Dynamizing Water in Biodynamic Viticulture

J

Jayson Cohen

Jayson Cohen
One of the strangest aspects of biodynamics to me is the practice of dynamizing water. It seems to be all the rage. Instagram is full of videos of biodynamic winemakers stirring their water before doing anything with it. But the explanations I’ve seen for why one might want to do this are far removed from any grounded chemistry or physics.

There are a few related questions I’d be interested in hearing folks who might know more here try to answer on this topic (if there are any answers).

- Can someone explain why this results in any change to the water?

-Has anyone proposed and tested a rigorous explanation as to why this does anything? Released gases? Absorbed gases? Anything? The testing part is the most important to my mind.

- Can someone point me to any before-and-after spectroscopic studies, if there are any, on dynamized water? I’m thinking some type of mass spec and/or Raman spectroscopy to try to identify chemical and physical changes. But anything.
 
Why not start with, are compelling wines being made using this process? And go from there. Turns out yes, compelling wines are being made. What might that indicate?
 
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
Why not start with, are compelling wines being made using this process? And go from there. Turns out yes, compelling wines are being made. What might that indicate?
Click to expand...

That indicates nothing. There are plenty of other reasons why biodynamic growers often make very good wine. Dynamizing water is on the same level as potentiation in homeopathy, it is complete nonsense.
 
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
Why not start with, are compelling wines being made using this process? And go from there. Turns out yes, compelling wines are being made. What might that indicate?
Click to expand...

I’m not criticizing the quality of many BD wines or the other possible beneficial outcomes of working in BD in general. My questions are laser-focused on dynamizing water.

Trying to focus on the science here is not that different an inquiry in a different context to the question of Burgundy geology and its possible effect on wines. I listened just yesterday to your IDTT with Francoise Vannier, a fine piece of work btw, and I’m bringing the same scientific curiosity and desire to try to understand cause and effect here. I don’t have an anti-BD agenda, and I have been critical publicly of those who would throw out the baby with the bath water because, e.g., Steiner was a pretty despicable person or what not.
 
Let me add some context to my post. From a physics and physical chemistry perspective, there is no chance to couple rotation under gravity as used in dynamizing water to the rotational, vibrational, and electronic degrees of freedom of the water molecules or anything suspended or dissolved in the water. I also see no scientific reason to believe stirring the water has any different effect on dissolved CO2 or oxygen than pouring the water into the vessel in the first instance and letting the ensemble come to equilibrium over a couple minutes. Like when you fill a glass with tap water and certain dissolved gases come out of the liquid and the air from the room equilibrates with the liquid bulk.

That’s basically the perspective I bring in trying to understand if I’m missing something regarding what stirring the water could possibly do.
 
It would appear to be the same old story here: people who don’t make wine say it couldn’t possibly work, while the people who make wine are indicating it works just great for them.

And to Georg’s comment, actually it does indicate something, it indicates that dynamizing water and compelling wine are not mutually exclusive. Dynzamizing water isn’t making the wine worse,

But I’m in no mood to argue, you carry on and I’ll content myself to drinking those compelling wines. You folks can have all your fun here without me.
 
I’m not sure why engaging is not more interesting than not. Almost everyone here thoroughly enjoys many BD wines. There are also winemakers on this board. And scientists. (And reformed scientists like me.) As on other boards. They in principle could provide real insight. So the questions are asked.

There are some interesting thoughts on the other Board that it may turn out that well water that was traditionally used for vineyard preps have (had?) a high percentage of methane and VOCs and stirring may have increased the degassing rate. There is also a belief it increases oxygenation although, if true, it would have to be oxygenation at the time of use that is useful, not at the time one stops stirring. These ideas could be tested empirically on site. No one at the other Board yet identified any empirical studies. To see for a particular site, depending on the water used there, whether there are benefits of dynamizing.

