Biodynamics is a Hoax

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I'm not a biologist and I'm willing to cede to experimental results (preferably with a link so I can read them), but I remember a claim like yours about soil being fairly vigorously contested on a thread on the erstwhile version of the Parker board (with links to accounts of experiments).
Click to expand...

Just to be clear: my claim is only that some aspects of BD are not completely inconsistent with currently accepted scientific knowledge, and in some cases it is possible to posit scientifically accepted mechanisms when pondering the issue of whether any parts of BD work, and why they might work.
The experimental data surrounding BD is pretty unimpressive... the bulk of that work seems to suggest no real difference based on BD-inspired practices, though some studies claim to show slight differences.

The level of discussion on the thread, as I said above, referred to post hoc ergo proper hoc statements, especially at the level of, it produces good wines so there must be something to it, or even, I use it and it works. And my point was, and remains, that with post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, one can prove a lot of things.
Click to expand...

True.
One can prove, for instance, that high density plantings work. Or that very low yields work. Or that selection massale works. Etc, etc, etc.
A question for you, though.... for a recent vintage of Leflaive's Pucelles (as a for instance), do you think the wine would taste exactly the same if the grapes were not farmed biodynamically?

Regards,
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Re: BD, I don't think I know what I'm talking about all that well, Jonathan, but, with due respect, I don't believe you do, either. Have you done any BD farming yourself?
Click to expand...

If doing farming is the best way to evaluate the science of biodynamics, I'm out of business. By any normal protocols of scientific experiment, it's not. I am certainly not an expert. I have started such threads a number of times, and people on these boards who do have scientific degrees have answered, with links to papers published in reputable outlets that do detail things that look like experiments and I read them, out of curiosity. I'm still happy to be contradicted by people with accounts of experiments. And I will, even in those circumstances, still express curiosity as to how they propose, according to surrounding regularities of quantities needed to have effects and of the physics of lunar influence, to account for what the experiments seem to show. You don't have to be an expert in a field to evaluate evidence laid out before you by those who are.

No defense of biodynamics on this thread couldn't be offered, pari passu, for the tooth fairy.
Click to expand...
WTF does the Tooth Fairy and Biodynamics have to do with trading financial instruments?
 
I haven't read Steiner. I tried to read Joly but he makes me see red. And listening to the guy always makes me wish I'd brought an IED to the party.

Anything involving homeopathy is hooey.

Astrology is hooey.

I'm not sure exactly what the claim would be that the experiment would test.

So I for one can't be as definitive as you'd like, Jonathan. And I've spoiled enough dinner parties with this argument already.
 
originally posted by Bruce G.:
for a recent vintage of Leflaive's Pucelles (as a for instance), do you think the wine would taste exactly the same if the grapes were not farmed biodynamically?
Click to expand...

If I may offer an opinion... I think it's important to remember that there is a great difference between BD and conventional farming but the difference between BD and Organic is much less. Some Organic farmers have also practiced such things as planting and harvesting with cycles of the moon, so there even some further similarities there. I expect that had Pucelles been farmed in a skillful Organic way, the difference if there were any, might have only to do with shades of character not quality. I think there would be a discernible quality and character difference vs conventional.
 
originally posted by Ned Hoey:
originally posted by Bruce G.:
for a recent vintage of Leflaive's Pucelles (as a for instance), do you think the wine would taste exactly the same if the grapes were not farmed biodynamically?
Click to expand...

If I may offer an opinion... I think it's important to remember that there is a great difference between BD and conventional farming but the difference between BD and Organic is much less. Some Organic farmers have also practiced such things as planting and harvesting with cycles of the moon, so there even some further similarities there. I expect that had Pucelles been farmed in a skillful Organic way, the difference if there were any, might have only to do with shades of character not quality. I think there would be a discernible quality and character difference vs conventional.
Click to expand...
FWIW, Leflaive went to BD after doing experiments with conventional, organic, and BD and deciding after many blind tastings that the BD was the best.
 
That's a fake German Valhalla. The Vikings were really bad with trademark and copyright law (unless it involved soapy fish or crystallized cheese), and that's one of the unfortunate results. You'll note that by the time of ABBA, a-ha, Ace of Base, and Bjrk*, we've become a much more litigious lot.

*By 2050, bands whose names begin with "E" will be all the rage in Scandihoovia.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Ned Hoey:
originally posted by Bruce G.:
for a recent vintage of Leflaive's Pucelles (as a for instance), do you think the wine would taste exactly the same if the grapes were not farmed biodynamically?
Click to expand...

If I may offer an opinion... I think it's important to remember that there is a great difference between BD and conventional farming but the difference between BD and Organic is much less. Some Organic farmers have also practiced such things as planting and harvesting with cycles of the moon, so there even some further similarities there. I expect that had Pucelles been farmed in a skillful Organic way, the difference if there were any, might have only to do with shades of character not quality. I think there would be a discernible quality and character difference vs conventional.
Click to expand...
FWIW, Leflaive went to BD after doing experiments with conventional, organic, and BD and deciding after many blind tastings that the BD was the best.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is, what is that worth? Over how many vintages did their experimentation take place? One of the problems here is that there is really wide leeway in being organic, the prime directive being don't use synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, other than that do what you will. BD strictly adhered to is narrowly defined.

The real variables are pretty hard to control against. I don't know the specifics of what Leflaive did to conduct these experiments but I can think of plenty of ways that the variables become impossible to account for. Isn't it true that there can be differentiation in a parcel? Also that differentiation usually exists in the barrels produced from a parcel? My experience isn't sufficient to know whether producers are able to account for the barrel differences with reliable certainty. Can they? Then one might ask, do we even know on what kind of day the tastings were conducted? Leaf, flower root...
Do we simply take their word for it?
I pose these questions generally and not "at you" Claude, you're just the messenger.

When you consider how hair splitting evaluation can get in Burgundy and the extent to which uncontrolled variables are constantly present, I often wonder how anything of genuine accuracy is ever
arrived at. That is the main reason I think the BD debate is much like terroir debates, it will not be
conclusively proven to be superior to satisfy the skeptics. My personal view is that when it comes to the long term sustainability of a high quality of life for humans, deft symbiosis with nature is how that is achieved and that to me means not using synthetic concentrated substances in agriculture. Our infatuation with our short term solutions seems to always backfire on us over the long term.
 
Well Clark Smith himself chimed in on the blog and gave it a pretty devastating critique.
"I am disappointed in the smug, self-assured tone of this blog" he said.
Good stuff.
 
Wading in, after downing a couple beers (Pretty Things Jack d'Or bombers, no less) and watching the Celtics blow it, so I'll probably make even less sense than usual...

At what point does scientific inquiry, which I by no means dismiss out of hand, fall prey to reductio ad absurdum?

Much is made over Biodynamie being a "holistic" approach to agriculture.

I believe in the holistic.

I also think it's hooey.

Sure, it's easy to ascribe "well, it's the extra care taken that makes the difference" to the perceived improvement, and to question any marginal return over organic.

But what does holistic mean? I don't think it's all new-agey hocus-pocus, but I also wonder if we'll ever be able to isolate enough specific variables to "prove" a difference. I dunno- perhaps we'll have a biodynamic vigneron robot one day. Perhaps Benziger is as close as we need.

Biodynamics is ritual. Hooey, sure. But ritual is, by definition, designed to bring us closer to perfection- a communion of one's self with an eternal truth surrounding us.

Good wine is made by men and women with dirt under their fingernails. Who can tear up a clump of land in their vineyards and smell "home." Who get reminded of what rocks taste like, and what cowshit smells like, and who put in days and years of backbreaking labor and still think it's amazing that anyone would actually make a pilgrimage to their door.

Are we going to compare nasal swabs from Catherine and Luca? Gut flora from Willi and Arianna? Analyze the hospitality and generosity of Maria Teresa and Marc? See what we find in comparison to some of their less-esteemed neighbors?

Perhaps consideration of Joly and Steiner's more screwy ideas create enough neural rewiring that "art" is more readily achieved from "craft." Perhaps having enough humility to go bury a cowhorn makes for a more stable home life and higher subsequent productivity. Perhaps the homeopathy of the preparations have less to do with any effect on the vineyard and more to do with vignerons simply getting their hands dirty.

Sitting down to the table, breaking bread with friends, making more of a meal than simple sustenance- that's ritual, too. What data points will we pull out, and what will we measure? Calories, fat content, blood alcohol level? Life span, perceived "quality of life," cost of the meal?

But at what point do we cross into the intangible?

How do we quantify a laugh among old friends? The surprise of an unexpected flavor? The pleasure of familiarity and novelty as vintages change and bottles age?

How much better is a meal when I toss some salt over my shoulder after I spill it? If I take my Grandma's advice to always pass "to the left, to the left, to the left?" If the old Estonian superstition of whoever got the last drop of wine was the next to get pregnant was a secret shared between my wife and I, and was momentous when it shifted from my glass to hers?

Forget the meal, how much better am I?

Long live hooey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top