In modern times, for people on the ground in places like Burgundy, what water is typically used to make BD vineyard preps?
The methanes and VOCs are an interesting point. These are questions that could be answered empirically, site by site—whether it’s there and whether stirring helps increase the rate of degassing. I’d rather know what I’m doing is doing something real than just a a wasted effort.
Another issue is that even if stirring does somehow create what I would think would be a non-equilibrium concentration of oxygen as you describe (I’m not sure it does), it seems to me it would not take long to reach standard equilibrium once the stirring stops, erasing any oxygenating effect the stirring may have caused. So again there are empirical questions to ask and answer—the state of the water before and after stirring and at the time of use as to whether there is any different level of oxygen.
Until the work is done to show this is real, it’s guess work.
As someone who has stirred a fair amount an aspect folks overlook is how relaxing and focusing it is. And you have to get out and use the liquid right away. So from a standpoint where you’ve just gotten ready to do a specific task, and now you have just focused on doing it for an hour in a contemplative state… you are going to perform that work very well.
Here is another question. I was at a tour of Benziger Vineyards a number of years ago lead by Mike Benziger and Alan York (RIP).
Alan was explaining how BD prep 501 Horn Silica supercharged photosynthesis. With my botany background I was skeptical of his comment and asked him how this works if light saturation in plants is 35% of available light how this could increase the efficiency.
He changed the subject.
BTW Rudy Marchesi of Montinore was also on the tour and he didn’t say a word.
Montinore has over 200 acres of biodynamic vineyards
When I fill a pot or tea kettle with water for cooking, I always use the spray alternative on the faucet, not to oxygenate but to remove the chlorine. The chlorine smell in the air is noticeable. Maybe I am wasting time, but who knows?
BD while it’s a little witch-crafty, at the very least brings more harmony to the land. Its kind of an innocent attempt to better the land and feel good about it. The resulting wine doesn’t seem to be quantifiably better in my experiences, but I see nothing wrong in the BD approach. To each is their own…
I like Levi but my God is that “logic” tortured: biodynamic producers who stir water real fast for real long make good wines, ergo there must be something to it and you’re a lowly peasant for asking for some kind of evidence.
Much like the rest of biodynamic witchcraft, dynamizing water is bullshit. I’m firmly in Alan’s camp here; we live in a post-truth world where everyone insists on their right to their own realities, facts be damned. Truth matters, in issues big and small. And the truth is that stirring water does not meaningfully change its properties, in this realm or the next.
Eric was a scientist-engineer before he was a winemaker and grower. He states in that post that he thinks there is something to it based on his own experiments (not the voodoo), but I don’t know what those experiments are, and it’s not clear to me the mechanism. Surely it’s not pure water that is affected. So it might have something to do not only with VOCs and methane (those molecules seem to small to me to really be an issue) but maybe microbial/biological suspensions in unclean water sources. Maybe that are physically plastered to the sides of the vessel by stirring and so the water is relatively speaking lower in contaminants. I’m speculating here but again I keep an open mind as to possible mechanisms for some positive effect, especially if someone like Eric thinks there is.
follow Redhawke’s posts as he explains what is happening with the BioD preps. It is a long read to get through all of the explanations but interesting nonetheless. He addresses dynamizing at a point down the thread. Remember that these methods were not originally developed with vineyards in mind.
I’m trying not to be rude, but, like…of course running water is better than stagnant water for almost all applications (especially in previous eras of human existence) and there are scientific reasons for this. But water that comes from a tap - which is already filtered, has additives like chlorine, etc - is quite another thing.
OK, I just read Eric’s response over there. It’s more nonsense. Of course “running water” is better than stagnant swamp water. For one, it’s oxygenated, which still water is not (if deep enough). It also doesn’t have stagnant crud growing in it, molds, fungi, etc. There are easy explanations for why people pipe flowing water for various uses. That’s not “dynamizing”.
This desire to accept that which can’t be explained entirely because it can’t be explained is bizarre. That’s literally the definition of a conspiracy theory. More so because the “that” doesn’t even have any basis in what we know about the world, other than some words written down by a guy who literally made it up over a century ago.
I think it makes more sense if you think of it less as a scientifically-justified recipe where each step has been empirically validated, and more as a series of well-intentioned rituals that tend to correlate with good agricultural practices. And of course, like any human ritual, over time it evolves and loses the original justification and somebody imputes some post-hoc mysticism in its place.
You’re describing every conspiracy theory that has ever been created. And given the rise of baseless pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories in other areas of our lives, it is no longer acceptable to just roll your eyes at the ideas of biodynamics. It’s the kind of thing that opens the door to belief in more dangerous misinformation. I of course applaud the fact that growers are paying more attention to their vineyards, and practicing techniques that lead to better quality fruit. But it’s not the biodynamics part that’s doing it. It’s pretty obvious that people who adhere to it are doing diligent work in their vineyards, with good results (but then, so are thousands of non-BD producers, who make wine just as good, or better). So until now I’ve accepted that we have to listen to the Olivier Humbrechts of the world preach about it. And it seems harmless enough. But with the rise of so many more dangerous conspiracy theories, I can no longer sit by silently and let people preach nonsense like this. It just makes it easier for other, less benign, baseless conspiracies, particularly those scientifically related, to take hold and grow.
Say what you will, prepping and spraying BD preps is far fun more than doing the same with the normal witches brew of somewhat toxic chemicals being used.
Even industrial strength microbial sprays must be treated with special care, while wearing protective gear.
Of course, one could say the same about prepping and broadcasting plain water.
Anyone who has fiddled around with a DO meter for a while can tell you that chaotically stirred liquids will maintain a higher O2 saturation.
And Ben’s out-gassing of things like methane is also well established.
There really are few serious scientific studies done on the effects (if any) of BD practices.
[N.B.: Maybe there are some that have come around recently… I gave up looking for them a few years back.]
The scientific community doesn’t take BD seriously and BD doesn’t really feel the need to prove itself.
Several of the studies that claimed to look at differences between BD and, for instance, Organic farming turned up no appreciable differences. But the BDers just shrug that off.
I’ve seen a study or two claiming that some microbially active BD preps had amazingly high viable levels of microbes compared to standard composts. These studies didn’t seem all that scientifically rigorous, though.
I don’t know of any study lookin at dynamization.
I’d think that stirring tap water vigorously would probably be a good thing to do if you’re going to be using the water as part of a microbial medium.
Chlorine levels in water supplies can be pretty high.
Chlorine dissipates with time.
Increased surface area leads to a more rapid rate of dissipation.
A vigorous stirring of the type used in dynamization measurably increases the surface area of the liquid being stirred.
I don’t know how great an effect this might be, but I don’t think “does nothing” is a scientifically sound statement.