Professional Documents
Culture Documents
344
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
(1991).
Crawford, Plant Cell 3, 461
(1991).
We thank E. Johnson and K. Long for technical
help and R. Schmidt and M. Yanofsky for discussion. Supported by the Powell Foundation and the
National Institutes of Health (GM 40672 to N.M.C.
and 5T32CA09345-12 for M.J.F.) and the AFRC
PMB Programme to C.D. This paper is dedicated
to the memory of Barbara McClintock (19021992).
5 November 1992; accepted 22 February 1993
Concerns about environmental, economic, and social impacts of chemical or conventional agriculture have led many farmers
and consumers to seek alternative practices
that will make agriculture more sustainable.
SCIENCE
VOL. 260
16 APRIL 1993
m~92-m- 1 . 1
000M.
~E
ORWOOMW
i..
x
REARM
farm machinery, on four of the seven biodynamic farms compared with that of their
conventional neighbors.
The surface soil bulk density was significantly less on four of the biodynamic farms
than on their conventional counterparts
(Table 2); when all data were aggregated,
bulk density was significantly lower on the
biodynamic farms (Table 3). Bulk density is
related to mechanical impedance and soil
structure, both of which affect root growth.
Penetration or cone resistance is another
indicator of mechanical impedance. Two of
the three biodynamic farms in pasture had
significantly lower penetration resistances
in the upper 20 cm than their conventional
counterparts had. The results were variable
F
D.ffilMM
'
'
for the horticultural and mixed farms (Table 2). Overall (Table 3), the biodynamic
farms had a significantly lower penetration
resistance in the upper 20 cm; there was no
difference between farming systems in soil
20 to 40 cm below the surface.
Organic matter content, soil respiration,
mineralizable nitrogen, and the ratio of
mineralizable nitrogen to organic carbon
were significantly higher on almost all the
biodynamically farmed soils than on the
conventionally farmed soils (Table 2). The
aggregated data (Table 3) indicate significantly higher values for these four parameters on the biodynamic farms. The higher
amounts of organic matter on the biodynamic farms have contributed to better soil
Farm
Main
enterprise
Bio veg
Market
garden
Con veg
Bio pip
Market
garden
Pip fruit
Con pip 1
Pip fruit
Number
of
years
(1966
to
1991)
13 con;
4 org;
8 bio
25 con
10 con;
15 bio
25 con
size
(ha)
Paddocks*
per
farm
11
Manures, composts,
bonemeal, fishwastes,
biodynamic preparations
45
12-10-10 of N-P-K,
Farm
Fertilizerst
(1983
to 1991)
biodynamic preparations
potassium
superphosphate
Con pip 2
Pip fruit
Bio cit
Citrus
Con cit 1
25 con
24
12-10-10 of N-P-K
10
Citrus
17 con;
8 bio
25 con
12
Con cit 2
Citrus
25 con
Bio mixed
Grain, sheep,
15 con;
10 bio
202
25 con
280
180
445
25
51
235
1
2
150
2,4-D
and beef
Con mixed
Grain, sheep,
Sheep and
beef
Con livestock
Sheep and
12 con;
13 bio
25 con
Dairy
1 con; 6 org;
18 bio
Con dairy 1
Bio dairy 2
Dairy
Dairy
Con dairy 2
Dairy
25 con
15 con;
10 bio
25 con
Glyphosate, terbuthylazine
plus terbumeton, dimethoate,
clofentezine, thiazolidone, diazinon,
copper oxychloride, maneb plus
zinc and manganese, benomyl
Cultural controls,f biological controls
MCPA + triazine, MCPB 2,4-D,
chlorsulfuron, pirimicarb,
terbuconazole, cultural controls*
Cultural controls,f biological controls
preparations
beef
Bio dairy 1
chlormequat chloride
and beef
Bio livestock
elements
Urea, superphosphate,
fertigation with ammonium
nitrate, calcium nitrate,
sulfate of potash
MCPA
Cultural controls,* biological controls
345
Table 1. General farm characteristics. Abbreviations: bio, biodynamic; veg, vegetables; con, conventional; pip, pip fruit; cit, citrus; and org, organic.
