Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-9m8n8 Total loading time: 0.297 Render date: 2022-09-28T22:43:16.520Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Biodynamic preparations: Short-term effects on crops, soils, and weed populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Lynne Carpenter-Boggs*
Affiliation:
Microbiologist, USDA-ARS North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, 803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN 56267;
John P. Reganold
Affiliation:
Professor, Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, 201 Johnson Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420;
Ann C. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Microbiologist, USDA-ARS Land Management and Water Conservation Research Unit, P.O. Box 64621, 215 Johnson Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6421.
*
Corresponding author is L. Carpenter-Boggs (lcboggs@morris.ars.usda.gov).
Get access

Abstract

Biodynamic agriculture is an organic farming system that utilizes fermented herbal and mineral preparations as compost additives and field sprays. This study was conducted to determine whether biodynamic preparations affect lentil and wheat growth and yield, soil fertility, or weed populations in the short run. Each of four nutrient treatments, biodynamically prepared compost, non-biodynamic compost, mineral NPK fertilizer, and no fertilizer, were tested with and without biodynamic field sprays. Crop yield, crop quality, and soil fertility were similar in plots treated with mineral NPK fertilizers, biodynamic compost, or non-biodynamic compost. Use of compost raised soil pH from 6.0 without compost to 6.5 with compost. Compost application reduced the broadleaf weed population by 29% and reduced the grass weed population by 78%. Biodynamic sprays altered soil and grain N chemistry, but the effects are of unknown biological significance. Use of the biodynamic field sprays correlated with higher yield of lentil per unit plant biomass, lower grain C and crude protein contents, greater content in soft white spring wheat, and greater content in soil. In general, soils and crops treated with biodynamic preparations showed few differences from those not treated. Application of composts with or without the preparations produced similar crop yields with lower weed pressure, compared with equal nutrients supplied by mineral fertilizer, but any additional short-term benefits from biodynamic preparations remain questionable.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Abele, U. 1976. Eine Forschung auf dem Gebieteines Zerfallsdesflüssigen Düngemittels unter unterschiedlichen Behandlungen und seinem Effekt auf Boden, Betriebsergebnisse und Betriebsqualität (Research on decay of liquid manure under different treatments and its effect on soil, plant yields, and plant quality). Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
2.Campbell, C.A., Davidson, H.R., and Winkleman, G.E.. 1981. Effect of nitrogen, temperature, growth stage and duration of moisture stress on yield components and protein content of Manitou spring wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:549563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Carpenter-Boggs, L. 1997. Effects of biodynamic preparations on compost, crop, and soil quality. Ph.D. diss. Washington State University, Pullman. (Dissertation Abstracts 98-35832.)Google Scholar
4.Carpenter-Boggs, L., Reganold, J.P., and Kennedy, A.C.. 2000. Effects of biodynamic preparations on compost development. Biol. Agric. Hort. (in press).Google Scholar
5.Castellanos, J.Z., and Pratt, P.F.. 1981. Mineralization of manure nitrogen—correlation with laboratory indexes. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 45:354357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Corey, R.B. 1990. Physical-chemical aspects of nutrient availability. In Westerman, R.L. (ed.). Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. 3rd ed.Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 1124.Google Scholar
7.Dahnke, W.C., and Johnson, G.V.. 1990. Testing soils for available nitrogen. In Westerman, R.L. (ed.). Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. 3rd ed.Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 127139.Google Scholar
8.David, W.A., and Gardiner, B.O.C.. 1953. Systemic insecticidal action of nicotine and certain other organic bases. Ann. Appl. Biol. 40:91105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Dyal, R.S., Smith, F.B., and Allison, R.V.. 1939. The decomposition of organic matter in soils at different initial pH. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 31:841850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Elawad, S.H., and Green, V.E. Jr., 1979. Silicon and the rice environment: A review of recent research. II Riso 28:235253.Google Scholar
11.Foster, S. 1990. Chamomile: Matricaria recutita and Chamaemelum nobile. Botanical Booklet Series 307. American Botanical Council, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
12.García del Moral, L.F., Boujenna, A., Yañez, J.A., and Ramos, J.M.. 1995. Forage production, grain yield, and protein content in dual-purpose triticale grown for both grain and forage. Agron. J. 87:902908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Gartner, S., Charlot, C., and Paris-Pireyre, N.. 1984. Microanalyse de la silice et résistance à la verse mécanique du blé tendre. Physiologie Vegetale 22:811820.Google Scholar
14.Goldstein, W.A. 1986. Alternative crops, rotations and management systems for the Palouse. Ph.D. diss. Washington State University, Pullman. (Dissertation Abstracts 87–11988.)Google Scholar
15.Grainge, M., and Ahmed, S.. 1988. Handbook of Plants with Pest-control Properties. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
16.Hornok, L. (ed.). 1992. Cultivation and Processing of Medicinal Plants. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
