Tags
Ankida Ridge, Annefield Vineyards, Biodynamic, Biodynamic farming, biodynamic wine, Black Ankle Vineyards, Deep Creek Cellars, Josephine Porter Institute, Nicolas Joly, organic wine, Rudolf Steiner, Virginia, Virginia Wine
Cow Horns, Manure, Mysticism, Planetary Alignment and Biodynamic Viticulture in Virginia and Other Eastern Wine Regions?
“Until an organic product is created to eradicate Black Rot in our region, it is highly unlikely there will be any certified organic or Biodynamic vineyards in the Mid-Atlantic,” noted Christine Vrooman when I asked if she planned to pursue Biodynamic certification in her vineyards at Ankida Ridge. Christine and her husband Dennis are owners of Ankida Ridge Vineyards, situated on the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Amherst, VA, and are part of a small group of vintners in the Mid-Atlantic States — Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania — utilizing biodynamic viticulture practices.
Of the more contentious and debated topics in the contemporary wine world, I find the subject of biodynamic viticulture the most fascinating. Some of the underlying practices — like burying cow horns packed with manure, fermenting yarrow plant in a deer’s bladder, and harvesting based on lunar cycles — along with fervent opinions for and against biodynamics makes for a fascinating study.
Beginnings of a biodynamic prep - cow horns filled with manure. Photo taken at Biodynamics farming conference in Red Boiling Springs, TN. Photo taken by Jeff Weissler, ConsciousWine.com
Sometimes referred to as organic above organic, or even, the Rolls Royce of organics, Biodynamics can be loosely defined as a framework, or philosophy, of farming practices (planting, growing, harvesting) based on the teachings of Austrian scientist, writer, and philosopher of sorts, Rudolf Steiner. The foundation of biodynamics is eight lectures on agriculture — later published in a book entitled Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture — delivered by Steiner to a group of farmers and his anthroposophical followers in Poland in 1924.
“To our modern way of thinking, this all sounds quite insane” – Rudolf Steiner, Agriculture, 1924
I should note that the intent of this piece is not to provide an encyclopedic treatment of biodynamics (not sure that’s reasonably possible), but instead to provide a cursory introduction for those that may not be familiar with biodynamics and to provide a forum for discussion.
A cornerstone of biodynamics is nine special preparations — three in the form of sprays and six as part of compost. These natural preparations are made (prepared, I guess) by very specific methods and serve various purposes like pest control, increasing soil microbial life, or used to counter fungal diseases.
A few of the biodynamic preparations include: filling a cow horn with manure and burying over winter (BD prep 500); packing a cow horn with ground quartz mixed with rainwater then burying in the spring and digging up in autumn (BD prep 501); stuffing chamomile blossoms in to the small intestines of cattle then burying in humus-rich soil in the fall and digging up in the spring (BD prep 503); and, placing chopped oak bark inside the skull of a domesticated animal surrounded by peat and burying in the ground where rain water flows (BD prep 505).
Before being applied in the vineyard each of the preparations are diluted and then ‘activated‘ by a special stirring process called ‘dynamization.’ Astronomical influences are also considered in the application of the preparations. (Ed. Note — This is a very rudimentary explanation of the preparations. Some biodynamcists would note two sprays, and seven as compost.)
Dynamizing a biodynamic preparation at Ankida Ridge Vineyards. (photo credit: Christine Vrooman)
Interestingly, even though there are no certified biodynamic vineyards in the Mid-Atlantic region, Virginia is home to one of the leading providers of biodynamic preparations and other products & services to support biodynamic farming — the Josephine Porter Institute (the subject of an upcoming post). Each of the nine biodynamic preparations can be sourced from JPI.
Biodynamic preparations from JPI before use at Annefield Vineyards. (photo credit: Stephen Ballard)
These preparations and practices along with some of Steiner’s questionable claims — like being clairvoyant, and asserting that our earliest ancestors were ‘jellylike‘ beings called Lemurians — is the basis for much of the controversy, and confusion, surrounding biodynamics.
Given the number of strong opinions masquerading as fact, along with fuzzy supporting science and questionable practices (like fermenting oak bark in the skull of a domestic animal), I’ve stayed in the shallow end of the pool on this subject. Despite some of Steiner’s dubious claims and questionable (read – not fully understood) practices, I do feel there is something to biodynamics — though I’m unable to clearly articulate exactly what this something is.
Of the vintners I spoke with, several acknowledged a certain faith component of biodynamics, but were consistent in their belief that biodynamics has resulted in more attention to detail at the winery and throughout the entire grape growing process and overall improvement in vineyard health.
Ed Boyce, winemaker and owner of Black Ankle Vineyards in Maryland, views biodynamics as “faith-based agriculture,” and believes that the diligence required of biodynamics makes him “think about everything he does in the vineyard and at the winery.” Ed is quick to add, “biodynamics is not a panacea and does not take the place of basic winemaking principles like careful vineyard selection and canopy management.”
Paul Roberts, owner of Deep Creek Cellars in Friendsville, MD and practioner of biodynamics since 2002, takes a similar view and says, “the great value of biodynamics may be the attention to detail in the vineyard that it [biodynamics] requires.”
Does all of this additional diligence translate in to better wine? This of course depends on one’s definition of better. (Ed. Note – By no means do I feel that biodynamic practitioners have cornered the market on diligence in the vineyard.)
I’ve had many excellent wines made from grapes grown in Biodynamic certified vineyards and, of course, I’ve had amazing wines made with grapes from conventional vineyards (and vice versa), and not sure I would/could definitively label one better than the other.
I must say that some of my favorite biodynamic wines — Brick House Pinot Noirs, Zind-Humbrecht Rieslings, and Joly’s Coulee De Serrant to name a few — are stunning in their depth and purity of fruit that I seldom note in other wines. I concede that my opinion of these wines may be skewed because I know each are produced by devout biodynamic farmers, and that I may not be able to pick them out of a blind tasting when paired alongside similar wines of the same region.
Whether or not the extra attention in the vineyards associated with biodynamic farming results in 
better wine is certainly open to individual interpretation, but the environmental benefits of using natural treatments like biodynamic preparations in the vineyards in lieu of synthetic pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals isn’t debatable.
Even when biodynamic preparations are used as an adjunct to conventional sprays, the benefits in terms of vineyard health are definitely noticeable according to several vintners I spoke to. In addition to improved vineyard health and clear environmental benefits, the use of biodynamic preparations could also result in cost savings to wineries (although I wonder if labor costs do in fact go up).
At Annefield Vineyards, owners Stephen Ballard and Michael Leary have incorporated biodynamic preparations in to their conventional spraying regimens and note that they ‘spend about $3,500 per year on conventional sprays and BD preparations would be significantly cheaper.’
Perhaps this is yet another reason for more Virginia, Maryland and other Mid-Atlantic (and East Coast) vintners to consider biodynamic practices.
Beyond the many arguments for and against Biodynamics, does any of this matter to the end-consumer? I suspect not.
Vintners — if an effective organic preparation to combat Black Rot was developed, would you actually make the substantial commitment necessary to obtain full Biodynamic certification (three years of no synthetic sprays, burying cow horns, and the rest)? I suspect the reasons may extend beyond the lack of a natural, non-synthetic answer to black rot, but would like to hear from vintners who have evaluated biodynamics.
A special thank you to Stephen Ballard, Christine Vrooman, Ed Boyce, and Paul Roberts for all of the information you provided and for fielding my nonstop questions for this post and the forthcoming print piece. For reference and additional reading, be sure to check out Stephen Ballard’s series on The Agriculture Course at Bottled Poetry blog (here, here, and here).
__________________________________
Questions, Comments, Complaints, Random Observations? Contact Me Here
__________________________________
Drink What YOU Like 
At Ankida Ridge, we employ a variety of strategies to create the healthiest vineyard possible for our particular site and the varietals we grow, Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. I think the best label that could define our practices is a French term, “La Lutte Raisonnée,” which translates to “the reasoned struggle.” (More on that later)
The use of Biodynamics is only a small part of our viticulture practices. Because our intentions were to remain as organic as possible in this challenging environment, we decided to incorporate Biodynamic (BD) sprays and our BD compost into our arsenal of health regimens for our vineyard. The fact that some of the world’s greatest vineyards (eg. Burgundy’s Romanée-Conti) are Biodynamic influenced our decision to incorporate BD. (We figured we were going to need all the help we could get!) We are far from experts on BD and rely on outside resources to offer guidelines as to what to spray when. To us, much of BD seems a bit “far-fetched”. But we remind ourselves that there is still much that is unknown for which current technology is yet incapable of discovering and measuring. If the moon emits enough force to move oceans, why isn’t it possible there are other subtle forces existing that can create subtle influences on minute portions of plants or soil? The possibilities are endless, and so we try to keep an open, but rational mind.
