Dynamizing Water For Biodynamic Viticulture

WINE TALK
41

For discussion sake, let’s say a conical vessel is filled with water having a higher concentration of oxygen than prior to non-laminar flow stirring (mixing).

Anyone know off-hand the rough time to reach premixing oxygen concentration in a conical vessel whose surface is exposed to 1 atm as a function of T, depth, radius, and initial elevated oxygen concentration? (I could probably figure it out if I dust off long unused skills, but I have a day job.) I wouldn’t think oxygen levels would stay higher very long and surely it will depend dramatically on how the water is handled next.

This doesn’t address btw whether water with higher concentration of oxygen, even for argument sake, is useful in vineyard preps and why. Is it? Why?

42

Yet it doesn’t explain how water gets “dynamized” by stirring it with a rotating motion for a certain amount of time / revolutions but not just chaotically stirring the water whichever way.

43

Agreed. Stirring at a constant or near constant rates at the speeds at issue creates largely laminar flow that does no mixing of air at the boundary.

If there is a benefit to having a higher oxygen concentration viticulturally, seems like there are much better ways to do it. Even simply and cost effectively. Like using a motor connected by a driveshaft to a mixing arm and cycling the current backward and forward with some driving current pattern.

44

To me, this all is simply an example of the power of magical thinking. As has already been pointed out, there can be positive benefits if one is engaged and focused upon something that you believe in, even if, in fact it is meaningless or useless (or even counter-productive). If you stood on one foot for 15 minutes every day while raising a given wine (and were equally focused on other aspects of the winemaking), and the wine turned out wonderfully, you might make yourself do this every year.

45

All this talk about dissipating chlorine… I would sure like to know how many vineyards are farming with municipal water. Frankly, I can’t think of a single one.

46

Is there something in Steiner’s rules saying tap water can’t be used for preparations?

47

I’m just passing on info, Otto. And proposing some ideas that might be useful to the discussion.
I’m not a practitioner of BD.

48

So microoxygenation of wine is an intervention but if you do it to water it’s OK? neener

49

“farming with municipal water” is a broad term.
Since the discussion is about BD, and the preps used in BD are often made in small batches even for larger vyds, I think it easy to imagine people doing so.

If by farming you mean everything from preparation of conventional pesticides through irrigation, the number would be much more limited.
In Japan I imagine there are at least several hundred growers who farm (in the broader sense) using only municipal water supplies. But average vyd size here is much smaller than where you are. And irrigation of anything beyond recently planted vines isn’t an issue given our annual growing season rainfalls.

50

In Japan they farm using municipal water supplies? To my understanding humidity is the biggest viticultural problem in Japan, so it sounds really weird if in Japan they’d need to use any water supplies in farming grapes. If anything, they’d wish for less water, I imagine!

51

Sounds about right.









[Couldn’t find the “sarcasm” emoji… If I had. I would have used it here.]

52

That’s what I intended with the neener emoji.

53

Conventional fungicide sprays are applied at a rate of between 2000 and 6000 liters per hectare in Japan.
At least if you’re using the poorly designed sprayers that are common here, and are spraying according to local ag extension guidelines.

That’s a decent amount of water.

And there is some limited irrigation. Young vines. Certain times of year when water stress is possible.

1 Like
54

I don’t think BD is dangerous. I think allowing one’s self to be duped into believing there is something real about a mystical, unscientific practice, invented by a guy decades ago (who also believed in some other pretty irrational stuff) is dangerous.

Cripes Alan. Next thing you’re going to do is tell us that the right glass doesn’t deliver wine to the precise part of your tongue where it will taste best. There’s a lot of stuff we don’t know. And just because something doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and is completely insane is no reason not to believe it.

Now I’m going to see what Gwyneth is selling on her website today.

2 Likes
55

Cripes, just add this stuff:

(Had to wade through pages of links to “Peter Popoff scam artist” before finding this)

56

I know I am just a stupid farmer from the old World, barely knowing what I am doing with my vineyards, but why the f…k would I need oxygen in the water I use for diluting sulfur before a spray against oidium???
Properly trained chemists could confirm, but I probably need the exact opposite to keep sulfur efficiency intact…
And, btw, some growers (even in the New World as far as I know) are paying a fortune to bring back micorhyzis and aerobic fungi in soils that have been over-weeded (chemicaly or/and mecanicaly) for years. I doubt stagnant water would be a threat for any plant or soil in terms of molds or fungi…

But again, you seem so much sharper than me on all these water related agricultural topics, that I am seriously thinking about watering my vineyards to enhance terroir expression and using deep fossile water for my sprays. Two smart decisions for sure, especially regarding the future…

1 Like
57

58

I love the fact that it’s “now in a larger size!”, 'cause you know, more water, more miracles!