I think it would be more interesting to know if something has practical value than to spend the time and effort do this BD step for ritual sake.
 
i find it interesting and a little puzzling that the dynamizing of water is singled out for this discussion. for instance, planting a cow's horn filled with dung in the corner of the vineyard when the moon is wherever it's supposed to be seems to be just as scientifically suspect/baffling.

many (most?) of the practices of biodynamics fly in the face of what can be demonstrated in a test tube.

and yet vignerons that adopt biodymanics find an improvement in the wines they grow.

go figure.
 
originally posted by robert ames:
i find it interesting and a little puzzling that the dynamizing of water is singled out for this discussion. for instance, planting a cow's horn filled with dung in the corner of the vineyard when the moon is wherever it's supposed to be seems to be just as scientifically suspect/baffling.

many (most?) of the practices of biodynamics fly in the face of what can be demonstrated in a test tube.

and yet vignerons that adopt biodymanics find an improvement in the wines they grow.

go figure.
Click to expand...

Not every discussion has to be about everything.

If they get some good fertilizer out of their cow horn practice and it helps with plant and soil health, and even biodiversity, compared to possible alternative practices, it doesn’t bother me that it’s hard to understand why the cow horn or the moon timing make a difference. It’s another topic.

Dynamizing the water doesn’t bother me either. I’m just interested in whether at the end you get water that’s any different or more useful that what you started with and if so, why.
 
I can't speak for Jayson, but I might single out dynamizing of water because it might indeed have an influence, whereas as other biodynamic practices are obviously hooey. Given that the science of biodynamics is science fiction, that fact, which Levi adduces that, nevertheless, many biodynamic winemakers make very good wine does raise the question of which practices or consequences of such practices are beneficial. Just as Levi's logic--the wine is good, therefore every practice that produces it is good--is obviously flawed, the reverse logic--the theory is bad, therefore every practice the theory recommends is bad--is also flawed in the same way.
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by robert ames:
i find it interesting and a little puzzling that the dynamizing of water is singled out for this discussion. for instance, planting a cow's horn filled with dung in the corner of the vineyard when the moon is wherever it's supposed to be seems to be just as scientifically suspect/baffling.

many (most?) of the practices of biodynamics fly in the face of what can be demonstrated in a test tube.

and yet vignerons that adopt biodymanics find an improvement in the wines they grow.

go figure.
Click to expand...

Not every discussion has to be about everything.

If they get some good fertilizer out of their cow horn practice and it helps with plant and soil health, and even biodiversity, compared to possible alternative practices, it doesn’t bother me that it’s hard to understand why the cow horn or the moon timing make a difference. It’s another topic.

Dynamizing the water doesn’t bother me either. I’m just interested in whether at the end you get water that’s any different or more useful that what you started with and if so, why.
Click to expand...

a dung filled cow horn in the corner of even a 1 acre vineyard is not going to fertilize or increase the biodiversity the vineyard. it may, at most, affect the vines that it is nearest to.
 
Biodynamic agriculture is an esoteric system of thinking.
Science is not needed, and not used, at least in the original texts.
All attempts for finding a scientific justification to any of its aspect are from non-believers, and won't find any kind of audience among biodynamists...

Dynamization of water is based on an old peasant knowledgde, very easy to prove by simple and reproductible experiences : running water is always better/more efficient than "dead" water when it comes to its use in a frugal agricultural system.
There are tons of very ancient examples where running water was brought near sites where dead water was vastly available (swamps, underground fossile water,...), at the cost of huge efforts. The only rationnal explanation is always that running water gave better results in terms of irrigation, soil microbiology, and other agricultural aspects.

You can also find very old dynamisation systems in dry climate places (spain, provence) where the topologic configuration allowed accumulation of winter water a little bit higher than the cultivated land, with an artificial complex creek that brought the water on demand to the fields.

According to my experience and various experiments, the effect is 100% real.
And you know that I am as far from biodynamics as one can be.
 
I won't go into an argument about either believing that identical causes will have identical effects (the basic claim of natural sciences) or not being able to make any coherent statements about how doing one thing will lead to another. It is at least not the case that biodyanism does not see itself as having nothing to do with science. Here are the introductory sentences of the Biodynamic Association's web page:

Biodynamics is rooted in the work of philosopher and scientist Dr. Rudolf Steiner, whose 1924 lectures to farmers opened a new way to integrate scientific understanding with a recognition of spirit in nature. Biodynamics has continued to develop and evolve since the 1920s through the collaboration of many farmers and researchers.
 
originally posted by Brézème:
Biodynamic agriculture is an esoteric system of thinking.
Science is not needed, and not used, at least in the original texts.
All attempts for finding a scientific justification to any of its aspect are from non-believers, and won't find any kind of audience among biodynamists...

