Carl Vett (1871-1956): Denmark’s Pioneer of Biodynamic Farming and Organic Agriculture
John Paull
Ehrenfried Pfeiffer published ‘Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening’ in 1938 [6]. The book was
the ‘public outing’ of Biodynamics, and a breach to the wall of secrecy (Fig.6). The Experimental
Circle was by now fourteen years old. By the end of 1938 there were about 750 members of the
Experimental Circle; by then 683 copies of the Agriculture Course had been issued in German
and 67 in English [60-64].
Of these approximately 750 Experimental Circle members, Carl Vett is the standout champion
for pursuing ‘experiments’ of an Experimental Circle. Perhaps more than any other Circle
member, Vett took seriously his commitment stated in his NDA to do ‘experiments’. As neither
scientist nor farmer, Carl Vett recruited scientists and locations to do ‘science’. Vett was never
a ‘one man band’; he was a manager and he had the capacity to recruit skills and talent for a
given task. This he proceeded to do with experiments, with hypotheses, treatments, and
controls.
BD Experiments in Denmark (1931-1934)
Of the Circle members (about 750 world-wide by the end of 1938) few (if any) embraced the
directive to test by experiment more assiduously than Carl Vett. Vett commissioned scientists
at the State Research Laboratory to do research. He was disappointed but not disheartened
with the results. There was never any ‘killer’ research results to brag about.
Vett initiated a sequence of experimental efforts, none of which bore ‘bragging rights’ results.
The duration and scope of his envisioned research failed to materialise. Funding was not
forthcoming. The economics of the time were not conducive; the economic depression of the
time added layers of challenge to ventures; and agronomists were measuring agronomic
parameters (yield and dry weight are favourites).
Being neither farmer nor scientist was a practical impediment for Vett. Research results depend
on the questions asked, the hypotheses to be tested, the experimental design, and, importantly,
the parameters measured. Vett was critical of the scale and scope. In an experimental design
there can be dissonance between: what are the salient parameters, what can be conveniently
measured, and what is actually measured? Is the difference in the micronutrients, in the
nutritive value, taste and consumer sensory qualities, soil biome, consumer wellbeing,
environmental wellbeing, and environmental safeguarding? In research projects, ‘Further
research’ is routinely called for, and so it was with the Vett induced experiments.
Sjælland Experiments (1931-32)
Carl Vett initiated experiments at six farms in Sjælland (Denmark): Barfredshøj, Gjorslev,
Førslev, Harested, Lyngbygaard, and Bregentved. The intention was to grow a variety of crops
over four years to determine the efficacy of the Biodynamic method [65, p.3]. The experimental
timeline was cut short, in the absence of funding, and Vett published the preliminary results in
1932 [66, 67].
Erik Sandgren was appointed to be the research leader [65]. Sandgren was a Swedish
agronomist, he had previously worked with Biodynamic farmer Ernst Stegemann and other
German members of the Experimental Circle [12, p.23]. Stegemann (1882-1943) was the
manager of the Marienstein estate (Germany), where he had practiced Biodynamics since 1922.
Stegemann was arguably the first Biodynamic farmer, after having received personal directions
from Rudolf Steiner two years prior to the Koberwitz course [56]. The research design was by
Karl Bondorff (1891-1974) “after consulting leaders from Germany” [65, p.3]. Bondorff was
manager of the State Plant Breeding Laboratory at Lyngby. He was an agriculturalist, formerly
a professor of microbiology at the Danish Agricultural College (Landbohøjskolen) (1923-1928)
[68, p.26].
The research design for the plots was five treatments:
• farmyard manure;
• farmyard manure plus BD preparations;
• artificial fertiliser;
• artificial fertiliser (half strength);
• control.
The experiments soon ran into financial problems with government funding not forthcoming.
Between 1931 and 1937 the Danish government reduced funding to agricultural organisations,
and experimental grants were only awarded to recognised organisations, not to individuals [12,
p.24]. Carl Vett ended up financing the experiments himself for the first year. Because of the
lack of government funding, the research plan was changed. The plots were reduced from
200m2 to 49m2 and were close to fields with artificial fertiliser. This was not approved from
Germany, and “the experiment was discontinued after two years without any proper results”
[69, p.11].
Askov & Lyngby Experiments (1933-34)
Vett states that: “The introduction of the biological-dynamic method in Denmark began in
September [1931] at a meeting of the State Plant Breeding Laboratory in Lyngby. Present were
leaders of the Biodynamics movement from Germany, several Danish farmers who were willing
to begin experiments, and the head of the institute Prof Dr K Bondorff” [70, p.14].
Experiments were conducted at Askov and Lyngby experimental farms, with fodder beets in
1933, and wheat in 1934. The manager at Askov experimental farm, Karsten Iversen (b. 1886),
led the experiments. In his report he explains that the purpose of these experiments was to:
“examine if the biological-dynamical preparations would affect the manure’s fermentation and
impact on the fields” [71, p,210]. Iversen's report begins with a brief description of the
Biodynamic method and states: “It will be immediately clear that this method deviates from all
previously known principles of the fertilisation doctrine” [71, p,211].
The research design for the plots was (a near replication of the Sjælland design):
• farmyard manure;
• farmyard manure plus BD preparations;
• artificial fertiliser;
• artificial fertiliser (half strength);
• control.
At the Askov and Lyngby experiments, the preparations were, after negotiations with
‘Forschungslaboratorium am Goetheanum’ (Research laboratory, Switzerland), provided
through Ernst Trier Fink, who also performed the preparation procedures and spraying at both
sites, in 1933. Fink was a member of the Experimental Circle (#558) since February 1933 [58,
p.25]. The second year the preparation procedures and spraying were done by the research
farm staff [71, p,217].
