Biodynamics is a Hoax

originally posted by scottreiner:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
the conversion was for convenience
Click to expand...

i don't understand this, in what way can biodynamic agriculture be considered 'convenient'?
Click to expand...

Just guessing here, but I would assume one regime is easier to maintain for the entire property than two or more.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
a lot of practitioners of biodynamics happen to make stupendous wines, including the best in the world (DRC).
Click to expand...
For the moment, DRC is not the best example to cite. Although there have been small experiments for some time, the complete conversion is only very recent and Aubert de Villaine may have given conflicting explanations about whether the conversion was for convenience or out of belief that biodynamie gives superior wine (i.e., his explanation to me doesn't match what I've read elsewhere).
Click to expand...
That's exactly why DRC is the *perfect* example for the point I was making, that their conversion to biodynamics is completely incidental to the fact that they make stupendous wines.

Oswaldo's theory makes a lot of sense to me.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
All those horns that were taking up space in the garage...
Click to expand...
Dancing naked in the vineyard with Florida Jim sounds all romantic until you consider how much it's rained in France this year.
 
I agree with Christian, but there is some scientific basis for thinking that the biodynamic approach may have substance. The soil nutrient cycle for nitrogen, often the growth-limiting nutrient, is complicated but, as I've heard it explained, largely dependent on microbial activity. If you are taking nitrogen out of the vineyard ecosystem every year, by virtue of removing the fruit, nitrogen must be replaced into the system in a form that the vines can use, in order to sustain the system's productivity. Nitrogen returned to the local soil in the form of organic matter (leaves, branches) must go through, I think, a couple of microbial decomposition cycles before the plants can use it again. To maintain soil nitrogen at a desired level in a vineyard, where you can't plant to nitrogen-fixers every so often, you must recharge the soil with nitrogen annually. One way of doing so is to apply fertilizer; and alternative would be to support a robust level of soil microbe activity and add modest amounts of organic material. BD makes sense as an example of the latter approach.

As to the mysticism, important social and economic processes in non-literate societies, where they can't be written down, are often propagated through rituals that, in turn, are linked mystically to the 'powers' controlling the world at large. Perhaps Steiner borrowed some of his technique from a tradition like this; perhaps his cosmology prescribed linking the process to the supernatural regardless of tradition. The mysticism, in either case, is not critical to the everyday cause-and-effect of the technique.

This amateur explanation falls short of the whole truth in many ways, but I think it is reasonable in outline and helps a bit to make sense out of BD.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I agree with Christian, but there is some scientific basis for thinking that the biodynamic approach may have a substantive basis. The soil nutrient cycle for nitrogen, often the growth-limiting nutrient, is complicated but, as I've heard it explained, largely dependent on microbial activity. If you are taking nitrogen out of the vineyard ecosystem every year, by virtue of removing the fruit, nitrogen must be replaced into the system in a form that the vines can use, in order to sustain the system's productivity. Nitrogen returned to the local soil in the form of organic matter (leaves, branches) must go through, I think, a couple of microbial decomposition cycles before the plants can use it again. To maintain soil nitrogen at a desired level in a vineyard, where you can't plant to nitrogen-fixers every so often, you must recharge the soil with nitrogen annually. One way of doing so is to apply fertilizer; and alternative would be to support a robust level of soil microbe activity and add modest amounts of organic material. BD makes sense as an example of the latter approach.

As to the mysticism, important social and economic processes in non-literate societies, where they can't be written down, are often propagated through rituals that, in turn, are linked mystically to the 'powers' controlling the world at large. Perhaps Steiner borrowed some of his technique from a tradition like this; perhaps his cosmology prescribed linking the process to the supernatural regardless of tradition. The mysticism, in either case, is not critical to the everyday cause-and-effect of the technique.

This amateur explanation falls short of the whole truth in many ways, but I think it is reasonable in outline and helps a bit to make sense out of BD.
Click to expand...

Well said, Ian. From what I've read (mostly here BTW) from BD vignerons, the effects of BD are mostly evident in the soil. The restoration of good soil ecology could have a significant impact on the fruit produced. Specifically, the use of certain cover crops provides the rhizomes needed for nitrogen fixation, which in turn gets to Jeff's point about soil depletion. I'm not familiar enough with all of Steiner's BD precepts to comment further, but certainly there seems to be something to BD practices given the significant number of wines from BD producers that I find so appealing.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by scottreiner:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
the conversion was for convenience
Click to expand...

i don't understand this, in what way can biodynamic agriculture be considered 'convenient'?
Click to expand...
It was more expensive to run the estate part in biodynamie/part not than it was to run it all in biodynamie.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
a lot of practitioners of biodynamics happen to make stupendous wines, including the best in the world (DRC).
Click to expand...
For the moment, DRC is not the best example to cite. Although there have been small experiments for some time, the complete conversion is only very recent and Aubert de Villaine may have given conflicting explanations about whether the conversion was for convenience or out of belief that biodynamie gives superior wine (i.e., his explanation to me doesn't match what I've read elsewhere).
Click to expand...
That's exactly why DRC is the *perfect* example for the point I was making, that their conversion to biodynamics is completely incidental to the fact that they make stupendous wines.

Oswaldo's theory makes a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...

SO Keith do you agee with this guy ?

"The vineyard everyone knows I partially own has been BIO for a number of years...it was a life style choice my brother-in-law made as he is first and foremost a farmer,and I supported him 100%...does it make better wine?...I really don't think so...there is absolutely no proof of higher quality..while I think wineries should never shy away from admitting they adhere to bio principles... promoting the results as a better, more natural expression of terroir...is BS......"

Ehm... Yes it's on organic viticulture but could apply to bio as well...
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
a lot of practitioners of biodynamics happen to make stupendous wines, including the best in the world (DRC).
Click to expand...
For the moment, DRC is not the best example to cite. Although there have been small experiments for some time, the complete conversion is only very recent and Aubert de Villaine may have given conflicting explanations about whether the conversion was for convenience or out of belief that biodynamie gives superior wine (i.e., his explanation to me doesn't match what I've read elsewhere).
Click to expand...
That's exactly why DRC is the *perfect* example for the point I was making, that their conversion to biodynamics is completely incidental to the fact that they make stupendous wines.

Oswaldo's theory makes a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...
If that's what you were intending to say, then I don't follow your logic. Since DRC hasn't released any wine made entirely by BD, how do you know that BD wines from them won't be even better than the wines that they were producing before (as seems to be the case, based on early returns, with d'Angerville, for example)? Admittedly, Aubert de Villaine repeatedly told me that he saw little difference between the BD and non-BD (but organic with working of the soils) plots, but some are reporting that the Domaine converted entirely to BD because it believed that BD was superior (and which, as I reported above, is not what he told me).
 
Claude, what I said (see above) was that if it weren't well-known that certain highly reputed producers like DRC practiced biodynamics, none of us would doubt for a minute that BD is full of BS. Whether wines made by DRC under "full BD" turn out better than the ones they made under "partial BD" is completely irrelevant to that point.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Claude, what I said (see above) was that if it weren't well-known that certain highly reputed producers like DRC practiced biodynamics, none of us would doubt for a minute that BD is full of BS. Whether wines made by DRC under "full BD" turn out better than the ones they made under "partial BD" is completely irrelevant to that point.
Click to expand...

You're not making yourself very clear, Keith. Here's what you said, originally:

A lot of Steiner's statements are self-evidently bullshit and there really can't be any serious debate about that. The examples on the blog are good but I'm pretty sure I've seen others that are even worse. The only reason anyone is willing to indulge them at all is because a lot of practitioners of biodynamics happen to make stupendous wines, including the best in the world (DRC). So, there is probably some truth to biodynamics, but that doesn't mean that there isn't also a lot of bullshit. Sometimes it's rational to indulge the bullshit to get at the truth, but bullshit it remains.
Click to expand...
It's curious to me that you pull out DRC for the reason that anyone is willing to "indulge" the statements of Steiner, and you say that it's only because DRC produces high quality wines that people give credence to Steiner's statements. Since DRC just converted to BD completely and it is not even all that widely known that they have converted, and Aubert de Villaine is not a supporter of Steiner's statements based on discussions I've had with him, what is the purpose of choosing DRC? Why not choose Leroy, which is the Domaine that gave wide publicity to BD and has been following the practice for about 20 years (and where Mme Bize-Leroy seems to be somewhat more orthodox in her belief in Steiner -- although I'm not sure that she is as far along as Nicolas Joly)? Choosing DRC leads to the inference, even if not the inevitable implication, that it is only recently (i.e., since DRC converted) that anyone gave credence to Steiner's statements -- and yet, I think most BD practitioners with whom I've discussed the matter don't give those statements such credence; they're empiricists, not ideologues. As for those who do subscribe to Steiner's statements, most did so long before DRC converted to BD. Thus, because the DRC conversion is recent, may not even be anything other than for convenience, and is not all that well-known, it doesn't seem to be relevant and or influential in the way that you seem to want to use it.
 
