You can't spell "Biodynamics" without "BS"

I just came across a devastating article in SF Weekly (1-page version here) with more detail on biodynamic wines than I ever have encountered in one place.

Even somebody like me, who has refused to buy biodynamic wine on principle, was shocked at just how deep the pile of BS goes, and I've been opposed to this mumbo-jumbo since I first learned about it. Some highlights include: Rudolf Steiner's basis in germanic anti-rational neo-paganism (the same intellectual manure that helped Naziism germinate, if you'll pardon the pun) and blatant racism, animal sacrifice at Benziger, absurd stories of astrology and earth spirits, and the crystal fad revisited. For the more cynical among us, there are some nice tidbits about the marketing BS involved, which is also rather fragrant.

Please take a look. In my own opinion, the only way to put a stop to this garbage is to avoid biodynamic wines and criticize their BS at -- and more importantly, to tell the winemakers, winery sales reps, and retailers why you are doing so. Otherwise, we may end up at virgin fertility sacrifices, or real life reenactments of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery.

Please take a look. In my own opinion, the only way to put a stop to this garbage is to avoid biodynamic wines .

Each to his own. Since some of my favorite wines are biodynamic, I will continue to buy them. I don't know whether the fact that I like these wines have anything to do with biodynamics or not, but I am certainly not going to walk away from them on some principle that is meaningless to me.

Each to his own. Since some of my favorite wines are biodynamic, I will continue to buy them. I don't know whether the fact that I like these wines have anything to do with biodynamics or not, but I am certainly not going to walk away from them on some principle that is meaningless to me.

Agreed. We've had variations on this discussion before. Now, I personally certainly think parts of biodynamics are over the top for my rational little self. The mystical astrological stuff, burying cow horns, the ashing of pests.....I just can't see it. But when you look at the list of producers who follow these methods- Domaine Leflaive, Kreydenweiss, Huet, Leroy, Ch. Ste. Anne, Weinbach, Zind-Humbrecht, Lafon, Clos Roche Blanche, Gravner, etc. etc. etc, - they make some pretty good wines! So my best guess is that using Biodynamics means that the producer is dedicated to putting a lot of care into the vines, and in such a way that tends to bring out ...terroir (sorry all you terroir-haters!). By its nature biodynamism is in some ways the opposite of big agri-business, with all problems being solved by a handy application of pesticide or whatever. It's not that the biodynamic approach in itself is inherently better, it just tends to be a clue of a caring grower. Certainly there's lots of great growers who don't use Biodynamics!

But boycott BD wines because of a (rather poor) article in a newspaper? Not me!

I know very little about the origins of Biodynamics but have read accounts from people who are not selling Biodynamics and talked with growers that are attempting to convert to Biodynamics and all seem to agree that the soil health is greatly improved. Maybe only a few of the biodynamic practices are responsible for the change but in my opinion better soil will yield better grapes and better wine so why not.

[David M. Bueker]

Loweel - I can agree that the quasi-mystical stuff seems silly, but the wines tend to be very good.

Rather than dwell on Steiner's personal beliefs, which have nothign to do with the wines being made today, let's look at the end results. I think Allen Meadows did point out the most obvious issue in terms of giving biodynamics "credit" for great wine; the producers who use it tend to be fanatical about details, and most made great wine before biodynamics and would make great wine if they stopped doing biodynamics.

Take away all the mumbo-jumbo from Biodynamics and you're left with common sense, mainly organic farming practices. Which is why it's generally effective.

Also, anyone who is willing to go through all the chores of Biodynamic farming is someone who's dedicated and is paying attention to what they're doing. That alone will help produce good wine.

-Paul W.

It's not that the biodynamic approach in itself is inherently better, it just tends to be a clue of a caring grower.

Amen.

But when you look at the list of producers who follow these methods- Domaine Leflaive, Kreydenweiss, Huet, Leroy, Ch. Ste. Anne, Weinbach, Zind-Humbrecht, Lafon, Clos Roche Blanche, Gravner, etc. etc. etc, - they make some pretty good wines! So my best guess is that using Biodynamics means that the producer is dedicated to putting a lot of care into the vines, and in such a way that tends to bring out ...terroir (sorry all you terroir-haters!). By its nature biodynamism is in some ways the opposite of big agri-business, with all problems being solved by a handy application of pesticide or whatever. It's not that the biodynamic approach in itself is inherently better, it just tends to be a clue of a caring grower. Certainly there's lots of great growers who don't use Biodynamics!

That's precisely my point -- there are sorts of variables conflated in the product called wine, and people point to one as the cause. There isn't a shred of reliable evidence that it's the biodynamics that makes the wine good, merely a correlation from high-end winemakers who have adopted it. Who is to say that their wines would not be *better* without the animal sacrifices and reliance on scientifically-laughable astrological harvesting?

One can care best by using one's brain. BD is the same thing as agribusiness -- everything can be solved by some homeopathic preparation that violates Avogadro's Law.

The problem is that BD is not just growing practices, like a marketing tool. It's where "organic" was decades ago, only unlike the organic label that it claims to incorporate, there's no basis for the extra voodoo. If BD is seen as a selling point, more winemakers will start snorting the BS and sacrificing cows. All the preparations are needed for BD certification -- it's not something you can do halfway.

There's been a lot of talk about the "Carbon footprint" of wines -- the implications and impact of wines being shipped. But there should be just as much on the intellectual footprint of wine -- the implications and impact of rewarding somebody who's selling you nothing but bullshit slapped with a fancy label.

Loweel - I can agree that the quasi-mystical stuff seems silly, but the wines tend to be very good.

Rather than dwell on Steiner's personal beliefs, which have nothign to do with the wines being made today, let's look at the end results. I think Allen Meadows did point out the most obvious issue in terms of giving biodynamics "credit" for great wine; the producers who use it tend to be fanatical about details, and most made great wine before biodynamics and would make great wine if they stopped doing biodynamics.

Steiner's personal beliefs have nothing to do with the wine, but everything to do with his methods. Forgive me, but I just happen to be highly skeptical of neo-pagan mystical ideologies emphasizing the importance of a spiritual connection with land, arising in post-WWI Austria. I think it's genetic, in my case.

It's not that the biodynamic approach in itself is inherently better, it just tends to be a clue of a caring grower.

I agree with all of the above, especially about tarring all BD producers with Steiner's lunacy. And yet it's perhaps too facile to dismiss the results experienced by practitioners of biodynamie as merely resulting from an attention to detail. From a recent discussion elsewhere:

As Jancis Robinson says, "These are not flower power sandal wearers. They are thoughtful, practical vine growers who are worried about the future of what we call ‘conventional’ farming on the planet and have seen that biodynamism works – even if they have no clue how."

Mark Lipton

Take away all the mumbo-jumbo from Biodynamics and you're left with common sense, mainly organic farming practices. Which is why it's generally effective.

Also, anyone who is willing to go through all the chores of Biodynamic farming is someone who's dedicated and is paying attention to what they're doing. That alone will help produce good wine.

-Paul W.

So then why use the BD label -- which, as mentioned, REQUIRES the mumbojumbo? Marketing. It's the new, hip, allegedly eco-friendly option -- "deep green". Bullshit comes in that color too.

It's not that the biodynamic approach in itself is inherently better, it just tends to be a clue of a caring grower.

I agree with all of the above, especially about tarring all BD producers with Steiner's lunacy. And yet it's perhaps too facile to dismiss the results experienced by practitioners of biodynamie as merely resulting from an attention to detail. From a recent discussion elsewhere:

As Jancis Robinson says, "These are not flower power sandal wearers. They are thoughtful, practical vine growers who are worried about the future of what we call ‘conventional’ farming on the planet and have seen that biodynamism works – even if they have no clue how."

Mark Lipton

If anything, the article makes clear that they are nuts. The Bonny Doon Crystals? please.

Jancis, despite her fantastic palate, is not a scientist or anything close to it, nor trained in the scientific method or any sort of statistics. She is not qualified to comment on the efficacy of biodynamism. Moreover, she raises a false dichotomy in taking down a straw man. The comparison isn't between "conventional farming" and bullshit, it's between organic and bullshit.

There is no evidence that BD works as anything but a marketing tool (and for that, it works quite well), merely that it's the latest viticultural fashion. Like many fashions, the article demonstrates that people try to ape it while avoiding its utter intellectual and scientific bankruptcy.

[David M. Bueker]

Loweel - while I can understand your issues with the background of Steiner's methods, it has clouded your ability to examine the results. It doesn't matter if the vinetner looks silly while burying a cow horn. Go ahead and laugh, but it's not a problem to be fought against.

When I visited Benziger in July I liked the practical side of what they are doing - closed system, recycle and reuse, composting, intectoriums to attract beneficial insects, etc. The mystical side left me completely unimpressed as did most of wine. After all, if you're going to go to the trouble of filling a cow horn with bull manure and bury it in the vineyard under a full October moon, shouldn't you at least get a little barnyard in the Cabernet?

There is no evidence that BD works as anything but a marketing tool (and for that, it works quite well), merely that it's the latest viticultural fashion. Like many fashions, the article demonstrates that people try to ape it while avoiding its utter intellectual and scientific bankruptcy.

Loweel, I respect your view on this matter and, if this makes you avoid drinking their wines, I understand that.

Having met several of the practitioners, Olivier Humbrecht, Pierre Morey and Marc Kreydenweiss spring to mind, I am convinced that these are thoughtful and sincere people who believe that these techniques help them to produce the best possible wines from their terroirs. Naturally they try to convince consumers about these techniques but to accuse them of simply inventing this as a cynical marketing ploy is ridiculous.

When the wines are good, I will not boycott them.

There is no evidence that BD works as anything but a marketing tool (and for that, it works quite well), merely that it's the latest viticultural fashion. .

I thought that Jamie Goode attempted to address this in his "The Science of Wine" book. I don't have my copy at work but thought Jamie's take was that there was something to the whole BD thing even if difficult to grasp why it worked. Anyone got the book handy?

Low Eel - (I don't know How you picked that name)

I agree that the philosphy behind biodynamism is BS, just as many New Age principles are lacking in science as well. Reading about Steiner is a little like hearing the story of Joseph Smith and many of the 19th (and 20th) century American spiritualists, without the terroir aspects. But you have to agree with many here that many of the wineamkers using his approach Do tend to make good wines. As a consumer, you have every right to boycott these wines based on your inclinations. I don't think I would as a wholesale jesture because I like to taste what any winemaker calls his or her 'best'. Making wine is not art. It's more like a craft, using the raw materials of nature and God's providence. Wine selling, on the other hand, is a business, like any others, with cost margins, pressures, trends, etc. People will try to use whatever works, be that BD, organic, 'natural', unfined, unfiltered, whatever can move those bottles, if you can get a premium for it or be noticed by the hipsters who hold sway over your marketing efforts, than all the better. You've just helped your marketing cause. I tend to respect more the growers who don't subscribe to any trendy philosophy du jour, but will instead do the things their experience and mind tell them to follow. If they are practicing organic but not certified, good for them. If they are doing all the things they can in a sustainable way without blabbing that on their marketing literature, all the better. In this day and age, people are too eager to jump on a boat that floats, consequence be damned. This can have unforseen consequences. Look at the popularity of 'structured investment vehicles' or 'credit default swaps' only a few years ago and see what kind of havoc can come from everybody loading up on one flimsy boat. Perhaps this will be a passing phase, but I don't think biodynamie has yet run it's course. My wish is that people respect the land, enjoy the gift of the grapes, and simply make the best wine they can from those gifts. A simple philosophy.

But boycott BD wines because of a (rather poor) article in a newspaper? Not me!

I don't see that anyone was suggesting a boycott of BD wines, Dale. If the Kreydenweiss wines are god (they are), then one should, by all means, buy them. But if you see on the shelf a Benzinger Zin, w/ a shelf-talker discussing how this is a BD wine and, therefore, better than the Zin standing next to it, an EaglePointRanch Zin, grown by conventional farming by CaseyHartlip, you're gonna get snookered.
Tom

I don't see that anyone was suggesting a boycott of BD wines, Dale.
Tom

I believe Dale was referring to the original post in this thread, where the poster stated:
"the only way to put a stop to this garbage is to avoid biodynamic wines "

How do you interpret that?

I don't see that anyone was suggesting a boycott of BD wines, Dale.
Tom

I believe Dale was referring to the original post in this thread, where the poster stated:
"the only way to put a stop to this garbage is to avoid biodynamic wines "

How do you interpret that?

Missed that John. I thought Dale was referring to the original article.
Tom

Jancis, despite her fantastic palate, is not a scientist or anything close to it, nor trained in the scientific method or any sort of statistics. She is not qualified to comment on the efficacy of biodynamism. Moreover, she raises a false dichotomy in taking down a straw man. The comparison isn't between "conventional farming" and bullshit, it's between organic and bullshit.

