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

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

I'd say that the onus is on those making the extraordinary claim to back it, not mine to refute it.

Bonny Doon's Randall Graham doesn't need a consultant — he hired Biodynamics expert Corderey as his full-time viticulturist. Corderey, a brusque, strapping Frenchman who rolls his own cigarettes, has turned Graham on to the power of sensitive crystallizations. Originally developed by Steiner disciple Ehrenfried Pfeiffer in the 1930s, crystallization is a process in which a dab of material – in this case, wine — is mixed into a copper chloride solution in a Petri dish. It is left in a small oven to evaporate overnight, leaving a residue of intricately formed crystal patterns. Corderey claims the crystals are the tangible mark of the "life forces" within the wines. Boltlike veins of crystals indicate that the vines are young and unfocused, like a child with a short attention span. Denser and more organized patterns indicate maturity and age. He glances up from his computer. "You know," he says with a smile, "I also crystallize people."

Corderey had a co-worker spend the day with a vial of wine in her pocket. He then crystallized the wine from the vial and compared it to a control sample. He would not reveal what he divined from the crystals, but said that he stunned the co-worker by pinpointing "exactly where she was in life." When SF Weekly suggested that someone could merely take a sip of wine, spit it out, and have Corderey crystallize that, he nodded — that could work, too.

"You see this?" he said, gesturing toward a choppy swirl magnified many times on his computer screen. Beneath the crystallization, a label read "2007 Albarino exposed to AC/DC Highway to Hell." Corderey had played the 1979 rock anthem to a glass of wine. He then played Native American music to another glass — resulting in a much smoother, more organized crystallization. "You can see the connection — these people work with nature and not against it."

Obviously, crystals can tell a lot -- I'm trained in solid state physics. There may in fact be some sort of effect from wines in various parcels and of various ages, assuming (which given the BS of BD, is quite an assumption) that they're treated identically throughout the process. But crystal formation is acutely sensitive to small variations in molarity, molarity, humidity, and the entire heating and cooling profile, not to mention the very obvious chemistry of the wine! There isn't the slightest shred of evidence that this provides anything aside from confirmation bias.

And further, the claim that carrying around wine in your pocket for a day -- or swishing and spitting -- creates wine crystals that allow your life to be divined should be treated with as much respect as reading tea leaves or goat entrails.

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.

I realize that you're in Belgium, but look at Grgich Hills, Frog's Leap, a lot of Benziger. (Bonny Doon doesn't tout it as much). Their entire campaigns are on biodynamic being "deep green" -- the best kind of wines for nature and therefore the best tasting. They don't go into "this is all the insane stuff that we have to do to keep our BD certification". They just talk about harmony with nature, yada yada, ad nauseum. I think you drastically underestimate the appeal of this "deep green" meme among many in the US, particularly among the hardcore environmentalist set.

what you describe is correlation, not causation..

You're the only one arguing for causation. You seem to think that biodynamic wine causes wine to be not worth purchasing.

Everyone else is arguing that biodynamic winemakers are often (but not always) also very diligent, which leads to the wine being good and worth purchasing. Even then it can be a matter of style, vintage, etc, and most people on this site don't use biodynamic practices as a key element of the purchasing decision. (Ignorant consumers elsewhere are a different story, but who cares about them ).

On this thread, you're the one claiming simple x->y relationships.

I have no problem with biodynamic production. I know someone that went to benziger and said it was great. and one or two of their wines were exceptional!!! He know more than I will ever know about wines. I just know what i like. I saw some pics of that place and i wish i owned it! If you like the wines than go for it, if you don't than don't. and if it for whatever other reasons or agenda, then so be it.

[David M. Bueker]

Loweel - are you really that wedded to science as a requirement for all that biodynamics threatens your world? I'm a trained physicist (and engineer by trade), but don't see any need to use that lens for every aspect of my life.

what you describe is correlation, not causation..

You're the only one arguing for causation. You seem to think that biodynamic wine causes wine to be not worth purchasing.

Everyone else is arguing that biodynamic winemakers are often (but not always) also very diligent, which leads to the wine being good and worth purchasing. Even then it can be a matter of style, vintage, etc, and most people on this site don't use biodynamic practices as a key element of the purchasing decision. (Ignorant consumers elsewhere are a different story, but who cares about them ).

On this thread, you're the one claiming simple x->y relationships.

... you're not using causation in the same sense that I am\, that of the type of elation between BD and the quality of a wine. You're first person to use in w/r/t purchasing decisions, but if you want to be pedantic, yes, it's the "cause" of my decision not to purchase these wines, though this particular issue was never disputed. It's very hard to have a discussion when somebody else is using an idiosyncratic dictionary. I am using it in distinction to the CORRELATION that exists between BD and good wine, which is not causation.