4-A
4-
itC o z
oCMa
CS
itE
*iC0N Z
)0
E o
to
E
>
cCL
On
zi
C:
0)
o0*i
LE
LL
>,
0
CY) 0)
U)
E5
CB
r02-C#)
00. 9-00)
00
'
NCM
CD
C\!00 c 099
o o N LN
C(
C~r
_
cN cN 0) o cN
0)
_
U)NO
c'
0
CV) cD
N0
46
.e
y0r)
4:6No
14:
*5. <
C)02UF-s r b.
_ o W
(D
3 C]
024-
CO
Ns
u)
cs
m2 c
flU)
U)
4-
r- 1
(D CD ._LP -:
qq
r. C6o o o P(vs
NrrTL
t _U)
_~~~~~~'-
Co
-0CO)
U)
qc
02r1q
~'E
0 C
0
U)
4s
0)
4P-
U0
m
(0
c?
,l c
0
a
s~
0 o om CD 0CM o o W
r- CO 4-4-OC
U)
rr 0r(0
0)
40 CO
CD CD
C: bs
E0
0C0) (
0
C
U)c0
--0U)
C00)
0 4-~~~~~~4
CO
N '-1
'o
OO1 4-
U)
0
Co
cuo
-
-o
Oo
XZ
'0
CO
COCCO
,o
-D A
E E
0)
0LjO
CC
Ena
C0
0
D
P- 00
LL
rN
r0)
4~
co cn _~
00
N
0 >cvj
CO
U-
0)
cn
o
cri
0
'
~ a
X
; E
zt8
_
E
0
CO
C0
cN4
E'
U) M CV) k0)
0.
on
E0
COCM
C000-4N00~
cw -o o _ c
NrCM CO ) (-V
CO CO
N
194O
N0.
00
NN000)Xr0_
U'
uo6
00
00
c6
40)
0
~4-
0y)
CN
4-44 -N
0)
(0C
C0
*0
4-
rn
Z=0.- .
E
Co0C0Q
0)0
oz
(04N
2r U9
4-4-
200
0U
(D
C0)
3- .Cw 'D
o
a)t
Oa
r)
>%
.5
c5.
CO
CO
fl
U-
o
0
23 r
3: M
COX
ap
C
> c)-CO
CN
0)
N
CJ
i-
C0
itE EC
0)
C
0
U)
00 CM
a
z
(D
0
NO
C:C
CN
c_i
00 W
C6 Cic
.Q
4-
C0
0
U)
(.0
44- ,
40 4000
WC0
4-
'0) CM CM
-
CO) It O
it
(10
cnog
.2o
nE5
C0)
I c0)
O O
Cic
00
vig
0)0
0
N
' 0
OC
0 C
0 c
CM Tr
)
NC000'
CS
O OO
C0
s
C
4
4
CN C CM '-0 rNcM
0)
cO
=D (D
440
00 C
C
COp-
Cn
_
oo
O
O c
~~~~~~~4-,
)0 U
= CA
CCo
.CO
N CM
0E
C9 0 0
41-
0
00
Ci)O
0
N
0)
C0
G)_
C -
oC).
CO
CON
C_0.
00
.0
0 0
c6
NC)4- 0)
02
)00 L) (DN
00
C O O U) _ (Or-0
N0CN
c CM N
(0
6
O CJ
U)
Eo
r. cM o4-90)O)rN
o cw c6 c cs
0)4
NCM(0 ( M)000-
LL
0x
0)
L.o
CO,
Oa
0-.
(O002
cj 9N
c.5 '9N
t6 c0
CO
02
E3
0 2 CO
N4-
Z-
U)
0)
CM
cN
-o
O.
