here's some great journalism
- Thread starter scottreiner
- Start date
Florida Jim
Florida Jim
Scott,
While of interest, not of much.
There does not seem to be much point to the article, other than to note that biodynamics is a marketing tool with perhaps a bit of inuendo that it may not be so grand.
It fails to take a stand on its validity and expresses no opinion as to its viability. And actually, doesn't really explain it in any detail.
FWIW, one of my friends is the person that supervises biodynamic farming in many Sonoma vineyards and, in particular, the Benzinger vineyards. A chat with her is somewhat more illuminating.
Best, Jim
While of interest, not of much.
There does not seem to be much point to the article, other than to note that biodynamics is a marketing tool with perhaps a bit of inuendo that it may not be so grand.
It fails to take a stand on its validity and expresses no opinion as to its viability. And actually, doesn't really explain it in any detail.
FWIW, one of my friends is the person that supervises biodynamic farming in many Sonoma vineyards and, in particular, the Benzinger vineyards. A chat with her is somewhat more illuminating.
Best, Jim
lars makie
lars makie
While I'm not Scott, I took the thread title as being tongue-in-cheek.
Florida Jim
Florida Jim
Lars,
Ah, one never knows.
Best, Jim
Ah, one never knows.
Best, Jim
scottreiner
scott reiner
very tongue in cheek!
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I'd say the article is pretty clear about where it stands on biodynamics. It doesn't much argue the point, thinking that the details it provides are self-evident. Since I agree with it on the science of biodynamics, I take the details as self-evident too. If I didn't agree, I would of course find them selective and tending toward the deceptive, I guess.
It seems to me that there are two distinct aspects to biodynamie, only one of which is covered in the article. The first aspect is that of the Steinerite pseudoscience in which it is rooted, and the author properly casts a jaundiced eye on it, while not taking Steiner and his beliefs on agricultural practice head on. A separate aspect of biodynamie is the effect that it has on winemaking, and there the author is silent. Regardless of what one thinks of the various practices of biodynamic agriculture, one has to confront the wines produced and whether there is any correlation between those practices and the characteristics of the wine produced. I'm not implying that I necessarily believe in biodynamie, but I have been struck by the large number of biodynamic wines that I like.
Mark Lipton
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
There are a lot of biodynamic wines I like too. I have wondered aloud on other boards whether that is not because biodynamic wines are of necessity organic.
I also know of biodynamic wines, like Chapoutier that do (or used to do according to Claude) enough things in the cellar to make pretty fairly spoofed wines. And other biodynamic wines that I don't know what they do but come out quite polished (not in a good way). And I've heard that domaine de Mordoree is talking of going biodynamic and Philip Cambie thinks it's nifty, which is enough to make me highly suspicious that it's becoming a fad.
georg lauer
georg lauer
I always had the suspicion that the main reason why a lot of biodynamic wines are very good (which actually is a recent phenomenon.....in Germany we had them for a while, and they used to be mostly awful) comes from the fact that it is associated with spending a lot of time in the vineyards and taking great care/showing lots of respect towards the vines and also the wine. It is also a lot of the top wineries that were always very good that have switched over.
If I had to bet whether it is the cow's horn or what is otherwise done (and equally important not done) in the vineyard, I would chose the latter. It is pretty easy to mock Steiner and his disciples, I grew up close to the center of the movement and had many a good laugh myself. But one can thus easily overlook the many ideas that are not vodoo and instead are pretty good practice. And in the end, the proof is in the bottle. Not only regarding wine. Every time I visit home and buy Demeter or Bioland dairy products I am shocked about the stuff we get in the US labeled organic (with very few exceptions).
If I had to bet whether it is the cow's horn or what is otherwise done (and equally important not done) in the vineyard, I would chose the latter. It is pretty easy to mock Steiner and his disciples, I grew up close to the center of the movement and had many a good laugh myself. But one can thus easily overlook the many ideas that are not vodoo and instead are pretty good practice. And in the end, the proof is in the bottle. Not only regarding wine. Every time I visit home and buy Demeter or Bioland dairy products I am shocked about the stuff we get in the US labeled organic (with very few exceptions).
Does BD have specific winemaking practices? Or do you mean carry over of observing BD practices to winecellar specific tasks?
I not convinced that BD is a "higher form" of organic practices. It is a specified regime, it has appeal to
people of certain beliefs. It has no monopoly on efficacy for producing the best possible wines.
What it does have is the strongest marketing potential by virtue of it being a defined regime. It is at this point, "branded". A deftly conceived and executed organic program by a talented producer has equal potential for results but is far less marketable.
lucertoran
lucertoran
I love that piece,it says that I don't talk to my wife(I just beat her!!!).It is by far my favorite part of the article.
At the time I suggested this gentleman to consult wine producer because I am not a farmer and therefore not in a position to give him the best info on the subject.
It is a delicate situation when you sell these type of wine because everybody think we are using the green bullshit argument to make a living.
This gentleman has no interest in any type of farming.
He only disagree(as I am) with the way Steiner was classifying human in different categories.I think his point was to make bad publicity on the subject,thinking that all people believing in bio are extremist.
The article doesn't bring any info except that I beat my wife.....BIOBRUISES is the way to go!!!
lucertoran
lucertoran
WRONG,WRONG,WRONG.....BALANCE,BALANCE,BALANCE.
Few producers did the test with organic and bio parcels and their conclusion was that bio brings improvement to the wine.
Shake,shake,shake your head and maybe like you previously said regarding volatile your ideas on the subject will disappear!!!!
Hank Beckmeyer
Hank Beckmeyer
There is no biodynamic winemaking. It is merely a system of farming.
Matteo Mollo
Matteo Mollo
wouldn't you say that bottling on fruit days, racking during the waning crescent of the moon, etc. qualify as following concepts of biodynamics as a part of the winemaking process?
Joel Stewart
Joel Stewart
According to some teenagers, Highway to Hell does not work against nature.
Hank Beckmeyer
Hank Beckmeyer
No. Biodynamics is about farming. The adaptation of certain biodynamic ideas into winemaking is just an attempt to move the concept into new areas. Some of the ideas may have some merit in the cellar, but it is not part of biodynamics.
The Wine Mule
Dave Erickson
I'm inclined to think that being biodynamic makes them better farmers. And winemakers. It's like an argument in defense of religion: If the main result is that it makes you a better person, then what does it matter that parts of it are not provable?
WTF? OMFG! CYAD.
Cmon Luc, there's a place for passion but could you specify what I said that you can prove is wrong?
Jeez my man, the subjective anecdotal evidence you offer proves almost nothing.
As to the volatility of VA and whether low levels can blow off, I was not prepared to argue about it on scientific grounds, which is different from being right or wrong. I deferred to those who claimed
expertise. I have seen threads on forums of chemists arguing the fine points, it wasn't black and white.
It matters because it enables and perpetuates a possible fallacy. On one level that's harmless, but
allowing fallacies to stand, in the end, is usually not harmless.