There is no evidence that BD works as anything but a marketing tool (and for that, it works quite well), merely that it's the latest viticultural fashion. Like many fashions, the article demonstrates that people try to ape it while avoiding its utter intellectual and scientific bankruptcy.

OK. I am a scientist, and my comments in part derive from my understanding of the scientific method. My point is this: many practitioners of BD, such as Huët, DRC and Kreydenweiss, produce phenomenal wines; these people also are convinced that, since converting from organic to BD, they have seen improved quality using BD. This is classic empiricism: we judge the method by the outcome. Yes, the underlying belief system strikes me as odd to the point of lunacy (in the most literal sense, I might add), but that neither invalidates the methodology employed nor contradicts the empirical observation that the wines produced are excellent. It's also worth pointing out that few of these producers actually mention biodynamie anywhere on the label, so viewing it as a marketing ploy is disingenuous at best.

Mark Lipton

If anything, the article makes clear that they are nuts. The Bonny Doon Crystals? please.

I guess I've not seen anything refuting the sensitive crystallization techniques. If there is, I would like to read it.

On the surface, sensitive crystallization seems like part & parcel of some of the BD BS. OTOH, I'd like to see some science behind it. OTOH, it may be a very sensitive technique that could possibly tell us something about wine. Just because Randall embraces it, that's not a sufficient reason to reject it out of hand. Certainly, Randall has a perfectly valid technique for dealing w/ distributors, so he's not entirely a nutso case.
The sensitive crystallizatioon paterns are extremely intricate. If a butterfly flapping its wings in SouthAmerica can induce a hurricane off the coast of Florida (as chaos theory supposedly tells us it can), then maybe sensitive crystallization is an equally sensitive technique that can tell us something about the wine. Just because something is counter-intuitive doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes our intuition can lead us astray.
That said, I'm very skeptical that sensitive crystallization is a useful analytic tool. But I'd prefer to keep an open mind on the subject. The problem I have with it, is that someone looks at one of those intricate crystal patterns, and then declares it shows the life force of a BD vnyd, they kinda of lose me. Maybe it's like reading mammograms...something you don't want to leave to us amateurs.
What I would like to see is a whole set of crystallization patterns from wine from conventional/organic/BD vnyds. And then see if Randall or one of his experts can identify, on a statistically significant basis, which vnyd each wine is from.
Perhaps sensitive crystallization would be a useful analytic tool to identify wines that had been RO'd. Who knows, I don't? Ceretainly my BS-detector antenna goes in to high-alert when I look at the sensitive crystallization stuff. But my BS-antenna has been wrong before.
Tom

the only way to put a stop to this garbage is to avoid biodynamic wines and criticize their BS at -- and more importantly, to tell the winemakers, winery sales reps, and retailers why you are doing so.

I treat bio-dynamic wines the same way I treat all others. The good ones I buy, the bad ones I don't.

There's a lot of good bio-dynamic wines.....

OK. I am a scientist, and my comments in part derive from my understanding of the scientific method. My point is this: many practitioners of BD, such as Huët, DRC and Kreydenweiss, produce phenomenal wines; these people also are convinced that, since converting from organic to BD, they have seen improved quality using BD. This is classic empiricism: we judge the method by the outcome. Yes, the underlying belief system strikes me as odd to the point of lunacy (in the most literal sense, I might add), but that neither invalidates the methodology employed nor contradicts the empirical observation that the wines produced are excellent. It's also worth pointing out that few of these producers actually mention biodynamie anywhere on the label, so viewing it as a marketing ploy is disingenuous at best.

Mark Lipton

As am I, by training. It's not quite classic empricism -- what you describe is correlation, not causation.

Causation would require us to isolate the dependent variable -- e.g., BD vs non-BD, as identical as terroir can be, the exact same viticultural and enological practices except to the extent BD differs. To be more precise, you could do element by element (e.g., harvesting via phenolic ripeness vs. moon phases).

Again, the empirical observation that the wines are excellent in the abstract is not particularly useful to answer question of whether it is BD that makes the wines BETTER than would otherwise be the case.

As for the methodology being inherently invalid, you're a scientist. I don't recall ever getting full credit for showing my answer on any test in science or math without showing every step of my work. Merely producing the right answer -- or an excellent wine -- does not in and of itself validate the methodology. That's how these sorts of tests avoid cheating. The answer alone is insufficient for most credit, and is not necessary for significant partial credit. You're graded on your methodology and whether it comports with reality or merely pulls answers out of thin air.