The 37th International Conference «Peasant Strategies for Bioagriculture» promoted by the Association for Biodynamic Agriculture. The initiative has aroused protests from various subjects who cannot stand when superstition is cloaked in science – for example the SeTA Group (Science and Technology for Agriculture) and the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei have protested. The Roman university, to tell the truth, would have justified itself as follows: «The University of Roma Tre is in no way involved with the activities of the Association for biodynamic agriculture, and has limited itself to renting a classroom, etc. etc.”. Alright.
Criticizing biodynamic agriculture is like shooting the Red Cross, so moving and naive is the practice, all in the name of respect for unspecified “cosmic forces”. Instead, organic farming is completely accepted, which is why we recommend reading Silvano Fusoand its recent Is the future organic? Organic, biodynamic agriculture and science (Daedalus Editions). Chemist and tireless popularizer, Fuso first of all defines what organic and biodynamic agriculture is. By the practitioners themselves, the former is defined in terms that are purely juridical and not scientific. Also because all agriculture is organic, dealing with living things.
L’biodynamic agriculture instead it is the fruit of the visionary mind of an Austrian esotericist, Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), who, although completely lacking in agronomic knowledge, codified a series of rules that his followers still slavishly apply today. Type: the soil must be sprayed with preparations – defined as biodynamic, whatever that means, assuming it means anything – obtained from manure and quartz dust, the spraying must take place in circular movements, young skinned mice are involved, and so on at this rate. But I won’t tell you any further otherwise you will miss the beauty of the book. Organic farming on the other hand he claims not to use chemicals. Which is impossible, because we don’t feed on photons, but only and exclusively on chemicals. Fuso also debunks the false belief that “bio” products are better than conventional ones: this is not true either for safety or for their organoleptic qualities.
Nor is it true that “organic” crops are more environmentally friendly: having yields clearly lower than those of traditional agriculture, they require more cultivated area, therefore greater deforestation, to the detriment of the famous biodiversity, continually invoked by environmentalists. Organic farmingFurthermore, it is not even economically viable: without public incentives it would have no market. The economic disaster that recently affected Sri Lanka is clear proof of this. And in fact there is an obvious difference between “organic” and non-“organic” products: the price.
Nicola Porro, Il Giornale 19 February 2023