59

I’m sorry, Eric, but you’re not making much sense here. In your disorder post you seem to be making the argument that “dynamizing” is supported by the age old knowledge that running water is better than stagnant water. All I did was agree with that fairly common sense statement, but my point was that it’s a nonsensical leap from there to claiming there is some mystical property added to water through the further practice of “dynamizing”. I think it’s unfair of you to criticize me for agreeing with your fundamental point: clean, fresh, running water is a good thing.

As for BD, I’ve expressed my perspective here several times. While it’s certainly harmless, at worst, I can no longer endorse the acceptance of pseudo-scientific voodoo, with no basis in science (and in your words, not needed or used). That kind of thinking paves the way for similar thinking in other areas, particularly medicine, where people become convinced through the same kind of nonsensical pseudo-science that vaccines are bad, traditional medicine is bad, or that some completely unproven quack therapy is preferable to proven medical practice. That’s what killed Steve Jobs, and what is driving resistance to vaccines by millions of people. Count me out.

1 Like
60

Alan,

Obviously, you have a very small clue what a grower is using water for when not irrigating…

As far as Biodynamic viticulture is concerned, water is used as a media for biodynamic preparations, mostly 500 and 501, and this for 2 reasons :

  • applying 5g of silica over 1ha without water as a media to spray it can be quite difficult.
  • According to Steiner, the diluted preparation has to be dynamized to be efficient. Efficient here means that the preparations are supposed to have a impact on the balance between cosmic and telluric energies in the plant or in the soil.

Like I said before, this an esoteric proposal. It is a question of faith or feelings, not of science since there is no rationnal scientific way to mesure such an efficiency.
You believe it or not. I don’t but respect and understand people who do. They are far more harmless to soil and environment than most of the growers on this planet.

Again your pseudo rationnal call on oxygenation and fungi is, indeed, a clear sign of your total lack of understanding of why growers are using water…
Since Jason question was about the use of dynamization in Biodynamic Viticulture, I mentioned my experiments and conclusions regarding the same use : water as a media for active substances ( proven or not).
Since the begining of agriculture, growers had to deal with pests : mostly insects, fungi, molds, bacterias and viruses. And developped different stategies to fight against them.
The use of chemicaly or organicaly active substances has been one of the first : there are traces of the making of bouillie nantaise (cooked lime and sulfur) going back to 12000 years.
In most of the cases the media used to dilute and distribute the active substance, if needed, is water.
Therefore since growers have always questionned their practises, way before the invention of smarphone - believe it or not, the impact of the type, temperature, origine, storage,… of water used as a media has been explored.
For this use, running water has shown better performances than dead water. (For other uses is not necessary the case, as opposite as you seem to assume… Just make a little research about the most efficient sites for growing rice in the world : mostly swamps…)
Since vines were mostly grown around the Mediteranean sea at the beginning of viticulture, growers had not enough running water during the growing season, and the main source of water was collected rain water during the fall and winter.
And for centuries, knowing that running water was a better media for sulfur, lime, willow leaves tea (salycilic acid) and hundreds of other substances, growers tried to give motion back to those stocked water.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CLOSE with your trivial comment on oxygen and fongi.
During 4 vintages in a row, I did a latin squares (traduction?) based statistical analysis plan on 3 differents type of water (rain, dynamized rain, table) as a media for sulfur ( 3 different level of concentration) and density of spraying (3 different air flows) against oidium, and the result was that the choice of dynamized rain had more influence on the result that either higher flow of higher concentration.
Since 2015, I spray half less sulfur, with 30% less power than I used to before, for the same or better result in the vineyard.
No I don’t have any scientific model that I could put under pressure to prove if it is right or wrong to explain the reason of this.
I did more than 30 experimental sprays over 4 years on the same 0.9ha plot of syrah under the supervision of a friend statistician for the vaccine industry, and I have rational proof of the efficiency of dynamisation of stored rain water as media for sulfur.

This has nothing to do with Biodynamics. This has the lot to do with peasant common sense.

In the end, I have the feeling that your point is, here or in the terroir thread, to picture growers that believe in traditional, artisanal, frugal agriculture, as retarded - part of past - unable to evolve humans. You seem to like the idea of high tech or finance tycoon mentality as the next future for agriculture.
This is an opinion. Not a fact. I respect it. And totally disagree with it.
And will continue to claim that rational thinking leads me in my every day choices as a farmer. Not believes, as you try to imply, in order to justify your believe in financial efficiency and eternal growth, ie irrigation for unnecessary agricultural production.

2 Likes