17.Idris, M., Hossain, M.M., and Choudhury, F.A.. 1975. The effects of silicon on lodging of rice in presence of added nitrogen. Plant Soil 43:691695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Jasper, D.A., Robson, A.D., and Abbot, L.K.. 1979. Phosphorus and the formation of vesicular—arbuscular mycorrhizas. Soil Biol. Biochem. 11:501505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Kasarda, D.D., Nimmo, C.C., and Kohler, G.O.. 1978. Proteins and the amino acid composition of wheat fractions. In Pomeranz, Y. (ed.). Wheat Chemistry and Technology. 2nd ed.American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN. p. 227299.Google Scholar
20.Koepf, H.H. 1993. Research in Biodynamic Agriculture: Methods and Results. Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Kimberton, PA.Google Scholar
21.Koepf, H.H., Pettersson, B.D., and Schaumann, W.. 1976. Bio-Dynamic Agriculture: An Introduction. Anthroposophic Press, Spring Valley, NY.Google Scholar
22.Ligneau, L.A.M., and Watt, T.A.. 1995. The effects of domestic compost upon the germination and emergence of barley and six arable weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 126:153162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.McBride, M.B. 1994. Environmental Chemistry of Soils. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
24.Murphy, J., and Riley, J.. 1962. A modified single solution for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chim. Acta 27:31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Nguyen, M.L., Haynes, R.J., and Goh, K.M.. 1995. Nutrient budgets and status in three pairs of conventional and alternative mixed cropping farms in Canterbury, New Zealand. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 52:149162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Penfold, C.M., Miyan, M.S., Reeves, T.G., and Grierson, I.T.. 1995. Biological farming for sustainable agricultural production. Austral. J. Exper. Agric. 35:849856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Pfeiffer, E. 1956. The biodynamic method, what it is and what it is not. In Biodynamics, Three Introductory Lectures. Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Kimberton, PA.Google Scholar
28.Raupp, J., and König, U.J.. 1996. Biodynamic preparations cause opposite yield effects depending upon yield levels. Biol. Agric. Hort. 13:175188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Reganold, J.P., Palmer, A.S., Lockhart, J.C., and Macgregor, A.N.. 1993. Soil quality and financial performance of biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand. Science 260:344349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Reinken, G. 1986. Six years of biodynamic growing of vegetables and apples in comparison with the conventional farm management. In H. Vogtmann, E. Boehncke, and I. Fricke (eds.). The Importance of Biological Agriculture in a World of Diminishing Resources: Proceedings of the 5th IFOAM International Scientific Conference at the University of Kassel (Germany), August 27–30, 1984. Verlagsgruppe, Witzenhausen, Germany, p. 161–174.Google Scholar
31.Russell, E.W. 1961. Soil Conditions and Plant Growth. 9th ed.Longmans, Green, London.Google Scholar
32.Rynk, R. (ed.). 1992. On-farm Composting Handbook. NRAES-54. Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
33.SAS/STAT 1988. User's Guide. Release 6.03 ed. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
34.Sattler, F., and von Wistinghausen, E.. 1992. Bio-Dynamic Farming Practice. Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association, Stourbridge, West Midlands, U.K.Google Scholar
35.Schlüter, C. 1985. Arbeits- und betriebswirtschaftliche Verhältnisse in Betrieben de alternativen Landbaus (Labor and economic relations on alternative farms). Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
36.Spiess, H. 1978. Conventional and biodynamic methods for increasing soil fertility. Ph.D. diss. Giessen University. Verlag Lebendige Erde, Darmstadt, Germany. (Deutsche Nationalbibliographie C1979. 08:558. Gr. 14.1.)Google Scholar
37.Stearn, W.C. 1976. Effectiveness of two biodynamic preparations on higher plants and possible mechanisms for the observed response. M.S. thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
38.Steiner, R. 1974. Agriculture: A Course of Eight Lectures Given at Koberwitz, Silesia, 7th to 16th June, 1924. Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association, London.Google Scholar
39.Sylvia, D.M. 1994. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. In Weaver, R.W., Angle, J.S., and Bottomley, P.S. (eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, Microbiological and Biochemical Properties. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 351378.Google Scholar
40.Teech, M., and English, L.. 1944. Rapid microchemical soil test. Soil Sci. 57:167.Google Scholar
41.Wade, P. 1972. Flour properties and the manufacture of semi-sweet biscuits. J. Sci. Food Agric. 23:737744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.Wadham, M.D., and Parry, D. Wynn. 1981. The silicon content of Oryza sativa L. and its effect on the grazing behaviour of Agriolimax reticulatus Müller. Ann. Bot. 48:399402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43.Ware, G.W. 1980. Complete Guide to Pest Control with and without Chemicals. Thomson Publications, Fresno, CA.Google Scholar
19
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Biodynamic preparations: Short-term effects on crops, soils, and weed populations
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Biodynamic preparations: Short-term effects on crops, soils, and weed populations
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Biodynamic preparations: Short-term effects on crops, soils, and weed populations
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *