Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker
Dale Williams
Compassionate Connoisseur
11173
Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:32 pm
Dobbs Ferry, NY (NYC metro)
TomHill wrote: So...if the Reverend SomeMungMoon sets up his Church in lower Gomorrah and starts packing them in and raking in big $$'s and labels his mega-church as "Christian", there would be nary a consequence. But if he labels his mega-church as "Methodist"..even though he follows the principals of JohnWesley...you can bet there would be legal consequences from the UMC and he would have to cease & desist. OK....that seems fair enough.
.today's religious question is: Why can the Demeter folks get away w/ trademarking "BioDynamic"....but the Baptists can't get away w/ trademarking "Christian"???
Dale Williams wrote:TomHill wrote: So...if the Reverend SomeMungMoon sets up his Church in lower Gomorrah and starts packing them in and raking in big $$'s and labels his mega-church as "Christian", there would be nary a consequence. But if he labels his mega-church as "Methodist"..even though he follows the principals of JohnWesley...you can bet there would be legal consequences from the UMC and he would have to cease & desist. OK....that seems fair enough.
Nope, there are several dozen Methodist denominations in US besides the UMC.
.today's religious question is: Why can the Demeter folks get away w/ trademarking "BioDynamic"....but the Baptists can't get away w/ trademarking "Christian"???
Because the Demeter people trademarked Biodynamic way before it was in common useage, and present a set of standards and certification.
Brian Gilp wrote:Tom, isn't sustainable more like Christian and biodynamic more like baptist? In this sense can't they defend their Trademark?
Also while BD was based entirely on faith isn't there now enough evidence that it impacts soil vitality such that it is no longer completely faith based? If one can prove causation is it still fair to compare it to religion?
Dale Williams
Compassionate Connoisseur
11173
Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:32 pm
Dobbs Ferry, NY (NYC metro)
TomHill wrote: How about if you replace Methodist w/ Presbyterian???
Didn't Steiner use BioDynamics in his original writings?? That was my impression..but maybe not. Did the Demeter folks come up/invent the name "Biodynamics"
Or did they have the forsight to trademark a name that was already being used to describe farming by Steiner's holistic methods??
TomHill wrote:Brian Gilp wrote:Tom, isn't sustainable more like Christian and biodynamic more like baptist? In this sense can't they defend their Trademark?
Also while BD was based entirely on faith isn't there now enough evidence that it impacts soil vitality such that it is no longer completely faith based? If one can prove causation is it still fair to compare it to religion?
Well, Brian....I think there is little doubt that biodynamic vnyds results in healthier soils. But, from what I read, there is still a lot of details
in the practice of Biodynamics (as defined by the Demeter folks) that you have to accept on blind faith and has no basis in Science.
You must stir the preps 20 times in a clockwise direction and then 20 times in the counter-clockwise direction (those numbers are made up).
What if you're lazy and do it only 15 times each direction?? It results in a faulty prep? Or you use a motor w/ a propeller on the end to stir up
the prep?? The people I know who follow biodynamics freely admit that certain procedures make no sense (science-wise), but they do them
simply based on blind faith.
Tom
Brian Gilp wrote:I guess it depends on what level you want to look at. As a whole, there seems to be something to it. Does every prep or step of prep matter? Who knows but probably not. So do the unnecessary parts invalidate the whole? I don't think so.
For me the problem arises when smart folks figure out that they don't need 2/3 of the stuff for the same result but now can't be BD because they decided not to do the unnecessary parts. As some folks are wrapped up in the BD is better wine belief this forces a business decision to waste money to do the whole package and stay BD or only do what's essential and risk a sales drop if folks (read wine geeks) stop buying your wine since its no longer BD.
TomHill wrote:Totally agree here, Brian. I would think you could pick & choose the parts of biodynamic that make sense to you and ignore the ones that don't (and cost you $$ if you do follow them). But the Demeter folks do not allow you
that option, from what I understand. It's their way or the highway.
