Where Science and Magic Meet
Crop Enhancement Research
Crop Enhancement Research
Field Study of an Enhancement
Effect on Lettuce Seeds- Replication Study
Roney-Dougal, Psi Research Centre,
J. Solfvin, American Schools of Professional Psychology
there is a classic healing experiment in which seeds are stressed,
and then randomly assigned to either a healing or control
group (e.g. Grad,1963, 1964). Several of these studies have
found that there is greater germination rate and growth in
the healed group.
trial, using this basic design, was run in 2000 on an organic
farm (Roney Dougal & Solfvin, in press). In this experiment,
the healthy organic seeds were not stressed beforehand, and
the healer was asked to enhance the seeds for enhanced germination,
greater growth and better health. Only the third aspect gave
significant results with the plants grown from the enhanced
seeds having less fungal disease (F(3,24) = 3.13, p = .044).
study has two primary hypotheses: the enhanced seeds will
have greater growth and better health, than the controls.
There were seven trials beginning in April, the final harvest
being in December. We used a randomized double blind design
with four treatment conditions: one jar of seeds (HX) was
enhanced by the healer while a control person mimicking his
actions with a second jar (NH) and two jars (C1, C2) remained
untreated on the table. After an assistant randomly relabelled
the jars (A, B, C, D), the seeds were germinated in trays
in a polytunnel, planted out after three weeks, and (about
10 weeks later) harvested in two sections, half of each group
(row) one week, and the other half a week later. Each lettuce
was weighed upon harvesting and after trimming, rated for
slug and fungal damage, and sent off to market.
trials (plantings) were conducted, owing to two trials that
were not planted out in time. The enhanced seeds produced
a heavier crop with less damage, but the planned (rank) analysis
is insufficiently powered with the reduced number of trials,
and a more appropriate analysis was substituted. Adapting
from previous studies (Braud & Schlitz, 199x) of intentionality
effects on biological systems, z-tests and effect sizes were
computed for the enhanced (HX) group for each harvest, and
Stouffers Z method to combine them across the five plantings
showed that the enhanced (HX) seeds produced lettuces with
gross and net weights significantly larger than chance expectation,
with average effect sizes in the .10 to .20 range. The second
hypothesis was also confirmed by significantly reduced slug
and fungal damage, with slightly smaller average effect sizes
than the growth measures. Moreover, the enhanced seeds yielded
about 10% more crop (by weight) during the season than any
of the other three treatment conditions, suggesting a practical
value for the commercial farmer. This is good news for organic
farming where the lack of fungicide and artificial fertiliser
can result in a lower yield.
healing experiment with a very simple design that is suitable
for large scale field trials is the one made famous by Grad
(1963, 1964). Two trays of seeds, which have been stressed
in some way, are prepared. One of the trays is watered with
water that has been held by the healer, and the other with
ordinary water. Several of these studies have found that more
seeds germinate, they germinate faster, and there is greater
growth from the healed tray.
past few years, there have been several large scale trials
of "distant healing on medical outcomes of patients attending
a cardiac hospital (e.g., Byrd, 1988; Harris et al, 1999;
Sicher et al, 1998). Significant health benefits have been
shown for the treatment groups. This demonstrates the feasibility
and practical value of researching parapsychological phenomena
in real life settings.
run in 2000 (Roney Dougal & Solfvin, in press) was the
first controlled investigation of a healer's intention on
the healthy growth of plants on a commercial organic farm.
The healthy organic seeds were not stressed beforehand, as
we were looking for greater health in the enhanced plants,
and the healer worked directly with the seeds rather than
with water. Lettuce seeds were chosen as these germinate rapidly
and come to harvest in about 10 weeks with approximately 10
sowings in the year, thus allowing for sufficient trials in
any one season. There were three hypotheses: that the seed
would show greater germination, greater growth and better
health. Of these only the third hypothesis showed significant
results, with the plants grown from the enhanced seeds showing
significantly less fungal disease (F(3,24) = 3.13, p = .044).
