiritual be-

liefs certainly should not play a role in their certification. It is also interesting given the response

about the spiritual beliefs playing a role in the effectiveness of biodynamic (with almost half an-

swering that the spiritual beliefs do play a role in the effectiveness), and suggests that while prac-

titioners are torn as to whether Demeter should take spiritual beliefs into consideration, a large

percentage of them believe that spiritual beliefs are integral to how the biodynamic practices

work.

As for participant demographics, average age at which the respondent began farming was

24 and the median age was 21. The youngest had begun farming at age 4 and the oldest at age 48

(1 respondent did not answer). As for current age, the average was 43 and the median was 41.

Twelve respondents identified as female, 11 as male, and 1 as non-binary. Nineteen respondents

!54
identified as white/caucasian, 1 identified as black, 1 as Native Hawaiian, 1 as Native American,

Hispanic, and Caribbean, and 1 identified as “mixed.” One respondent chose not to answer.

Question fifty-five asked if the respondent believed the biodynamic community was in-

clusive to a diverse range of people. Sixteen answered yes, 4 answered no, and 4 were unsure.

This included a follow up question that asked how the community could be made more inclusive.

One respondent lamented the exclusivity of all specialized agriculture (including farmers mar-

kets) that are full of “affluent white people.” This respondent also stated that there is a trend to-

wards environmentalism as being the focus of western affluent culture and that power structures

needed to change in general to include a more diverse population in the conversations. Another

respondent stated that the community should be explicitly anti-war and anti-racism and explicitly

for environmental justice. A third respondent stated that “Dogmatic spirituality must be removed

from the certification process.” They recommend that biodynamics should stand for the creation

of land standards and animal welfare standards as well as social justice. This respondent also

noted that biodynamics should include communities that have been talking about these issues

since before the 1920’s and that policy making within the biodynamic community should include

all spiritual beliefs. Another respondent answered along similar lines and stated that people of

“various nationalities and cultures have been living a ‘biodynamic’ existence for much longer;

and have practices that parallel and perhaps exceed the current marketed biodynamic institution.”

One respondent said biodynamics shouldn’t be so altruistic and should be seen as a process and a

journey not a destination. Another respondent encouraged the incorporation of indigenous culture

because “Steiner drew from Neolithic people’s knowledge.” Finally, one respondent said they

should find a way to bring biodynamics to city gardens and schools.

!55
 The final question of this survey allowed for open ended answers and simply asked if the

respondent felt there was anything else they’d like to say that was not covered in the survey. One

respondent followed up on the survey error (lack of a follow-up question) from question forty-six

and said that they believed one should understand the basics of teachings of Steiner but only as a

way to understand the agriculture course. They believed that without a basic understanding of the

teachings it was hard to understand Steiner's language on a practical level, but that neither should

practitioners be forced to immerse in Steiner or hold a specific set of beliefs. Another respondent

answered by asking “who invented the word “organic” and was that word a political corruption

of biodynamic?” Finally, one other respondent said that “some people want to be proven by sci-

ence that BD is better. I know it is. I know science can’t always answer everything.”

Looking at this survey, we can see that not every person who responded to the survey is a

biodynamic “traditionalist” in terms of holding tight to fundamental Steiner teachings. Some re-

spondents were Native Americans who use some biodynamic techniques along with other tradi-

tional methods. Some were new farmers who are just beginning their journey with biodynamics,

while others were more the “old timers” of Steiner biodynamics. Given this mix of people and

the small survey sample it is hard to extrapolate views on the certification preferences of the en-

tire biodynamic community. Nevertheless, it does corroborate some of the tensions and contro-

versies I observed at the conference, suggesting a community that is more diverse in practitioner

approaches than might initially be assumed.

When looking at some of these respondents’ answers by age group, for example, trends

emerge. First, the younger famers tended not to be certified either organic or biodynamic. They

were also less likely to own their own land or manage the land they work on. However, familiari-

!56
ty with written works about biodynamics was widespread throughout all age groups, and partici-

pation in trainings and workshops was also pretty even (with most respondents participating in

some sort of training whether formal or not). When responding to questions about belief systems,

however, younger farmers tended towards a desire to be more inclusive of many different beliefs

while older farmers tended to emphasize Steiner’s teachings (but also acknowledged that it

would be difficult to certify someone’s individual spiritual beliefs).

As for questions about labeling and certification, there did seem to be a tendency among

survey respondents towards valuing organic certification for its marketability, but also a slightly

higher regard for the practices associated with the biodynamic label. Many farmers saw an or-

ganic label as important for marketing products and connecting with customers. This could indi-

cate an opportunity for Demeter and biodynamic farmers to market the biodynamic label more

thoroughly as well, perhaps even giving greater emphasis to vegetable and fruit farmers, since

many biodynamic farmers are mixed vegetable producers – this was suggested both by survey

responses (although limited in scope) as well as what I heard at the conference. In fact, this was

one of the biggest complaints I heard from farmers at the conference – that the biodynamic wine

industry was getting all of Demeter’s attention, resources, and money, which left other farmers

with few options for marketing. According the Demeter USA’s directory there are 18 certified

biodynamic wineries out of the more than 100 crop producers certified through Demeter (http://

www.biodynamicfood.org/), suggesting there is room for Demeter perhaps to pay more attention

to the varied needs of its diversity of farmers – farmers that vary by crops produced, age and re-

lationship with their land, and approach to the spiritual side of biodynamics, among other things

!57
 Relatedly, while most of the respondents to my survey were at least somewhat familiar

with most of the biodynamic techniques and teachings, and more than half felt connected to the

biodynamic community, having a connection to an anthroposophic community did not necessari-

ly impact farmers’ tendency to follow or not follow certain practices. In addition, while most

survey respondents felt that the biodynamic community was inclusive, there did seem to be a de-

sire among many respondents for biodynamics to become more accepting of outside beliefs, even

as most still had (and presumably valued) some knowledge of Steiner’s teachings. This could

show that many biodynamic farmers still value and use Steiner’s teachings and that they also

want to include or recognize other related belief systems along with Steiner’s work, not instead

of it. In other words, rather than having to adjudicate between Steiner traditionalists and new-

comers, recontextualizing Steiner’s work within some of the traditions it drew from may be one

way to bridge these two impulses.

The survey respondents, like the modern biodynamic community I saw at the conference,

represented a wide range of ages and were evenly split between men and women. What they

lacked was more cultural diversity. The conference, while acknowledging the past of the land

they were on and honoring native peoples, also proved lacking both in its cultural diversity and

its diversity of conversation. While some seminars focused on food justice and land equity, the

more widely attended and most spoken about seminars were on basic biodynamic principles and

practices, Steiner and his teachings, and the future of Demeter and biodynamics. This is not sur-

prising given it was a conference for and about biodynamics, but my data suggests that younger

people especially also desire more inclusion and a greater focus on alternative beliefs and prac-

tices. The conversations I overheard and participated in with young farmers at the conference

!58
also noted the lack of diversity and a desire to use biodynamic agriculture more broadly – as a

technique to complement other agricultural systems of practice and for goals that included not

only healing the earth but also for creating more food security and upholding principles of hu-

man equity through good agricultural practices.

Conclusion

These results, in spite of a small sample size for the survey, provide some insight into the

larger topics and controversies surrounding biodynamics and Demeter in the United States today.

The younger generation of farmers who responded to my survey and who I met at the conference

were interested in the inclusion and incorporation of different beliefs and practices into biody-

namics, even as they were also familiar with anthroposophy as a whole. Some of the older gener-

ations, on the other hand, as suggested through their choices as conference organizers and in ses-

sions, seemed to want to hold closer to biodynamics in the traditional sense, and some desired

more discussion and teachings on the basic principles of Steiner’s teachings.

These differences in approach are important as biodynamics in the United States ap-

proaches a crossroads. The loss of Stellar as a USDA certifying agency in particular seems to

have opened up a storm that has been brewing since control of Demeter changed hands a few

year ago. Some long-term certified farmers have become disillusioned with Demeter’s perceived

focus on profit and market availability – even to the point of asking for farmers to join together

and form a new certifying agency for biodynamics that would be separate from Demeter. This

group of dissatisfied biodynamic producers cited corruption and mismanagement as their reasons

for a coup, and also noted that while the majority of certified biodynamic farms are in mixed

vegetable production, they perceive Demeter to be focusing more strongly in support of the bio-

!59
dynamic wine industry. Some younger farmers, on the other hand, liked the idea of Demeter be-

coming more inclusive, although whether this should be through an increased focus on wine as

Demeter was attempting or rather through a broader inclusion of diverse farmer and belief sys-

tems is not totally clear.