cm
C 00
tc
r CM U)0O0 O
CM
COO
00
-0
cNi
2C)N
UO t C') C0N
c'
0 o c
4~~W00
4-~~~~~~~44
0CS)
CO
N
0
00 c
COCM
U-
Co
0
N
0)
CO
Co
0.-
az
_
-
4-.00
Cr
0)
r-- c
CO
O40 )
4020
C@
.o n
O0n
cn Q
g)z
'5 32
, ON
C ,)a
C
sa
346
C:
oAoCL
CD'f
Q-
_D
C CD0 DD
Eo
0le
Q
0
0
0
O
% Z
W 4) C9 D 0 ^ oQ-oN-oD
CD
l
tL0
0 fl)0
.S )c0- -1 ) 0) CL
o
E go ~ E:
F cn
0
Cc
00
0-0
0.- cm OO_
0O
0
D
C:C
1.(
I-
20
0 0
C
CDx
00 0 0
02Z E- t t5 t t5 t
EI-OI-I-wwwwwa
.0
o, c
on
V ,
-CO.0
d.auolrla
~~13). ~
Soil
property
Bulk density
bio ~i
All con
con
\AllO
Farms
1.07
1.15*
2.84
3.18*
3.55
3.52
4.84*
73.7*
4.27
55.4
(Mg m-3)
Penetration resistance
(0 to 20 cm) (MPa)
Penetration resistance
(20 to 40 cm) (MPa)
Carbon (%)
Respiration (p1 02
hour-1 g-1)
Mineralizable N
(mg kg-1)
Ratio of mineralizable
N to C (mg g-1)
Topsoil thickness (cm)t
(mg kg-1)
Extractable S
(mg kg-1)
Extractable Ca
(cmol kg-1)
Extractable Mg
(cmol kg-1)
Extractable K
(cmol kg-1)
farms
140.0*
2.99*
22.8*
21.5*
340*
560
45.7
105.9
2.59
20.6
19.6
4260
1640
66.2
10.5
21.5*
12.8
13.5
1.71
1.68
0.97
1.00
partly
due to the
(that is,
adequate
fertility for their respective crops) (9).
To evaluate financial viability, we examined farmers' annual accounts from 1987
to 1991. These accounts are the only common source of farm financial data in New
Zealand because few New Zealand farmers
6.10
6.29*
financial records of individual farm
--ss
i
nldekeep
*P
tTopsoil thicknEess includes surface
enterprises
beyond annual accounts (10).
and subsurface (A) horizons.
*Cation
exchange
capacity in centimoles of cation charge (+) per kilo- Reliable economic data from annual acgram of soil. Centimole ch<arge of specified cat- counts were available for 11 of the 16 farms.
ion per kilogram of soil.
We compared the financial performance of
the biodynamic farms both with that of
structure and consistence and to bulk den- their conventional neighbors and with that
sity and cone resistance thLat are lower than of the average, representative conventional
those of their conventionsal neighbors. Soil farm (2) in the region of each farm pair or
respiration and the ratio of mineralizable set. Most of the products from the biodynitrogen to organic carbo n give an indica- namic farms were sold as certified organic or
tion of the microbial act ivity of the soil, biodynamic at a premium price up to 25%
which accounts for the trecycling of vital higher than the market price of a similar
nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and conventional product.
Profits can be different from one farm to
sulfur for plant growth (7).
Earthworms were couinted on the two another because of the ownership structure
market gardens to give atnother indication or the amount of fixed costs such as debt
of biological activity. Fronn 30 soil cores (15 servicing. To compensate for these differcm in diameter by 15 cni deep) taken on ences, we excluded fixed costs from our
each paddock, we found tiie biodynamically calculations and used an analysis of enterfarmed soil to average 17.5 earthworms per prise gross margins as a measure of financial
square meter compared with 21 earthworms performance (11). Gross margin is the difper square meter on the conventionally ference between total farm income per
farmed soil. By mass, th e biodynamically hectare and variable or operating expenses
farmed soil had 86.3 g of earthworms per per hectare. Examples of variable costs insquare meter, whereas thle conventionally elude those of fertilizers, pesticides, biodyfarmed soil had 3.4 g olf earthworms per namic preparations, fuel, and labor. We
square meter. These diffe rences were most only examined farming enterprises requirlikely due to the use of pe,sticides, shown to ing similar commitments of owner-operator
reduce earthworm popula tions (8), on the resources per hectare, except for dairy farm
conventional farm.
pair 2, where the biodynamic farm was
Topsoil was significant ly thicker on two selling yogurt and the conventional farm
biodynamic farms than ( n their conven- milk. Here, the additional direct costs of
tional neighbors (Table 2)i. Overall, 2.2 cm yogurt production were included in the
more topsoil was present om the biodynamic gross margin analysis of the biodynamic
farms (Table 3). These differences were farm.
pH
< 0.01.