There was a strange anomaly in the growth rate in that one
row (row D) consistently gave greater weight. This was suspected
to be due to an expectancy effect, as the farm had been given
feedback after the first pilot trial, in which the plants
from the enhanced seed had been significantly larger than
the rest, and had been in row D.
study is a close replication to see if these findings are
robust. It has two primary hypotheses:
enhanced seeds will have greater growth than the control.
2) The enhanced seeds will have better health than the control.
four outcome variables were pre-planned:
variables: gross and net weight of the plants were measured
2) Health variables: the plants were checked for slug and
for fungal damage, and rated on a five-point scale.
decided not to assess germination rate as there is virtually
a hundred percent germination with this healthy organic seed.
Also, this had been a heavy burden for the grower and had
not given any significant result. And the primary reason for
running these trials is a very practical one, looking to see
if a farm can have a better harvest with healthier crops as
a result of enhancement by a healer. So, in this case, germination
rate becomes secondary to harvest results.
Mill farm, an organic farm growing vegetables for the local
community, as well as free range organic eggs, yogurt and
meat, once again kindly agreed to be the farm for this study.
The crop was lettuce as before.
were all sown by one person to ensure uniformity of sowing
procedure. The seeds were germinated in a dark shed. The initial
growing conditions were in trays in a polytunnel, with the
approximately three week old plants being transplanted out
into a south-facing field, bordered on all sides by non-experimental
plants, so that they were in the centre of the rows, to ensure
equivalent growing conditions. The experimental seeds and
plants were treated in an identical manner to all the rest
of the crop. Temperature, humidity, soil conditions, and wind
factors were kept as equivalent, within each trial, as possible.
were various differences from the preliminary study. As the
last trial in the previous year had not been sown until too
late in the season for the plants to be planted out in the
field, like all the previous sowings, it was decided to run
only seven trials this year. Owing to family problems, the
healer who worked with us last year was unable, at the last
moment, to attend, so another healer (MP) offered to work
in his stead. He used a very different healing method. There
was a serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain
at this time, so we were unable to use the farmhouse building
for the treatments as we had done last year, so this year
the enhancements occurred in the packing shed. And, just as
the trials were starting, the grower who had worked with us
last year left the farm for another job. He was replaced by
two people, who had been working with him the previous year,
and between them they very kindly helped with the trials.
trial, in the packing shed, in the presence of the experimenter
(SRD) a person, who acted as the randomiser, was given a sealed
pot of 1000 red oak lettuce seeds (Valdai). They counted 100
seeds, in to each of four identical jars, making a total of
400 experimental seeds in each trial. These were then closed
with a screw top lid. The randomiser was a person who knew
no one who worked on the farm, and had no contact with the
farm other than on the one occasion they performed the function
of ensuring that the four jars of seeds were randomly ordered.
At this point nobody knew which jar would be given to the
healer all four jars were identical with no identification.
One jar of seeds (HX) was given by SRD to the healer; the
second (C1) and the fourth jars (C2) were untreated controls
and were left untouched on the table; the third jar (nonHX)
was given by SRD to the control person, who handled it exactly
as MP handled his. This person claims no healing ability and
mimicked the actions of MP whilst he was doing the enhancement.
This person also performed this function last year.
the seeds by holding his hands approximately one foot from,
with the palms angled towards, the jar. Each enhancement lasted
about five minutes, but this part of the procedure was not
standardised. After the enhancement, when everyone had left
the shed, the randomiser assigned labels with the trial number
and A, B, C or D to the four jars of seeds, which had been
left on the table in the places where each person had sat.
There was a different randomiser for each trial. On most occasions
two enhancement sessions were held one after the other on
the same morning. On these occasions there was the same randomiser
for both the trials, and the randomisation was done after
both enhancements were complete, the jars from the initial
enhancement having a label stating the trial number affixed,
until after the second enhancement, when the randomisation
procedure occurred. (For full details of the randomisation
procedure, please see Appendix 1.) Once the randomiser had
labelled the jars they left them in the middle of the table
for the grower to collect, and left the farm.