Loweel - are you really that wedded to science as a requirement for all that biodynamics threatens your world? I'm a trained physicist (and engineer by trade), but don't see any need to use that lens for every aspect of my life.

Nor do I need to use it for every aspect of mine. Science does not answer ethical questions, though it does inform them. This, however, is the sort of metaphysical* question that science is particularly useful for informing -- does X cause Y (where X=the voodoo aspects of BD and Y = better wine)? It's testable and falsifiable. Would your answer be different if some very high-end winemakers claimed that the negative energy from holding a weekly Klan rally, complete the wood smoke from the accompanying cross-burnings, in a vineyard made really superior wine? How is that any less plausible, other than that you haven't heard it before?

I'm disappointed that we don't all recognize that sympathetic magic and animal sacrifice for crop health are not laudatory practices in tune with nature, but instead better-forgotten relics of a pre-scientific mindset that should properly remain in the dustbin of history, along with patent medicine, virgin sacrifices, and divination of the future through animal entrails.

* I am not a precise as Rogov, but then again, I am not a trained metaphysician, nor has my sense of precision been sharpened by decades of tasting top quality wines.

Loweeel,

I sympathise with your argument. Unfortunately, as others have already mentioned, a lot of great wine is made by producers who have adopted biodynamic principles. I also respect your decision to boycott buying BD wines on the principle that it supports the ideology and promotes a lack of intellectual rigour. However, if you took this approach to it's logical conclusion, you probably wouldn't end up buying much wine(!) because the wine world is absolutely rife with unscientific assumptions: from specific aromatic profiles being induced by specific terroir features (e.g., "the wine smells like gravel because the vines grow on gravel soils"; and note that I say specific terroir features, not just terroir as a general concept) through to vine age/root depth, through to the in-vogue anti-filtering fad (a position which might seem more senisble if it weren't for being such an absolutist/all-inclusive anti-filtering argument, because there is some scientifically supported reasoning for not filtering in certain cases) through to the fear of reverse osmosis stripping flavour and micro-oxygenation destroying character (whether they do or not, there haven't been any supporting scientific studies to show either way). Perhaps we should just live and let live, and await for this particular fad to pass(?).

I have no problem with biodynamic production. I know someone that went to benziger and said it was great. and one or two of their wines were exceptional!!! He know more than I will ever know about wines. I just know what i like. I saw some pics of that place and i wish i owned it! If you like the wines than go for it, if you don't than don't. and if it for whatever other reasons or agenda, then so be it.

I know somebody who has a bridge for sale in NYC. He went there and said that it's great. The price is exceptional. He knows more than I ever will about real estate. I just know what I like. I saw some pics of that bridge and wish I owned it. If you like the bridge, then go for it, and if you don't than don't.

You must be a very popular man in Nigeria.

I'm disappointed that we don't all recognize that sympathetic magic and animal sacrifice for crop health are not laudatory practices in tune with nature

We all do recognize this. (Except for the Beringer-loving guy). Nobody is saying these practices have anything to do with quality wine. (Except for the Beringer-loving guy).

What is your point?

It seems like you really want to rant but you're not finding the right crowd to oppose your views.

It seems like you really want to rant but you're not finding the right crowd to oppose your views.

Especially as all of this talk of 'correlation isn't causation' doesn't seem to really fit as I don't even see a claim here that there is a correlation between biodynamic practices and wine quality--just that some of participants' favorite wines happen to be biodynamic so they don't feel motivated to boycott wines produced biodynamically (which evidently is some sort of slippery slope to human sacrifice).

Loweeel,

I sympathise with your argument. Unfortunately, as others have already mentioned, a lot of great wine is made by producers who have adopted biodynamic principles. I also respect your decision to boycott buying BD wines on the principle that it supports the ideology and promotes a lack of intellectual rigour. However, if you took this approach to it's logical conclusion, you probably wouldn't end up buying much wine(!) because the wine world is absolutely rife with unscientific assumptions: from specific aromatic profiles being induced by specific terroir features (e.g., "the wine smells like gravel because the vines grow on gravel soils"; and note that I say specific terroir features, not just terroir as a general concept) through to vine age/root depth, through to the in-vogue anti-filtering fad (a position which might seem more senisble if it weren't for being such an absolutist/all-inclusive anti-filtering argument, because there is some scientifically supported reasoning for not filtering in certain cases) through to the fear of reverse osmosis stripping flavour and micro-oxygenation destroying character (whether they do or not, there haven't been any supporting scientific studies to show either way). Perhaps we should just live and let live, and await for this particular fad to pass(?).