If Demeter survives and expands, including within the small but emerging market for

biodynamic wine, Demeter will have to widen its reach and expand its message. This could mean

an inclusion of people who in the past would have never heard of Demeter or Rudolf Steiner but

still hold similar beliefs about land management and soil regeneration. It is also important, how-

ever, that Demeter continue to serve its older members; crafting a niche for Demeter that man-

ages to accept and promote both old and new. Valuing a faithful approach to Steiner’s work that

also supports and champions other convergent producers and belief systems will likely be a chal-

lenge – although the two goals are not incompatible. As suggested in my review of the literature

around different spiritual approaches to agriculture, there are strong parallels between many of

these traditions and Steiner’s biodynamics. Steiner both drew heavily from many of them and

also himself suggested the adoption of biodynamics by a broad range of farmers across the

world. The results of my survey and participant observation show both a trend towards such in-

clusiveness of beliefs and ideas along with a desire to understand more about anthroposophy and

Steiner – thus, the multiple wings of the biodynamic community may not be incommensurable,

but given the tension simmering in parts of the community, this process of broadening needs to

be approached with care.

All of this is not to say that Steiner can or should be moved from the center of biodynam-

ics. His guidance and explanations of the preps and practices are integral to biodynamics as a

!60
practice and importantly too, as an agricultural label. As Elizabeth Candelario explained in her

presentation during the conference, the United States government does require that a certifying

agency not only define their standards but then also enforce them and keep others from using

their label (in this case “biodynamic”) without being certified through that agency. This provides

an interesting dynamic in the community because many who follow Steiner and his teachings

practice biodynamics but choose not to become certified, in part because they may see Demeter

as a greenwashed version of biodynamics, divorced from its spiritual components. This has only

exacerbated feelings of exclusion and distrust among the community. In the organic movement,

similar dynamics have led to some producers choosing to market themselves as “beyond organ-

ics” – following or exceeding organic practices and choosing at the same time not to certify

(Goetzman, 2010). Because the biodynamic movement is smaller, however, it may not be as able

to weather such splintering.

At the same time certifying spirituality in the Demeter label does not necessarily offer a

desirable solution either – as it is a complicated subject with many different and varying opin-

ions. Certainly, if there is to be a path forward for opening biodynamics to new generations who

would expand the spiritual influences of biodynamics beyond Steiner, certifying spiritual beliefs

in particular as part of a Demeter label would seem to be counterintuitive. This research has

shown that while many farmers study Steiner’s work and practice biodynamics using the tech-

niques he laid out, there is also a desire to be more inclusive of other teachings. Most respon-

dents did not feel that being certified biodynamic increased the marketability of the farm or

products; rather they valued the guidelines and teachings themselves – perhaps from that end be-

coming certified may more represent a desire for the farmer to be part of a community of like-

!61
minded practitioners rather than to tap into a better market. However, as more and more people

become familiar with and start practicing biodynamics, the field will continue to change, and

with that there is a desire by many farmers who have been biodynamic for a long time to hold

tight to Steiner’s teachings as the guidepost for certification. This could come from a fear of bio-

dynamics becoming “watered down” or simply a desire to inform and teach new farmers about

their practices. At the conference, for instance, many of the more experienced farmers seemed

happy and willing to share their knowledge and understanding of the practices when asked and

many were excited to see so many new and younger faces at the conference. As such, I see pos-

sibilities for the biodynamic community to navigate a bold path, one that accommodates old

timers and newcomers alike, that balances Steiner’s teachings with other spiritual influences also

important to its members, and that uses the Demeter label to enhance rather than divide the

community.

But if the biodynamic community wishes to fully understand the entirety of beliefs and

desires that exist in its community, and use that understanding to move forward, a wider research

scope will need to be undertaken. The data and analysis described here, for example, show both a

tendency towards more interest in inclusion but also a desire for more education about Steiner

and his teachings on biodynamics. As such, it may be important for Demeter to consider the

needs and desires of its entire community, some of which (both old timers and new arrivals) cur-

rently feels disenfranchised by Demeter and the biodynamic label. This could be done through a

more equitable use of funds to market other products along with wine, or through emphasizing

training programs for new farmers so that the apprenticeship programs could expand. Such

training programs could in turn provide another way to integrate older and newer biodynamic

!62
farmers and approaches. Specifically, this research suggested that the apprenticeship programs

for biodynamics may be underutilized and that even when young farmers were involved in offi-

cial programs they oftentimes lacked an understanding of Steiner’s basic teachings. Expanding

the apprenticeship programs would allow farmers a more consistent basis for understanding bio-

dynamics and could allow for a more focused approach for the future.

At the same time, while spirituality plays a large role in how the farmers I talked to and

heard from interact with biodynamic agriculture, certifying these beliefs in a concrete way does

not seem to be the answer. While there may not be a solution that pleases everyone, the current

state of biodynamics and Demeter is likely too tense to be sustained. When this research was

done many farmers were thinking about forming a new certifying agency separate from Demeter

to carry the biodynamic label. While we can’t know what the future holds or how successful this

bid for separation will be, we do know that consumers are already overwhelmed by the number

and variety of labels on their food products (Addy, 2012), suggesting the importance of finding a

new way forward. It is for this reason that the biodynamic community, in my view, should at-

tempt to resolve their differences and unify across their diversity of members and potential

members to create a strong and inclusive label that will represent the future of what biodynamics

can be in America.

After most of the research for this thesis was completed, I was put in touch with an expe-

rienced biodynamic farmer named Jim Fullmer who has worked with Demeter in the US and in-

ternationally. Our conversations focused not on the past of Demeter and biodynamics but on the

future of the movement. In particular, Jim is currently actively involved in creating peer to peer

certification groups that he says would be better suited to certifying farms of various sizes and

!63
practices. These peer to peer reviews would allow larger farms to focus on their struggles in prep

making and applying, and smaller farmers could find communities to share knowledge and preps

on a smaller scale. This system would allow for every biodynamic farmer to find a group that fits

their values and practices while still following Demeter’s certifying standards. This would also

allow for more inclusion of Native practices – Jim highlighted the example of a biodynamic

farmer named Devon Strong who was Native American and, like Abouleish’s SEKEM Institute,

used biodynamics and his people’s traditions together before his untimely death in 2015. De-

von’s approach was highly regarded among American biodynamic farmers, and Jim believes that

continued research into this connection with Native American practices and traditions is vital for

biodynamics to work in America. Peer-to-peer certification would have to fall under the umbrella

of a strong certifying body so that basic standards (the use of preps and land stewardship) were

met, but these could be a way to customize biodynamics for specific land needs, which vary

across such a large nation.

My conversation with Jim also focused on how Demeter and farmers would have to come

together to define biodynamics in the marketplace so that the label can be protected. He sees a

rift between the people who are “fundamental, dogmatic, fearful of losing a connection to a man

that has been dead nearly 100 years” and the people who want to “loosen up tradition and make a

little bit of headway.” He stated that right now there is no cohesiveness but that the movement

has to define itself to move forward. In Jim’s words “There isn’t an answer but there are some

huge opportunities” (Jim Fullmer, personal communication, April 19, 2019). Jim’s sentiments

echo my findings from this research and strengthen my belief that the way forward for Demeter

!64
and biodynamics, as is the case for many spiritual- and practice-based systems, calls for its

community to navigate a fine line between tradition, innovation, openness, and inclusion.

!65
 Works Cited

Abouleish-Boes, M. (2016). Religon and Agriculture: How Islam Forms the Moral Core of
SEKEM's Holistic Development Approach in Egypt (T. LaVasseur, P. Parajuli, & N. Wirzba,
Eds.). Religon and Sustainable Agriculture, 295-214.

Adkikari, J. (2016). Hindu Traditions and Peasant Farming in the Himalayan foothills of Nepal
(T. LaVasseur, P. Parajuli, & N. Wirzba, Eds.). Religon and Sustainable Agriculture, 121-138.