6 and7 this procedure was varied slightly, and the control
jars C1 and C2 were taken outside the shed by SRD during the
enhancement session. The rationale behind this was that Schwartz
(1990) found that controls in the same room as the healer
can be affected. This was not taken into account in the preliminary
experiment, and was included as a variable here, as both SRD
and the healer felt it might be valid.
were seven trials beginning in April, the final harvest being
in December. Thus there were a total of 2,800 lettuces in
the whole experiment. There were varying lengths of time between
the enhancement and the sowing of the seeds. The seeds were
sown, germinated and grown in the polytunnel for approximately
three weeks on average. This crop was then planted out in
the field, the experimental plants all being planted in the
centre of each row of lettuces, with non-experimental rows
planted on either side so that at all times the experimental
plants were surrounded by other plants. With regard to this
part of the procedure we had to let the grower decide what
was appropriate, dependent on weather, the needs of the wholesale
market, etc. Sadly, only five trials were sown and planted
out in good time for a proper harvest. It was decided, by
SRD and JS, before seeing the raw data, to analyse only the
first five trials. Trials 6 and 7 will be analysed separately.Various
measures were recorded during the growth of the plants:
they had been sown and germinated, SRD recorded the numbers
of seeds that had germinated . When they were planted out,
she recorded the number of plants in each row. And when they
were harvested she recorded the number that made it to harvest.
At a time
determined by the grower, half of each row of lettuces were
harvested one week (e.g. trial 1a), and the remaining halves
the following week (e.g. trial 1b). This was because the farm
does not have a market sufficiently large for the sale of
400 lettuces of one variety in any one week. Each lettuce
was harvested by being cut at ground level and put into labelled
trays. These were brought in to the packing shed and a team
of five people then assessed the lettuces for health and weight.
First the lettuce was assessed for fungal damage, which was
constrained to slimy leaves, most of which were at the base
of the plant, and also for slug damage, by noting the number
of holes in each leaf. This was recorded on a five-point scale,
with 1 indicating little damage up to 5 indicating much damage.
Then the lettuce was weighed to give gross weight. The outer
leaves were trimmed and then they were reweighed to obtain
net weight, which was a lettuce ready for packing for sale.
Those that were large enough were then packed in bags.
beginning of each harvesting session, the harvesters all independently
rated a lettuce for slug and fungal damage, and then checked
to see how closely their assessments matched. If there was
a difference they discussed this and rated another lettuce,
until agreement was reached.
all the data had been recorded and sent to JS for analysis,
the randomiser revealed the codes.
The data consisted of only five trials (or plantings) since
two plantings were lost due to being planted out too late.
Each of the four outcome variables were averaged, by treatment
group, for each harvest (first, second) of each trial. Following
the analysis procedure for the previous study (Roney-Dougal
& Solfvin, in press) the averages were ranked by treatment
group, with 1 being assigned to the best outcome (larger weight
or less damage), through 4 for the worst. Ties were handled
by the standard method, assigning both groups the mean of
the two ranks for which they competed groups tied for 2nd
and 3rd place were both assigned the rank of 2.5. Tables 1
through 4 show the group averages and rankings for Gross Weight,
Net Weight, Slug Damage, and Fungal Damage, respectively.
(HX) group has heavier plants with less damage. However, the
reduced number of trials makes the statistical analysis of
these ranks insufficiently powered. There were also concerns
that the two harvests for each trial may be correlated, requiring
separate analysis that would reduce sample size even further.
