Biodynamics may be a hoax, but many of the outcomes are positives…and seems better than extreme chemical farming to me. Reminds me of christianity- I don’t believe in it either, but it is generally a good thing when people live by christian ideals… except the zealots of course…
eh… I’m mostly in Lyle’s camp. Anyone who starts a site that’s bent on debunking one thing and is so negative in tone tends to be uninteresting. As several of you have stated already, BD in its strict form isn’t close to rational and mostly BS, but the care that people put forth if they adopt some BD principles is likely reflected throughout their winemaking and I can’t see a downside of that.
I remember a story someone on eBob told years ago about planting some vegetables. His neighbor swore by planting by the moon… which seemed irrational. So he planted when he wanted to and things like soil temp were in the range needed. She planted as she always had… and her vegetables were fine, his were ravaged by bugs and didn’t do well. The plots were right next to one another. Is there a scientific explanation? Of course. Did she know it? Of course not. But she knew what worked and that was what mattered.
Other fields have this as well. High end audio long ago ventured down this path. The mainstream mags measured everything (google Julian Hirsch sometime… ) and at one point they crowed that vendors had finally gotten harmonic distortion so low it was inaudible! yay!!! Except those components had a hard, bright edge when listend to - turns out a different kind of distortion was happening as a result of the techniques used to conquer the harmonic distortion everyone had been focused on. Even now we don’t really have a good idea of why some combinations of components produce a very open, 3D soundstage and, within that, performers who seem to BE there while others don’t. In wine terms… what produces complexity? Why do some wines have intense, bewitching noses while others are simply fruit?
Well, Columbus “believed” he was sailing to India.
Of course, one main difference between organized religion and BD is that BD never hurt anyone.
That seems like a perfect use for this word if you think that a) there is no correlation between this theory and the production of good wine and b) people are making significant money from selling BioD products to wine growers.
If you think the opposite I can understand it’s a tough pill to swallow.
Where did I link religion to ecosystems? I talked about treatments to the soils that help create biodiversity. That’s science. Not loonyism.
Then you could call religion a hoax and politics. I believe that is is not a conspiracy. That’s what a hoax is, an elaborate conspiracy. It’s the improper use of the word. Is Judaism a hoax? Is Islam a hoax? Same thing…
Not unless you are asserting that the people pushing BD don’t believe in its advantages. By the quoted definition it’s not possible for people who believe in something to perpetrate a hoax. It may be provably wrong, but hoax goes to the intentions of the proponents not the accuracy of their claims.
Sounds like Brother Fleming…
This is great!How can you argue with such reasonable and cogent yet wonderfully moldy solipsisms?
Reminds me of Zeno’s Law…
You know, I had a parenthetical comment to that effect, but wasn’t sure.
And to what advantage? Biodynamics costs a shit ton of money, impossible to get certified and is a pain in the ass to do.
Sorry to debunk the fantasy, but there is no mention of any “midnight cow horn’s burial” in Steiner’s Agriculture Course, nor in the Demeter standards, nor in the peer-reviewed papers.
I’m highly skeptical of the mystical theory of Steiner but sympathetic to winemakers who pick and choose some of biodynamics’ techniques.
It reminds me a bit of Freud and classical psychoanalysis: He was on to something, but you don’t need to take the more baroque parts of the theory (the Death Wish, Oedipal complex or penis envy) too seriously. And, from the other angle, it’s easy to attack the approach based on the wilder theoretical embellishments, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t something at the core that’s useful and insightful.
So, back to wine, I say, spare me the rams horns but feel free to farm your vineyards organically.
Help me with this, Brigitte (I’m a lawyer, not a farmer). The Demeter production standards talks about the buried manure in cow horn preparation (see appendix 10 of the attached), but doesn’t mention midnight burial.
I’m in no way claiming science gives all the answers. Science is reductionist, in contrast to mythologies like BioD that strive to be holistic. Very few complex systems can be broken down to the point that they are tractable to science. But those that can be are understood quite well.
This is where the problems crop up. If BioD makes assertions that disagree with well-founded science, that is a major problem. There may well be elements of the holistic approach that get results, though. That does not excuse the propagation of pseudo-science that conflicts with real science.
With respect to wine, there simply isn’t a way to build a great wine piece by piece. Wine is too complex. But there are certain parts of its craft that are greatly assisted by scientific insight, especially the chemistry of wine. A winemaker may still do certain things based on experience because it gets a desired result. The proof is in the pudding. But if he says he is adding tartaric acid to lower the acidity of his wine, then that is a problem.
Isn’t that akin to saying that because Steiner had some loony ideas that many of the principles of biodynamics are therefore also loony?
Re: gardening, this is BioD in a nutshell. They do something that gets a result. There are any number of reasons why timing makes a difference. Where it goes too far is the creation of explanations for a phenomena. The whole sensitive crystallization garbage I highlighted earlier is a prime example. Do different wines have different crystal patterns? Sure. Can you make claims about their composition just based on morphology? No, you must do systematic, reproducible studies first.
Re: audio, this sounds analogous to the use of pesticides. One problem solved, but others are created. This is reductionist thinking in a nutshell. Some systems are too complicated to easily parse. But that does not mean that there aren’t systems that we can understand completely.
I’m skeptical of some of the various wine-making “movements,” and find some of their supporters really frustrating. But this sort of tact is what frustrates me, and that goes both ways.
I really don’t see a need to protect consumers here - if someone wants to make wine, or buy wine, or even pay more to make or by wine because it’s biodynamic, or organic, or natural, that’s really their prerogative.
I get pushing back when supporters of some style or critics of another go all blowhard in a blog or on a bulletin board, but dedicating a chunk of time to debunking a fairly harmless niche wine making philosophy seems an odd use of time.
As I like talking about wine a lot, I don’t like anything that’s I’m right, you’re wrong. Detracts from the conversation. Live and let drink.
Yes David: there is indeed NO “midnight burial.” Actually there is no midnight practice of any sort at all! Biodynamists are farmers, and farmers usually sleep at night… 
Yes. But I have not seen anyone come close to understanding winemaking completely. Or the natural world.