Addy, R. (2012). Ecolabels could ‘overwhelm’ consumers – study. Food Navigator. Retrieved
from https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2012/08/10/Eco-labels-could-overwhelm-con-
sumers-study#.

Bailey, L. H. (Liberty Hyde), 1915. (J. Linstrom, Ed.) (2015). The Holy Earth: The Birth of a
New Land Ethic. Counterpoint.

Berry, W. (1977). Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint
(2015)

Bialik, K. and Walker, K. (2019). Organic farming is on the rise in the U.S. Pew Research Center
Fact Tank. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/10/organic-farming-
is-on-the-rise-in-the-u-s/.

Biodynamic Association. (n.d.). Who was Rudolf Steiner? Retrieved from https://www.biody-
namics.com/steiner.html.

Camphill Association of North America (2019). The History of the Camphill Movemnet. Re-
trieved from https://www.camphill.org/history/.

Chhabra, E. (2017, March 05). Biodynamic farming is on the rise – but how effective is this al-
ternative agricultural practice? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/sus-
tainable-business/2017/mar/05/biodynamic-farming-agriculture-organic-food-production-envi-
ronment

DEMETER & ASSOCIATION, INC. [Biodynamic® FARM STANDARD]. (2017, September).

Oregon, Corvallis.

Demeter USA. (2019). Demeter Association, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.demeter-usa.org/.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys:
The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

!66
Easton, S. C. (1989). Man and world in the light of anthroposophy. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic
Press.

Goetzman, K. (2010). Beware of “beyond organic.” Utne Reader. Retrieved from https://
www.utne.com/environment/beware-of-beyond-organic-6487

Hall, D. (1977, September 25). Back to the Land. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/
1977/09/25/archives/back-to-the-land.html

Klocek, D. (2013). Sacred agriculture: The alchemy of biodynamics. Great Barrington, MA:
Lindisfarne Books.

LeVasseur, T., Parajuli, P., & Wirzba, N. (2016). Religion and sustainable agriculture: World
spiritual traditions and food ethics. Lexington (Ky.): The university press of Kentucky.

McDermott, R. A. (2013). American philosophy and Rudolf Steiner: Emerson, Thoreau, Peirce,
James, Royce, Dewey, Whitehead, feminism. Great Barrington, MA: Lindisfarne.

Obach, B. K. (2017). Organic struggle: The movement for sustainable agriculture in the United
States. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Paz y Paz, L. H., García, C. C., Parajuli, P., & Wirzba, N. (2016). Our Flesh was Made from
Corn (T. LaVasseur, Ed.). Religion and Sustainable Agriculture, 25-43.

Pfeiffer, E. (2011). Pfeiffer’s Introduction to Biodynamics. Edinburgh: Floris Books.

Reid, M. (2018, November 4). Demeter Disintegrates [E-mail].

Steiner, R. (1993). Spiritual foundations for the renewal of agriculture: A course of lectures held
at Koberwitz, Silesia, June 7 to June 16, 1924 (M. Gardener, Ed.; C. E. Creeger, Trans.). Kimber-
ton: Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association.

Steiner, R. (2008). The spiritual hierarchies and the physical world: Zodiac, planets, and cos-
mos: Ten lectures held in Düsseldorf, April 12-18, 1909: Notes by participants from question-
and-answer sessions, April 21-22, 1909 (J. Gates, Ed.; R. M. Querido, Trans.). Great Barrington,
MA: Steiner Books.

Wall, D., & Masayesva, V. (2004). People .of the Corn: Teachings in Hopi Traditional Agricul-
ture, Spirituality, and Sustainability. The American Indian Quarterly, 28(3), 435-453. doi:
10.1353/aiq.2004.0109

Weleda. (2019). Our Heritage. Retrieved from https://www.weleda.com/about-us/our-heritage

!67
Appendix A
Survey Results:

Q2: Are you the Owner or Manager of your farm (i.e. the
person responsible for primary day-today- decision
making on the farm)?
18
18

13.5

4.5 3 3

0
Yes No Other

Q3: Which of the following describes your access to

land?
12
12

6
6

3
3 2

0
0
Own Lease Rent Lease to Own Other

Q7: Is your farm located inside the United States?