In addition, it was desired to make better use of the large
within-group sample sizes, and to provide effect sizes as
well as probabilities for comparison with other studies. Therefore,
a more appropriate analysis was substituted for testing these
hypotheses. Adapting from previous studies (Braud & Schlitz,
1991, Schlitz & Braud, 1999, Schneider, Binder, &
Walach, 2000) of intentionality effects on biological systems,
z-tests and effect sizes were computed for the enhanced (HX)
group for each harvest, and Stouffers Z method to combine
them across the five plantings (trials).
significant results are seen for all four outcome variables,
in both first and second harvests. Moreover, ALL significant
values are in the predicted directions, that is, increased
growth (gross and net weights), and decreased slug and fungal
damage. Average gross weight for first harvests is larger
than chance expectation (ES = .09), though not statistically
significant (Z=1.47, p = .072), but is statistically significant
for second harvests (ES = .19, Z=3.04, p < .001). Net weight
for the enhanced group is significantly greater than chance
expectation for first harvests (ES = .16, Z=2.49, p < .01)
and second harvests (ES = .15, Z = 2.28, p = .011).
Average slug damage ratings are reduced significantly for
first harvests (ES = -.11, Z = -1.66, p < .05), and for
second harvests (ES = -.12, Z = -1.82, p < .05). Average
fungal damage is statistically significantly reduced for first
harvests (ES = -.13, Z = -2.11, p < .05), but not significantly
so for second harvests (ES = -.03, Z = -0.41, p = n..s.).
the effect sizes noted here are in the small range, ranging
from .09 to .19 across the five experimental plantings, and
this accounts for why a less sensitive analysis does not reveal
them. However, the strength of these results is augmented
by a remarkable level of consistency in directionality. This
is precisely the sort of consistency which can, over time,
cumulate into a substantial amount.
both hypotheses are supported in this study. The enhanced
(HX) group of lettuces achieved significantly greater gross
and net weights, as well as significantly less slug and fungal
damage, than would be expected by chance. These combine to
produce a substantial total yield for the enhancement group,
fully 10% more crop (by weight) than any other group for the
this year replicate the preliminary findings from last year
that a healer can enhance seeds so that the plants are healthier
in that they resist fungal damage. This year we also have
the result that the plants from the enhanced seed grow larger.
Both gross and net weights are greater in the enhanced group.
Last year we had an anomalous finding with the growth, in
that row D was always the largest whatever the condition.
It was suspected that this was due to an expectancy effect,
because the farm had had feedback concerning the first pilot
trial in which the healers plants were in row D and were the
largest. There was no feedback this year and no expectancy
effect and enhanced growth in the treatment group.
net weight is partly created by the lack of fungal disease
in the plants, since less fungal disease means that the plants
need less trimming. This is particularly beneficial for the
farm as less disease means bigger plants packed for market,
which means greater numbers of plants for sale. This is because
only those plants above a certain weight are saleable. As
organic farms do not use fungicides or artificial fertilisers,
this is particularly beneficial to them.
there be an question of the practical value of this, Table
6 presents the rather dramatic consequences of a small effect
which cumulates consistently over time. The farm who agreed
to the host this study, and to put up with the additional
arrangements and inconveniences entailed in it, is of course
not interested so much in theory as in the bottom line. And
here it is of the five trials, the group of seeds treated
by the healer was the first place winner in lettuce production
for four out of five plantings. Overall, the treated seeds
produced about 10% more crop than any other group. Over the
course of the summer, this amounted to about 15kg, or over
30 pounds more lettuce in the treatment group. Organic farmers
have found that, on average their crop yields are 10% less
than non-organic farms, so the effects found here compensate
adequately, and so help to make organic farming more viable.
are still many questions to be answered in future research.
The results of the current study are dramatically different
from those of the previous year, and this may be due to any
one of several procedural changes. There was a different healer
this year, different research assistants, as well as a different
grower for the farm. And one wonders how robust these results
are, whether a similar result will obtain next year on the
same farm, or on different farms.
