Biodynamics is a Hoax

originally posted by Claude Kolm:
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."
Click to expand...

His not having said it until recently does weaken my defense of Keith's claim, since it goes to how many people would be connecting DRC to bio. This, I guess, is ultimately an empirical question.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

His not having said it until recently does weaken my defense of Keith's claim, since it goes to how many people would be connecting DRC to bio. This, I guess, is ultimately an empirical question.
Click to expand...
For how long he has been saying it is directly related to how much diffusion it gets. More importantly, who listens to what Parker says about Burgundy? It's just not a factor, IMO - -it's out there and I used it just to illustrate Parker's sloppiness, about which I've had a grudge for a very long time because he gets so much (I'm talking facts, not opinion here) wrong.
 
I also think Oswaldo's viewpoint makes a lot of sense here, and it reminds me of the far more interesting and less dogmatic critique of certain biodynamic practices in this old article from World of Fine Wine that is still available online. There is also an extensive comment section with a long-winded but sometimes interesting debate.
One of the areas where these authors far outshine Mr. Smith is where they accept the superiority of organic over chemical-based agriculture as a basic starting point, and then seek to understand whether biodynamics can be seen as an improvement or not. As pointed out by Claude and others, Stu Smith, with his Davis background, doesn't necessarily feel this way, and I think that damages any critique he could make from the get-go.
 
I can't remember reading anything by Parker on DRC in recent years at all, except a few instances where he slammed some of their wines in his "Hedonist's Gazette." So I don't think Parker is much of a factor these days in whatever information people have about DRC or its farming/winemaking practices, except that he used to host a board where other people would discuss such things.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
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...
Click to expand...

Sure, but my impression from limited reading and interviews with biodynamic growers (please correct if wrong) is that many biodynamic treatments are prepared or applied in minute amounts or concentration, kind of homeopathic viticulture. Not quite the same as plowing in a ton of organic active compost.
 
originally posted by Filippo Mattia Ginanni:
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...
Click to expand...

Filippo, sounds like you're understanding bio to mean biodynamic but it means biologique (organic) in frog.
 
originally posted by John DeFiore:
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
Click to expand...

It's a way of understanding why the practice may be effective, irrespective of the mumbo jumbo parts, which, I surmise (not having read widely on the subject), are why some folk are inclined to regard BD as BS.

The 'wacky' stuff may be useful, perhaps practically as a scheduling technique, perhaps pschologically, by lending a gestalt of cosmic meaning to the body of practice, or by opening practitioner's consciousnesses to phenomena of the natural world that otherwise would be masked to them. Perhaps there's a real connection to the supernatural that's important, who knows? These are complicated topics, relative to the soil nutrient cycle for nitrogen. The latter offers by itself a relatively straightforward way to explain why BD agriculture may have a concrete effect on wine quality (not to mention the quality of other agricultural products).
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
The latter offers by itself a relatively straightforward way to explain why BD agriculture may have a concrete effect on wine quality ...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I follow you here.
 
BD is fairly easy to understand as a way of speeding up nutrient cycling, but less so as a way of, say, cosmically harmonizing the vineyard.
 
Okay, sorry. The former would be the parts of BD that I've heard called mystical or magical, as opposed those that straightforwardly contribute to the soil environment. I guess the classic allusion in this respect is burying the horn.

I haven't studied BD in any detail; this is my best shot at making sense of what I've heard by the way.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
No, I don't understand why BD would improve nitrogen cycling over organic farming.
Click to expand...

You spend some time each year with vignerons who practice BD. Why not ask someone like Catherine and Didier what benefits they think that they derive from the practice? They seem a rather clearheaded lot.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by SFJoe:
No, I don't understand why BD would improve nitrogen cycling over organic farming.
Click to expand...

You spend some time each year with vignerons who practice BD. Why not ask someone like Catherine and Didier what benefits they think that they derive from the practice? They seem a rather clearheaded lot.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

Specifying that we mean over and above what organic already gives...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top