Dale Williams
Compassionate Connoisseur
11173
Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:32 pm
Dobbs Ferry, NY (NYC metro)
TomHill wrote:I guess this is a big part of my problem w/ biodynamics in this country. Why do the Demeter folks have the power (because of their trademark rights) to tell you exactly what you can & can't do if you want to farmbiodynamically...as you see fit?? The Demeter folks like to make you think they're little ole country farmers, shuffling about in their Birkenstocks, being stewards of the land. I think it's a sham and it's all about big business & $$'s,not about preserving the Earth. I think a farmer should be able to read Steiner's works...choose the practices that make sense to him...discard the ones that seem like pseudo-religion..and still call himself biodynamic...accordingto how he feels he interprets Steiner...not how the Demeter folks feel their's is the only correct interpretation of Steiner farming practices. Of course, if the Demeter folks are the ones who invented the term "biodynamics"..then they do have that right.
Tom
Hoke
Achieving Wine Immortality
11420
Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:07 am
Portland, OR
.today's religious question is: Why can the Demeter folks get away w/ trademarking "BioDynamic"....but the Baptists can't get away w/ trademarking "Christian"???
Hoke
Achieving Wine Immortality
11420
Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:07 am
Portland, OR
Steve Edmunds wrote:I think old Heartloop is having another G&T and laughing his butt off!
Brian K Miller
Passionate Arboisphile
9340
Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:05 am
Northern California
Ryan M wrote:TomHill wrote:Totally agree here, Brian. I would think you could pick & choose the parts of biodynamic that make sense to you and ignore the ones that don't (and cost you $$ if you do follow them). But the Demeter folks do not allow you
that option, from what I understand. It's their way or the highway.
Sorta like "cafeteria Christianity" then.
Hoke
Achieving Wine Immortality
11420
Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:07 am
Portland, OR
Brian K Miller wrote:Ryan M wrote:TomHill wrote:Totally agree here, Brian. I would think you could pick & choose the parts of biodynamic that make sense to you and ignore the ones that don't (and cost you $$ if you do follow them). But the Demeter folks do not allow you
that option, from what I understand. It's their way or the highway.
Sorta like "cafeteria Christianity" then.
ALL Christianity is cafeteria Christianity. Heck, Christians can't agree among themselves what The Prix Fixe Menu IS.
Hoke wrote:I think ol' Steve Edmunds is right again.
Tom, Demeter has no power...or rather, they have only the power provided by their adherents. Doesn't matter whether you believe, or I believe, or whether you or I follow the stated principles of biodynamics or Steinerism, or whatever. What it comes down to is, regardless of how you farm or don't farm, regardless of how you make wine, if you adhere to Demeter's requirements and standards you are primarily interested in the marketing concepts of "biodynamics."
If you believe in the religion of biodynamics, whether it's your own orthodoxy or Demeter's approved orthodoxy, you don't need Demeter's sanction. If you want to use it for marketing purposes, you do.
Besides, I thought it was called Heartloops Patented Method, with the Heartloops Artisanal Agricultural Tea* (accept no substitutes) available for only $1,999.99 a bottle.
(* Contains real bullshit.)
Hoke
Achieving Wine Immortality
11420
Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:07 am
Portland, OR
Thomas wrote:Hoke wrote:I think ol' Steve Edmunds is right again.
Tom, Demeter has no power...or rather, they have only the power provided by their adherents. Doesn't matter whether you believe, or I believe, or whether you or I follow the stated principles of biodynamics or Steinerism, or whatever. What it comes down to is, regardless of how you farm or don't farm, regardless of how you make wine, if you adhere to Demeter's requirements and standards you are primarily interested in the marketing concepts of "biodynamics."
If you believe in the religion of biodynamics, whether it's your own orthodoxy or Demeter's approved orthodoxy, you don't need Demeter's sanction. If you want to use it for marketing purposes, you do.
Besides, I thought it was called Heartloops Patented Method, with the Heartloops Artisanal Agricultural Tea* (accept no substitutes) available for only $1,999.99 a bottle.