30

23
22.5

15

7.5

0 1
0
Yes No Other

!68
 Q8: Is your farm certified USDA Organic?
16 15


12

8
8

4
1
0
0
Yes No In Transition Other

Q9: Do you believe any of the following are benefits to having USDA Organic
Certification?
30

22
22.5

16 15 15 16
15

7.5
2
0
Enhancing Marketability Increased Profit Having Guidelines Community Support Ecosystem Health Other

Q10: Do you believe any of the following are inhibitors to becoming certified USDA Organic?
18 17

13.5
10 10
9

5
4.5 4 4

0
Cost Lack of/oversaturation of Market Restrictive Guidelines Unclear Guidelines Lack of Certifiers Other

Q11: Do you believe your customers generally seek out

the USDA Organic label when buying products?
16 15

12

8
6

4 3

0
0
Yes No Unsure No Answer

!69
 Q12: Do you believe your customers generally trust the
USDA Organic label to be an accurate representation of
good agricultural practices?
10
10

7.5 7 7

2.5

0
0
Yes No Unsure No Answer

Q13: Do you believe your customers generally understand

the specifics of USDA Organic practices?
30

22.5 21

15

7.5
2 1 0
0
Yes No Unsure No Answer

Chart Q14: How often do you discuss your choices

regarding being Certified USDA Organic with your
customers?
12 11

6 5

3
3 2 2
1
0
Always Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never No Answer

!70
 Q15: Is your farm certified Biodynamic through
Demeter?
14
14

10.5
8
7

3.5
1 1
0
Yes No In Transition Other

Q16: Do you believe any of the following are benefits to Demeter Biodynamic Certification? (YES
Answers)
30

23
22.5 21 21
18

15 13

7.5

1
0
Enhancing Marketability Increased Profit Having Guidelines Community Support Ecosystem Health Other

Q16: Do you believe any of the following are benefits to Demeter

Biodynamic Certification? (NO Answers)
7
7

5.25 5

3.5

1.75
1 1
0
0
Enhancing Marketability Increased Profit Having Guidelines Community Support Ecosystem Health

!71
 Q17: Do you believe any of the following are inhibitors to Demeter Biodynamic Certification? (YES Answers)
16
16

12 11

8
8
5 5 5
4

0
Cost Lack of/oversaturation of Market Restrictive Guidelines Unclear Guidelines Lack of Certifiers Other

Q17: Do you believe any of the following are inhibitors to Demeter Biodynamic Certification? (NO
Answers)
16 15
14

12 11

8 7

4
4

0
Cost Lack of/Oversaturation of Market Restrictive Guidelines Unclear Guidelines Lack of Certifiers


 Q18: Do you believe your customers generally seek out

the Demeter label when buying products?
16 15

12

8
6

4
2
1
0
Yes No Unsure No Answer

Q19: Do you believe your customers generally trust the

Demeter label to be an accurate representation of good
agricultural practice?
12
12

9
9

3 2
1
0
Yes No Unsure No Answer

!72
 Q20: Do you believe your customers understand the
specifics of Biodynamic practices?

 30

23
22.5

15

7.5

0 1
0
Yes No Unsure

Q21: How often do you discuss the specifics of

Biodynamics with your customers?
5 5 5
5

4 4
3.75

2.5

1.25 1

0
Always Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never No Answer

Q22: Which of these agricultural products do you produce? (YES Answers)

18 17 17

14
13.5
11
9
9

5
4.5 4 4
3
1
0
Vegitables Fruit Grapes for Wine Nuts Grains Hay Meat Dairy/Eggs Herbs Other

Q23: Which, if any, of these value added products do you produce for market? (YES Answers)
8 8
8

6
6
5
4
4
3
2
2
1

0
Bottled Milk Dairy Products Value-Added Veg Products Dried Herb/Teas Processed Meats Wine Medicinals Other

!73
 Q24: Through which of these channels do you sell your
products?
16
16 15


12
9
8
6

0
Whole Sale Off Farm Direct On Farm Direct Other

Q25: Is livestock integrated into your farming system?

15
15

11.25
9

7.5

3.75

0
Yes No

Q26: Do you produce your own compost on your farm?