SCIENCE
VOL. 260
16 APRIL 1993
347
~~~o
+1-4-4-+4
iC
'-LO
Lo '00
O
--,3-,
c'
o o
CC
LoO
CM '<'
O
O
o)
C
LO
0LO 0
0
CO
0CJ Cl
C)
0C
0<
'r
,,oTco
Sco
c
4
C
,r 'CC
0)^
'CMJ
N
C)
u),o'
cO
Co
00
oO00 O
(~
I'--
cO
'5
8g3ooocr^ oo-
<tt
(Dn
0
-d
Ea
.00
I'-
z_-
CV)LO
ca,oC
uh
uC
00C
U 00 l 0PO0
CO O
COC
CO
OC 00
O
r
00 -3
00-
O~
~
~
~ ~
(D
co
O - CO
OL
O) (CO
COCNN-
~~~C
'O IO
,-'
~3~ Cr c O~
U
CoClnC
Co
)
in-C) C
Nco'-C)
Co<oCC
rCoCCn
CinrV
"^^c00
~
~
~
cocL
ro oco o
O O)TO
coooT
coio
u-oo coo
(-C)
O
-LO
--
~
oru=^a
CM- QCC
Vo
CO~ 0
CoL
i-C
i-L
Doj
(0)(
~~
C~3Co
c--~- )~- O3 O 0NC0
C~i~O
O
I'-'
O
O0
C'
i-C-3
|o =o Q- O
ci-ClOi-C
oO ~O-LO
OO- CO0C
NC'JLoC
LON-o~o
c^'0
CooT-N-LC)
r
I
I
-CMCIJC
*tN-N-co I 3 Oao~
LO
C g~)g (O'
~~~~~~ClLO
r,,
' , Cor4
O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
(C
C)a)
l
C
C
LC
C
Cra
0- IrO
'--idC
'. O
OO
r-'
,-0)IO000
OOC
')I
0
5
5:n
0
o
a ^ M T a-S~_^^
ig
cr
OT
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(
~i-C)C\JLL)
C)C)CO
CV)O~C)
C)
CoCV)LOL()
,r-O30dO
03CO3OO
(Ml3 n^oC0000 0iCJ o0 -^OO O)I-LnO o C 00 or.C"
)
L0C
CoC
CC
-C'
-)C
c +') )I,- oIL CCVCo
~0 r' J-Co
0 oC
00
m<C
(/)
o VO
~'
N-C) N-C
CCiNLC\J~
~O
C00
O N-o
CCo
ioi-Od cYOC
CO0
~~~~~~~I~~
d0(No
I'--
'~'
CO~
I',,
'- '-cO
,~
Ckl
r,,
Od
'
==
_.-
>
1T ocoo
8~
)
0
02
CC
'0
i- LOO
)0)io't
a.
U)
C)
-r~~-t-t
~
<
IZ Od
i-CoCC
'0
*- CV
^-r-
nO0^
co
_
Z U)0u
c:
00
00
>
LO
ck
CVC
C-o1
om..
O)Co C- I
C\N--ooo-i - -
C-O
CC
O
(N
CM
CO
CioCoiL
CO o
C
O
CO I.)O
C
00 O O0 LOC
CCO
L-eu ' ccCo
C )
C))O
.
C~~~~~~~~~~o,o co oo ~o
o
LO
00
to O 00 OC
(N
V)
i-
.c T-2CO O ^-LO0'<t
(MON
i
O'o
C
-O
O 00
'
C)i-
oo r- C
r'oo
--L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c/)
T-
o-v
N
)otC
i-
L )'-=
i-
o
LCoo
CO
OiO,oW0C.
C
.C
)'N-r,
CVo
.~E C'J
ooocoo~ CorII
CO
a
a) cV CO
CO
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0) ..E
OD On
0)
oO
Cio
oO oO t[ ,~
7(0
OJ oOBw
BNCO
O
CoLO'-L
CCg
(N
L OLOO
CV)C) ~~N-~ rC~o
E~~t
0
i-oOCVOEC
C
( -LO
N-C OC O CV)LON-CoO CO
Cc 'C- co c
a OI'--C0 (OCCOo ,~
Co ,o0
CO)
0~
C)CO
Co
.