The leader of the research laboratory at the Goetheanum, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, distanced himself
from these Danish experiments. He wrote in a letter to Iversen: "Since we have no control over
the execution of this experiment from here [in Dornach], we must reject any responsibility and
leave it to you to reach an agreement with Mr. Fink and Director Vett about the conditions of
the experiment. We have informed the two gentlemen accordingly" [quoted in 71, p,210].
Iversen reported no difference between unprepared and Biodynamically prepared manure in
his measures of the recorded waste due to fermentation and runoff, average temperature in the
heaps, and chemical analysis of the nutritional content [71].
The Biodynamic plot was sprayed with solutions of the Biodynamic preparations 500 and 501
in addition to the application of natural fertiliser (farmyard manure).
Of the results of the field experiments with beets (1933) and wheat (1934), Iversen reported:
“At Askov the yield of beets has been practically the same, while the Biodynamic fertiliser at
Lyngby has given a 30 hkg [sic] higher yield than untreated natural fertiliser. The dry matter
percentage at both sites are a little higher than untreated natural fertiliser. According to the
biological-dynamic method, the silica preparation 501, especially, would show its effect
through higher dry matter content. This assumption has not been confirmed by these
experiments. In the wheat experiments, grain yields from both experimental farms have been
very similar for the two methods, while untreated natural fertiliser at Lyngby has given a little
less straw. With regards to the yield in the field, there is no difference between the effects of
natural fertiliser applied to both crops, whether they been prepared or not. Artificial fertiliser,
with only ½ Nitrogen and 1 phosphoric acid and Kali, has generally given considerably higher
yields than 1 natural fertiliser” [71, p,218].
Iversen reported baking tests were performed by an engineer, Holger Jørgensen, to determine
the quality of the wheat flour, which showed no difference between Biodynamic and ordinary
natural fertiliser. He stated that the artificially fertilised wheat showed the best baking
properties. The parameters of the test were water content, nitrogen content, and volumetric
classification of the baking properties [71].
Vett was dismissive of the veracity of the Iversen experiments. The scale had been
compromised from the original design: “Confident that grants would be forthcoming, as they
usually are for such experiments, Carl Vett paid the expenses of the research leaders salary etc.
for the time being. When the grants were not awarded, a different solution was needed, where
the expenses would be transferred to agricultural organisations with government funding.
Thus, the original research plan had to be changed, from plots of 200m2 to only a few square
meters surrounded by artificially fertilised fields, a solution the German leaders could not
accept. And when Askov and Lyngby experimental farms refused to examine improvement in
quality, we pulled out of this kind of experiment, which we regard as quite worthless” [70, p.2].
Simon Elias Hope (1872-1969), a Norwegian Biodynamic farmer and advocate, was also not
impressed with the experiments. In a Norwegian newspaper article, he wrote that: “Plot
experiments will not lead to trustworthy results with the Biodynamic method when the rest of
the farm is farmed conventionally. The whole farm needs to be farmed Biodynamically. People
who do not know that, should not tinker with this method” [72].
According to Vett: “the large German chemical fertiliser company I G Farben had Karsten
Iversen's report of his experiments with our [BD] fertiliser method in Askov translated and the
fertilizer agents around the world are using it as evidence against us” [70. p.2]. For Vett, the
experiments were a disappointing ‘own goal’.
Præstø Amts Landboforening Experiments (1933-34)
According to Iversen (1936), the results from the experiments that Carl Vett had financed at the
six farms on Sjælland, were presented at the General Assembly of the Agricultural Association
of Præstø County (Præstø Amts Landboforening) in November 1932, which concluded that
further research was needed.
The Association decided to conduct experiments at Edelesminde, Vallø Hovedgaard, and
Sophiendal farms in 1933 and 1934 [71, p,219]. The research leader was Kristian Møller (b.
1894), consultant of plant cultivation at Præstø, 1931-38 [68].
The comparative experiments of Biodynamic and ordinary natural fertiliser were conducted by
growing rutabaga in 1933 and an unspecified cereal crop in 1934. An unfertilised field served
as the control. The Biodynamic preparation work was done by Erik Sandgren [71, pp.220-221].
The conclusion stated: that: “In every experiment, the harvest from the biological-dynamically
treated manure and the untreated manure has yielded practically the same. The differences in
the manure analysis and the yield figures from the experiments are all within the confidence
margins, and there is certainly no indication that biological-dynamically treated manure has
caused increased yield” [71, p.220].
Rødbjerggaard BD Experimental Farm (1934)
Undaunted by the faltering experiments and the disappointing results, a research farm of their
own became the new goal for Carl Vett. Possibly with some inspiration from Norway, the plan
was to obtain a farm for field experiments, lectures, courses and distribution of the Biodynamic
preparations.
A Norwegian group of the Experimental Circle was formed in 1933 in the presence of Guenther
Wachsmuth, where the German-born Karl Döbelin (1898-1976) was elected as the first
chairman (Tutturen 2022). Döbelin was a member (#277) of the Experimental Circle since
1929, he married an attendee of the Koberwitz course, Waldtraut Stockmeyer, and they became
the first BD farmers in Norway in the early 1930s [50, 58, 73].
Carl Vett contacted Döbelin in 1933: “We consider organising ourselves in a similar way to you,
by acquiring a farm which will be farmed with the new methods and serve as a hub for
distribution of information, preparations, and help to convert the farms” [quoted in 74, p.339].
Carl Vett purchased Rødbjerggaard in Hornbæk in 1934, and sold it two years later. Elis Hjorth
(1893-1988), a fellow Biodynamicist, bought the farm and became the first manager and
research leader of the BD experimental farm [12].