20 19

15

10

5
5

0
Yes No

Q27: Do you use any Biodynamic Preps on your farm?

16 15

12

8
6

4 3

0
Yes No Unsure
!74
 Q28: Which of these Biodynamic Preps do you use at
least once a year on your land?
14 14
14 13


10.5 10
9

3.5 3 3
2

0
500 501 502-507 507 508 3 Kings Tree Paste Other

Q29: Which of these Biodynamic Preps do you use less

than once a year on your land?
5
5

4
3.75
3 3

2.5

1.25 1 1 1 1

0
500 501 502-507 507 508 3 Kings Tree Paste Other

Q30: Do you acquire your preps in any of the following ways?

9
9
8

6.75 6

4.5 4

2.25

0
Trading or Buying from Another Farmer Buying Commercial Making on Farm Other

!75
 Q31: Are you familiar with Biodynamic Planting
Calendars?
30


22
22.5

15

7.5

1 1
0
Yes No Unsure

Q32: How often do you use a Biodynamic planting

calendar to guide your farming activity?
10
10

7.5 7

3
2.5 2
1 1

0
Always Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never No Answer

Q33: How often do you use the Biodynamic planting

calendars to guide the application of your preps?
10
10

7.5
6

5
4
3
2.5
1
0
0
Always Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never No Answer

!76
 Q36: How familiar are you with the Agriculture lectures
given by Rudolf Steiner in 1924 that first proposed

 Biodynamics as a system?
12
12
10

3 2

0
Very Familar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar

Q37: Have you studied other published works about

biodynamic agriculture?
20
20

15

10

5
3
1
0
Yes No Unsure

Q38: Have you participated in any of the following trainings in Biodynamics?

16 15

12

5
4
4 3 3 3 3

1 1
0
0
NABDAP Pfeiffer Center 1 Year Pfeiffer Center Workshops Nature Institute Michael Feilds RS College JPI Workshops Other on Farm Workshops Apprenticeships International

!77
 Q39: Do you feel that the way you practice Biodynamics
is tied to your personal spiritual beliefs?

 18 17

13.5

5
4.5
2

0
Yes No Unsure

Q40: How familiar are you with Anthroposophy?

10
10
9

7.5

5
5

2.5

0
Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar

Q41: Do you feel connected with Anthroposophy as a

spiritual practice?
12
12

6 5
4
3
3

0
Yes No Sometimes Unsure

!78
 Q42: Are you familiar with other Anthroposphic based
practices or activities beyond Biodynamic agriculture?

 30

22.5 21

15

7.5
2 1
0
Yes No Unsure

Q43: Do you participate in other Anthroposphic based

practices or activities beyond Biodynamic agriculture?
14 13

10.5
9

3.5
2

0
Yes No Unsure

Q44: Is there an active anthroposophic community in

your local area outside of your farm?
11
11 10

8.25

5.5

3
2.75

0
Yes No Unsure

!79
 Q:45 Do you feel connected to other Biodynamic
practitioners as part of a community?

 16 15

12

8
6

4 3

0
0
Yes No Sometimes Unsure

Q46: Do you think that Biodynamic Practices should be

based in an inherent commitment to Steiner's teachings
of Anthroposophy?
8
8
7
6
6

4
3

0
Yes No Unsure Other

Q47: Do you think that deep knowledge of

anthroposophic teachings (beyond specific agricultural
practices) is important for understanding Biodynamics?
10
10

7.5 7 7

2.5

0
Yes No Unsure

!80
 Q48: Do you feel that the spiritual beliefs of the
practitioner play a role in how effective the Biodynamic

 practices may or may not be?
11
11 10

8.25

5.5

3
2.75

0
Yes No Unsure

Q49: Do you feel that Demeter certification

incorporates an appropriate amount of emphasis on the
spiritual beliefs of the farmer?
18
18

13.5

5
4.5

1
0
Yes No Unsure

Q50: Do you think that practitioner spiritual beliefs

should play a role in Biodynamic Certification?
12
12

6
6

3 3
3

0
Yes No Unsure Other

!81
 Q55: Do you believe the biodynamic community is
inclusive to a diverse range of people?
16
16

12

4 4
4

0
Yes No Unsure

!82