(NC)
.II-o
O
C~O
'-On
~0 m^g^
'--CD 0-~'O
L~
O
n
C
I'0d
-
U)
at;
-N
0-0000)co
(DC
Co)C'J
NL CVlN
COLC)
i-,-
O)<O
0~'
o N
I^Ci-0CCrCC)
OOOOOLO
CoCCoLC(-OCO ' O LO~oo
O CO ~~oIIE
c~~
O) ~-~~0 0 C~ VO00~~~I
CO
,M0C,O0(N,-
CoC)C)C
Co Mi-C\
CN!-.CO)
OC
,- '
I'~
.
CoooooiiO
OC)L0
L OCLO
C)CMoC r)
C)Coi-CLO
00100Co)L()
CoC'CV)CV)
(CLL)
C)3LOC\J
C'J(
i
.t'
C
U)O
o0
J)
wO
-C Oo
)
CCiCNLOL()
(15CM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VN
o~~
u^LOCC)OOO
L
OOC CO O
o0o,~
I0O
CO
O) uLO
-4I
C)
CO
Nr(
C\J
O
LOC\J
N-LoC\Ji-Od
i-C)
CoCO
OCo CV
i-COoOLOOCC\J
C\JC)C)C
C
C
NCV)CV)'N-oICO~JiCO CVOi3 '
0
-0
C'
.03 - Nc
o O O^
LL~
U,
.Nis
^~
ooooo
LO Co ooCo(o
++oC
O
N-LOOi'-CV)OC
^LO
c-N
c=C
C-
' ~) OJ
~
,
CV)CoD CV)
CO
(0
oU
eu
-O- cN-\~
m'
CCCN
(N co
N-
i-C'JC)L
Ln
o
Ci
S-
~~~~~~~~~~~~B>~
tl S|^l ^ |^ls
o
i-t
,(ti~~~~0
SII U
ocll 11111111ll
l
II
TUN
N'0/ O
~~~~
rC
Z~fc ~ Nc CCg CZ 3NNr
ft,
c
eeN~F3
t
eN
tl
a
oOoC
u,~
~ c ~~
.
.
N .NZo
~NN
NZN N.tN~
L NZNz
NZ~5) NZo
0.c
E0> 00oEoCE u, oECE
o>u
00~o CV~oo
c~~~~~~~
L
V) E<~U)
<C
(0
E2-V
Cd T~l
,-
cr
OC
m, -.a,EC~
~p~~
(_ 7~
....~p_
*
'~
LIL
0)(0.~~~~.
~> C
(0
'-(0.-~~~(U
101
348
~
"" E-(I--'r
~
~-
(0 U
o .,i--
~,~-~c~> 3-
.'~nnQ
|2
* VOL 26
E-~,
~~CU.S~~S~CT
1A
16 APRIL 1993
'
o_ -
or
!T II 2
II
-.
L
-
C1'c
2
<Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
a,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oa
) )
-CO
) 0)-.
'~
0nCO -C 00- l ~- --CO
d
~-~-O$
a)
C0 NO 0) ^I-I.L.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
i
oc ~c~,c
ooo "-'02
< oc c CV)co Co uo o
O NC0
-0: o5t-,i--CO CO
aO~
~~O
031Od (O 0OL0'
L Od0
-- CO
3--l-++'-
_EC0
yj
co>
Oico cor o iao
ci co ooo
o
o-CVCo
I,0
CV)
N00 O
Co)--C
Co i-- I~LOC
~
O0
C7
F~-Y
LCO I' 00 Ck
C'LoN~
L'--
L' COJ
CO
,CO
~O
I~O
-C-
,- oo o)
tNo-C)i r-.
,o
~'
o c
coco
o
O
o
O~--CO- J Cr, 1-C
'N0 'O ,--CoC
-0C) C 0o~
C
C)CV)Co
O~
~~
(0
,-
--=
T~CNCN--C
r-.