Ben, thank you for your serious, rigorous, and thought-provoking post. (Seriously, not even a scintilla of sarcasm). You may indeed be right about the other aspects of viticulture and enology. But BD is particularly low-hanging fruit, and relatively easy to disprove to those who actually stop to think about it. The others may be true, and I'm certainly open to be convinced on them, but I think the case is orders of magnitude harder to make, because these are for the most part arguing over whether the effect of a practice is good or bad as opposed to whether it even can make a difference without violating the known laws of the universe.

I've actually experienced (though again, I'm mindful of the maxim that "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'") some site-specific flavors, albeit in very particular contexts cases -- most notably Eucalyptus in Sean Thackrey's Sirius PS from Eaglepoint Ranch (which ferments in open top vats surrounded by eucalyptus trees), and I get a typical note, of varying strength, of shoe polish from all the wines of Vincent Arroyo in Calistoga, which they attribute to the unusual soil minerals from the near-surface hot springs, though I fully concede that this may just be a "House style" that they attribute to the site soils.

I'm disappointed that we don't all recognize that sympathetic magic and animal sacrifice for crop health are not laudatory practices in tune with nature

We all do recognize this. (Except for the Beringer-loving guy). Nobody is saying these practices have anything to do with quality wine. (Except for the Beringer-loving guy).

What is your point?

It seems like you really want to rant but you're not finding the right crowd to oppose your views.

Check the thread in the non-Rogov forum as well. These "nobodies" who assert at least a correlation between BD and quality wine include both Parker and Jancis Robinson.

Even I concede that there's a correlation -- but I think that it's a sales gimmick to get the "deep green" crowd to pay higher prices for wine, just like the fair trade coffee at starbucks, as Tim Harford so eloquently discusses in The Undercover Economist.

"nobodies" who assert at least a correlation between BD and quality wine include both Parker and Jancis Robinson.

Maybe you should argue with them on their boards, but neither of them post here.

To me, it doesn't seem like a big deal. Some of the best wine is biodynamic and organic. Some of it is not. Just like fruit and produce. I don't start my shopping search for any of these products by looking for those labels. I look for quality and the rest follows.

That said, I do think you have a point because many less savvy shoppers are undoubtedly swayed by those labels. And advertising exists for a reason. And.. And..

This discussion reminds me of how, every year, a bank I worked for in the 80s and 90s offered a Thanksgiving turkey to each employee. You could choose kosher or regular. Since I am not Jewish, the first year I was going to choose regular, but was told it would be smart to choose kosher because the turkeys were "cleaner". So I chose kosher, every year of the 15 years I was there, despite being completely non-religious, and even somewhat (when dealing with fanatics) anti-religious.

Much (but probably not all) of BD may be BS but (as many here have noted here) the ends justify the means if, for collateral reasons, they lead to wine we like better. If I liked kosher wine better, I would always choose kosher wine.

Let's say we all agree that BD is riddled with fallacies. If a crusade to eliminate this low lying fruit were succesful, it would be a pyrrhic victory if it led to a return to earlier practices, at least in those cases where BD made a positive difference.

If I inderstand your position correctly, Loweeel (is that your real name? we have a real name policy on this board), you would always choose the regular turkey, on principle.

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?

Brian, you remember it well. I have the book in front of me. There is a chapter 10 pages long devoted to BD. The best which I can do is to give some selected quotes from the two concluding paragraphs.

"So, we can tentatively conclude that BD seems to work when tested scientifically, albeit not as dramatically as many would claim. But this is a qualified endorsement; we still don't know exactly which elements of the BD system are contributing to the efficacy.....Some elements associated with BD, such as the use of specially prepared composts, are much more likely to have benefits than others. Composting could increase microbial diversity, and some of the foliar sprays could have a scientifically explicable effect; they are likely to possess biological activity......There's likely also a large placebo element; as wine-growers adopt BD, they are entering into a philosophical system that acts as a framework to help them maintain a careful approach in the vineyard.......BD certainly merits further scientific study. By and large wine-growers operating within this ...framework are making interesting, personality filled wines....And the limited scientific studies which have so far addressed BD have come down in its favour......Where the difficulty remains is that while much of BD practice is so esoteric and has such a "pseudoscience" ring to it, mainstream scientists are afraid to be associated with it....."

I agree with Brian Gilp and Paul Winalski, biodynamic parallels organic or sustainable organic farming. Yes like others, I feel their preparation techniques and practices to produce certain “concoctions” are quite weird. Especially the part of somehow making a connection with the “cosmic spiritual universe”. Just maybe their practices and techniques in preparing certain “concoctions” (however strange it maybe) makes the “concoction” mature faster and somehow more beneficial to the soil and eventually the vines themselves.

Salute