Certainly, no inference was made that it is *only* DRC causing people to indulge Steiner's beliefs. Obviously, Leroy would also have made a good example.

I think it is well-known (among people who care about such things) that DRC has been practicing biodynamics, but if this is not the case then you are correct that there was no reason to mention them.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

I think it is well-known (among people who care about such things) that DRC has been practicing biodynamics, but if this is not the case then you are correct that there was no reason to mention them.
Click to expand...
As I stated above, they had small parts of a few vineyards experimentally in BD, but Aubert repeatedly told me over many years that he saw little difference between BD and non-BD (but organic with working the soil). Full conversion was only a few years ago, and as I've also indicated, may have been half-hearted. The fact that Parker, among others, repeatedly said that DRC was in BD for many years is just another instance of his sloppiness with facts.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

I think it is well-known (among people who care about such things) that DRC has been practicing biodynamics, but if this is not the case then you are correct that there was no reason to mention them.
Click to expand...
As I stated above, they had small parts of a few vineyards experimentally in BD, but Aubert repeatedly told me over many years that he saw little difference between BD and non-BD (but organic with working the soil). Full conversion was only a few years ago, and as I've also indicated, may have been half-hearted. The fact that Parker, among others, repeatedly said that DRC was in BD for many years is just another instance of his sloppiness with facts.
Click to expand...

But if Parker has repeatedly said DRC was bio, even if he was wrong, this is enough to warrant, if not precisely Keith's original claim that because DRC made bio wines and they were great, people believe in it, at least the spirit of it, because people believe DRC wines to be bio and they are great, therefore they believe in it. Although I hardly think DRC would deserve singling out, even if they were a good example--too many other famous places poster their adherence to it (to be fair, Keith said, among others)--citing their example redounds to Parker's inaccuracy rather than Keith's choice of it.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I agree with Christian, but there is some scientific basis for thinking that the biodynamic approach may have substance.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the same thing as saying that the bit that's based in science and has a rational explanation works, and the bit that's based on the phase of the moon, alignment of the planets, monkey dances and whatever other strangeness involved is probably not harmful but irrelevant to making good wine?

So the scientific approach still works, and we're still safe from voodoo curses.

That doesn't mean that all of the wacky stuff is useless, but if it's useful we just may not yet understand the rational reason it works. I'm willing to believe if the real evidence is there, though it would be difficult to set up good controlled trials of biodynamic vs. organic vs. conventional.

John
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

I think it is well-known (among people who care about such things) that DRC has been practicing biodynamics, but if this is not the case then you are correct that there was no reason to mention them.
Click to expand...
As I stated above, they had small parts of a few vineyards experimentally in BD, but Aubert repeatedly told me over many years that he saw little difference between BD and non-BD (but organic with working the soil). Full conversion was only a few years ago, and as I've also indicated, may have been half-hearted. The fact that Parker, among others, repeatedly said that DRC was in BD for many years is just another instance of his sloppiness with facts.
Click to expand...

But if Parker has repeatedly said DRC was bio, even if he was wrong, this is enough to warrant, if not precisely Keith's original claim that because DRC made bio wines and they were great, people believe in it, at least the spirit of it, because people believe DRC wines to be bio and they are great, therefore they believe in it. Although I hardly think DRC would deserve singling out, even if they were a good example--too many other famous places poster their adherence to it (to be fair, Keith said, among others)--citing their example redounds to Parker's inaccuracy rather than Keith's choice of it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that I agree with your reasoning, Jonathan, but it is irrelevant. Parker repeatedly said it, but not going back that long, AFAIK. I realize that there is an ambiguity in my phrasing: "many years" is meant to modify "was in BD" and not "Parker, among others, said."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top