(* Contains real bullshit.)
Kind of like "Meritage."
Steve Slatcher
Wine guru
1047
Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:51 am
Manchester, England
Ehrenfried Pfeiffer refers to “Dr. Steiner’s biological-dynamic methods” (1928, p.34) and this appears to be
the earliest characterisation of anthroposophic agriculture as “biological-dynamic”. The term is used once
only in that article. Pfeiffer reports that: “the indications given by Dr. Steiner have been utilised with the
utmost success”. Pfeiffer’s account is a report of a meeting of “practical agriculturists”, who “met at
Marienstein6, from December 10th to 12th, 1927”, at “Herr Stegemann’s delightful house … for the
discussion which dealt in particular with experiments made according to Dr. Steiner’s biological-dynamic
methods” (p.34).
Pfeiffer has elsewhere stated that: “The name Bio-Dynamic Method of Agriculture was not given by Rudolf
Steiner but arose from the circle of those at the start who concerned themselves with the practical
application of this new direction of thought” (Pfeiffer, 1956b, p.5). The December 1927 Marienstein
(Germany) meeting is a candidate for the origin of the term ‘biological-dynamic’.
Hoke wrote:
Which is kind of an interesting comment, Thomas, since the "Meritage" concept met with little success, and as a marketing/promotion venture had to be deemed a lukewarm failure at best. Interesting also that Mendocino tried much the same thing with its Mendocino Heritage project, Coro (but I think it was better thought out and better structured). Casey was a part of that; made some damned good releases too. I think the society and venture are defunct now; never got any attraction at all in the big world.
In any case, "biodynamic" and "Demeter" on a bottle do not in any way predispose me to invest in a wine. I am stimulated not by the terms but by my knowledge of the person(s) behind the brand and their dedication and skill. Such as Frog's Leap and John, as a good for instance. It's not that his stuff is organic/bio; it's that I know John works his ass off every day trying to grow the best grapes and make the best wine he can, without shortcuts. So in that sense, I have a faith-based system; it's just that my faith is in the person, not the business or the corporate entity. And the faith comes from experience and extrapolation.
Brian K Miller
Passionate Arboisphile
9340
Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:05 am
Northern California
Steve Slatcher wrote:I have not yet had chance to read this thread in detail, but would like to make a couple of points.
There is indeed some evidence that BD "impacts soil vitality", but only in comparison to conventionally farmed land. But when compared to organic agriculture, and there are no differences reported in proper peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to journals that are clearly promoting the use of BD). In other words, not one has demonstrated that the astrology and homeopathic preparations make any difference. That is all as far as I know. Tell me if you know otherwise - I might have missed something.
Steve Slatcher wrote:There is indeed some evidence that BD "impacts soil vitality", but only in comparison to conventionally farmed land. But when compared to organic agriculture, and there are no differences reported in proper peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to journals that are clearly promoting the use of BD). In other words, not one has demonstrated that the astrology and homeopathic preparations make any difference. That is all as far as I know. Tell me if you know otherwise - I might have missed something.
Brian K Miller wrote:Steve Slatcher wrote:I have not yet had chance to read this thread in detail, but would like to make a couple of points.
There is indeed some evidence that BD "impacts soil vitality", but only in comparison to conventionally farmed land. But when compared to organic agriculture, and there are no differences reported in proper peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to journals that are clearly promoting the use of BD). In other words, not one has demonstrated that the astrology and homeopathic preparations make any difference. That is all as far as I know. Tell me if you know otherwise - I might have missed something.
Could part of the perceived...and I emphasize that word...difference be related to more hand labor, more field work, simply walking the fields and observing close at hand the vines and the development of the fruit?
TomHill wrote:I guess this is a big part of my problem w/ biodynamics in this country. Why do the Demeter folks have the power (because of their trademark rights) to tell you exactly what you can & can't do if you want to farm
biodynamically...as you see fit??
Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot, Google [Bot] and 3 guests