--LO
o
r
o o
C
OCO
oO LO CO(
Fo
c
-~
COC
C
LO o) O
E- E
i- o - ,LO CM CM CM
a)
(.
O)
00 LO C) CO
,~
,,- ,,-oo O"-^_
NHC)10N
C
co co o or
o
co ,-o
C0) 00,- 0C C O C O
CV)
CV)N-i-
'
(D
<C
0)
'Sl~a
sentative conventional farms.
Koepf, The Biodynamic Farm (Anthroposophic Press, Hudson, NY, 1989), pp. 94-112.
2. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Farm Monitoring Report: North Central Region (MAF, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 1987-1991); Farm
Monitoring Report: North Region (MAF, Hamilton,
New Zealand, 1987-1991).
3. H. Jenny, Factors of Soil Formation (McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1941), pp. 12-20. Fields not adjacent
to the boundary between farms may differ not only
in soil characteristics but in economic performance, limiting the economic component of studies with whole farms.
4. Ten pairs of paddocks were directly adjacent to
each other; 5 to 6 soil samples were taken from
each paddock. Two paddocks were in hill country
and had to be sampled about 300 m apart to get
the same slope and aspect; here 12 soil samples
were taken from each paddock. Soil samples
were collected in the spring of 1990 and the
summer of 1990 to 1991 from the upper 10 cm.
5. Soil samples were analyzed for the following
properties: total carbon, with the use of a Leco
(Saint Joseph, MI) high-frequency induction furnace; extractable potassium, calcium, and magnesium, with the use of a semimicro leaching
procedure; pH in a water suspension; extractable
phosphorus and cation exchange capacity as
described in L. C. Blakemore, P. L. Searle, and B.
K. Daly, New Zealand Soil Bureau Scientific Report 80 (Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research, Lower Hutt, New Zealand, 1987)]; soil
respiration, by manometric measurements of the
respiratory uptake of gaseous oxygen by soil [W.
W. Umbreit, R. H. Burris, J. F. Stauffer, Manometric and Biochemical Techniques (Burgess, Minneapolis, 1972)] and modified by A. N. Macgregor and L M. Naylor [Plant Soil 65, 149 (1982)];
mineralizable soil nitrogen, by incubation [D. R.
Keeney and J. M. Bremner, Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Proc. 31, 34 (1967)]; total nitrogen and phosphorus, with the use of a micro-Kjeldahl digestion of
soil followed by nitrogen analysis [Technicon,
Industrial Method No. 329-74 W/A (Technicon,
Tarrytown, NY, 1976)] and phosphorus analysis
[J. R. Twine and C. H. Williams, Commun. Soil Sci.
Plant Anal. 2, 485 (1971)]; and sulfate, by the
automated Johnson and Nishita technique [B.
Heffernan, A Handbook of Methods of Inorganic
Chemical Analysis for Forest Soils, Foliage, and
Water (CSIRO Division of Forest Research, Canberra, Australia, 1985)]. Soil profiles were analyzed in the field for the following properties: soil
texture, structure, and consistence as described
by standard New Zealand Soil Bureau procedures [N. H. Taylor and I. J. Pohlen, Soil Bureau
Bulletin 25 (Soil Bureau, Lower Hutt, New
Zealand. 1962)]; bulk density with the use of
thin-walled aluminum cores; and penetration resistance with the use of a Rimik (Toowoomba,
Queensland, Australia) CP10 cone penetrometer.
6. R. G. McLaren and K. C. Cameron, Soil Science:
An Introduction to the Properties and Management of New Zealand Soils (Oxford Univ. Press,
Auckland, New Zealand, 1990), p. 132.
7. E. W. Russell, Russell's Soil Conditions and Plant
Growth (Longman, Essex, England, 1988), pp.
472-499.
8. J. K. Syers and J. A. Springett, Plant Soil 76, 93
(1984).
9. I. S. Cornforth and A. G. Sinclair, Fertiliser Recommendations for Pastures and Crops in New
Zealand (MAF, Wellington, New Zealand, 1984);
1. H. H.
Toxoplasma
gondii is a ubiquitous parasite
that can infect almost
warm-blooded
any
16 APRIL 1993
349