This study has some methodological limitations. First, the
external validity (generalizability) of these results is limited
by having only one healer enhance the seeds. On the other
hand, a high level of internal validity was maintained by
the careful use of blinds, randomisation, and especially by
the novel employ of three control groups, a mimic treatment
and two untreated controls. With one treated group among four
rather than among two, we can be more confident that chance
factors (fortuitous randomisation) or field workers guessing
which group received enhancement cannot account for these
results. Moreover, three control groups provides additional
between group variance control. With strong internal validity,
we assure that the treatment (HX) group outcomes are indeed
valid in this study, and leave the external validity issues
for future research.
limitation of this study is the use of an alternative statistical
analysis selected after the codes were broken and the pre-planned
analysis prepared. However, the pre-planned analysis by ranks
was inadequate due to an unexpectedly small number of trials;
the alternative analysis is in fact more appropriate for this
dataset; is adapted from the most commonly used analysis for
intentionality effects on living systems; makes better use
of the large within-group sample sizes in this study; and
provides effect sizes for comparison with other studies. Moreover,
only the pre-stated hypotheses for the current study were
tested, and no further data manipulations or selections were
employed. Thus, the alternative analysis is a consequence
of an unanticipated event in the data collection and not,
strictly speaking, a post-hoc analysis.
limitation is the assumption that by arbitrarily filling the
four jars with 100 seeds each, they are equivalent. In the
future, more careful attention needs be paid to this, and
the jars randomly assigned (rather than arbitrarily) to the
four treatment conditions, as well as randomly relabelling
them (A, B, C, D) after the treatment is completed, as was
done here. While it seems unlikely that this detail could
account for the results of this study, such subtle potential
confounds should be eliminated.
of this study suggest that it is possible to take laboratory
findings out into the field, and that enhancement by a healer
can bring benefit to a farm. The results of this study can
be added to those suggestive of psi, but also suggests that
under some circumstances the application of intentionality
to real world problems may have measurable consequences. More
research is needed to determine whether this was an isolated
result or a potentially generalizable one. And more research
is needed on the practical value of psi in our everyday lives,
of where and how it may operate. Thus, the current finding
extends the database of intentionality effects on living systems
horizontally, but not vertically. It adds to the growing database
suggestive of intentionality unexplainable by physical factors
or by chance, but we are left to wonder why it occurred, what
it means, why it didnt occur last year, and whether it will
occur again. Bringing the laboratory into the field at least
has the advantage of providing practical benefit while we
struggle with the deeper issues.
W.G. & Schlitz, M.J. (1991). Conscious interactions
with remote biological systems: Anomalous intentionality
effects. Subtle Energies, 2, 1-46.
R. (1988) Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer
in a coronary care unit population. Southern Medical Journal,
B. (1963) A telekinetic effect on plant growth. International
J. Parapsychology, 5, 117 - 133.
B. (1964) A telekinetic effect on plant growth. II. Experiments
involving treatment of saline in stoppered bottles. International
J. Parapsychology, 6, 473-498.
W. S., Gowda M., Kolb, J.W., Strychacz, C.P., Hacek, J.L.,
Jones, P.G. et al (1999) A randomized, controlled trial
of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes
in patients admitted to the coronary care unit. Archives
of Internal Medicine, 159, 2273-2278.
Dougal, S. M. & Solfvin, J. (in press). Field Study
of Enhancement Effect on Lettuce Seeds - their germination
rate, growth and health. J. Soc. Psychical Research, 66,
M.J. & Braud, W.G. (1997). Distant intentionality and
healing: Assessing the evidence. Alternative Therapies,
R., Binder, M. & Walach, H. (2000). Examining the role
of neutral versus personal experimenter-participant interactions:
An EDA-DMILS experiment. Journal of Parapsychology, 64(2),
F., Targ, E., Moor, D. and Smith, H.S. (1998) A randomized
double-blind study of the effect of distant healing in a
population with advanced AIDS. Report of a small scale study.
Western Journal of Medicine, 169, 356-7.
Acknowledgements with deep gratitude go to the following:
Mill Farm for once again assisting this work so wholeheartedly;
Young, without whose financial assistance this study could
not have happened;
Pawson, for his gentle and excellent healing abilities;
and all the randomisers and harvesters for their unstinting
help and good humour in often very trying circumstances.
was originally presented at the Parapsychological Association
conference, Paris. August, 2002. A complete version is published
in Roney-Dougal, S.M. & Solfvin, J. (2003). "Field
study of an enhancement effect on lettuce seeds - Replication
study" Journal of Parapsychology, 67(2), 279-298