Dynamization of water is based on an old peasant knowledgde, very easy to prove by simple and reproductible experiences : running water is always better/more efficient than "dead" water when it comes to its use in a frugal agricultural system.
There are tons of very ancient examples where running water was brought near sites where dead water was vastly available (swamps, underground fossile water,...), at the cost of huge efforts. The only rationnal explanation is always that running water gave better results in terms of irrigation, soil microbiology, and other agricultural aspects.

You can also find very old dynamisation systems in dry climate places (spain, provence) where the topologic configuration allowed accumulation of winter water a little bit higher than the cultivated land, with an artificial complex creek that brought the water on demand to the fields.

According to my experience and various experiments, the effect is 100% real.
And you know that I am as far from biodynamics as one can be.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Eric. Would love to hear about your experiments. But maybe that’s better over a bottle of wine.
 
Historically, I can understand the preference for running water as it was less likely to contain pathogens (though Giardia is now found even in high mountain streams in the Sierras and Rockies). Beyond that, it also will be more highly oxygenated. Jayson, keep in mind that there are kinetic barriers to interfacial transport phenomena. So, even 20 min after agitation, water will still have more oxygen dissolved in it than water that has sat undisturbed. This is why wine placed into a decanter with laminar flow will “slow oxygenate” as opposed to wine that’s been given the Mollydooker shake.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
Historically, I can understand the preference for running water as it was less likely to contain pathogens (though Giardia is now found even in high mountain streams in the Sierras and Rockies). Beyond that, it also will be more highly oxygenated. Jayson, keep in mind that there are kinetic barriers to interfacial transport phenomena. So, even 20 min after agitation, water will still have more oxygen dissolved in it than water that has sat undisturbed. This is why wine placed into a decanter with laminar flow will “slow oxygenate” as opposed to wine that’s been given the Mollydooker shake.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

I understand all that for watering purposes. But the water dynamization in biodynamics is used for a small amount of water (typically already running water) in the preparation of the different preps that are then sprayed. Same principle more or less as in the “potentiation” by diluation and shaking in homeopathy. And there is neither science nor old wisdom that supports either to have any effect.
 
Perhaps a bit of Walt Whitman might be helpful.

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,

When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,

When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,

When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,

How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,

Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,

In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,

Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
 
originally posted by Brad Widelock:
Perhaps a bit of Walt Whitman might be helpful.

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,

When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,

When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,

When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,

How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,

Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,

In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,

Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
Click to expand...

It sounds dreamy. But Walt Whitman wasn’t a scientist. His curiosities and genius lay elsewhere.

Also no one is thinking about dynamizing water or cow horns with dung when floored by the genius of a BD Huet Vouvray.

Whitman might have been surprised that the learned astronomer would probably have stood by him in silence and awe as well.

The two realms are not mutually exclusive unless you make them so.
 
It seems to me there are four parts to this system:
1. the running water
2. things dissolved in the running water that are not found in dead water
3. things dissolved in dead water that are not found in the running water
4. the vigneron

Hypotheses:
1. As I understand the science of chemistry, nothing interesting is happening to the water molecules. They're being pushed around, acquiring and losing a teeny bit of heat maybe. But we're not increasing the percentage of heavy water, we're not ionizing anything, etc.

2. Could there be additional dissolved atmospheric gasses (O2 and N2)? Maybe. Could there be additional dissolved minerals, after long travel over a rocky stream bed? Maybe.

3. Could other dissolved or suspended matter have been removed by travel over rocks and the greenery/brownery clinging to them? Maybe. Could additional exposure to sunlight have degraded other carried-along material? Maybe.

4. Is stirring required or is it sufficient that the vigneron is told that the stirring was done? Is the stress level of the vigneron significantly different after dynamization? Is the work of a vigneron who has prepped himself for an hour superior to that of one who immediately slings the tea?

You and I could do this all day.
---

In a quick search, I found very little hard data. This woman, Dr. Ingham, appears credible as a scientist. Here (pdf) is an article with some data in it. She says the experiments all need to be redone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top