Would we go for certification if Black Rot were not an issue? I would have to say at this point, probably not. Because of the climate challenges existent in the Mid-Atlantic region, we need to have the flexibility to make quick decisions to ward off disease, some of which might be to apply a synthetic spray. It is more important to us to have a healthy vineyard that produces a crop than to have a Biodynamic certified vineyard with no crop. Given our sincerity to adhere to green viticulture practices and to implement these to the greatest extent possible, we feel that certification would only be for marketing purposes.
A new “Sustainable Vineyard Practices” program, a cooperative effort between a group of Virginia vineyardists and VA Tech, is currently in the final stages of development and will become available in 2012. This program will finally provide interested viticulturists in our region with a guideline to implement green practices in their vineyards and is the first step in creating more environmentally friendly vineyard programs for Virginia.
Back to La Lutte Raisonnée…. This is a French philosophical approach to viticulture that most closely defines our practices here at Ankida Ridge. Essentially, it is a pragmatic approach based on a commitment to green practices, but open to doing what is necessary to have a crop at season’s end. There are no certification organizations. It is solely up to the viticulturist’s integrity to adhere to what he/she deems to be the greenest practices suitable for their vineyard.
Thank you, Frank, for being one of the first in our region to write on this subject. It is a fascinating topic and your writings will hopefully serve as a catalyst for more discussion.
Happy New Year. Keep up the great work, Frank!
Thank you, Christine – I appreciate all of the help you provided for this piece and the kind words. Biodynamics proved to be a difficult subject to present in a balanced way (certainly more difficult than I thought when I started this 🙂 ).
This point you made is very important, and one that I’ve thought about for some time:
“…Because of the climate challenges existent in the Mid-Atlantic region, we need to have the flexibility to make quick decisions to ward off disease, some of which might be to apply a synthetic spray. It is more important to us to have a healthy vineyard that produces a crop than to have a Biodynamic certified vineyard with no crop…”
Do you feel that a few/many/some vintners opt not to pursue organic or biodynamic viticulture (in part, at least) because they view as an ‘all or nothing’ decision? I like the approach that you’ve taken at Ankida Ridge (as have Stephen and Michael at Annefield Vineyards) wherein organic and biodynamic is an adjunct to conventional sprays when needed.
Thanks again for your help with information for this.
All the best in 2012!
Frank, I enjoyed the post. Have to say I still don’t understand biodynamic (burying a cow horn filled with manure?)! But I’m interested in anything that leads to more organic or natural forms of viticulture. Not sure how far we can go in Virginia, given the climate, but I’d like to get as close as possible to organic practices, especially including sprays.
On the winemaking side, just finished Alice Feiring’s book, Naked Wine, and am planning a post on it this week (projectsunlight.net). I’d like to believe that it’s possible to make good wine without sulfur or cultured yeasts,but I’m not sure how practical it is. I’m thinking i would subscribe to the idea that a winemaker should add nothing that is not necessary; I.e., get as close to natural as possible, but not heia to intervene in a fermentation when necessary.
That’s about all I can handle on the iPad virtual keyboard; more later when I’m on real computer!
Bob
Thanks for stopping by to comment, Bob. Do you currently have specific plans for organic/biodynamic sprays/preparations? Black rot seems to be the primary culprit that prevents full organic vineyards here. I state again for the record that I have virtually no farming knowledge, but I feel there has to be a natural way to deal with black rot (I could be wrong of course). As Christine Vrooman noted in her comment above, having the flexibility to use synthetic sprays if needed is the key.
I received a copy of Feiring’s new book as well – didn’t care for it. I found it to be too annoyingly (is that a word?) about ‘her’ vice natural wine. I’m writing a combined review of Natural Wine, Voodoo Vintners (by Katherine Cole), and An Ideal Wine (by Dave Darlington). I received each of these within a couple weeks of one another so I thought it would be interesting to compare/contrast them in one review. I look forward to reading your thoughts on Natural Wine.
On the subject of sulfur — this is one that was raised during the Wine Bloggers Conference by some of our California blogging friends. I know little about sulfur, but have had many very low/no sulfur wines and have found them enjoyable but inconsistent.
So much room here to learn and experiment. 🙂
All the best in 2012, Bob!
Frank, meant to tell you that I agree with you about the Feiring book. There were bits of it that I liked a lot — honestly, I didn’t know much at all about natural wine before I read it — but her style is hard to take. I think it’s generally a bad idea for reporters to interpose themselves between the story and the reader, and while it’s sometimes necessary for writers to insert themselves into the story, she went way overboard. I think you had just the right word — annoying. I’m still glad I read the book, and I think I learned something, but I’m not sure I can recommend it.
On a brighter note, I started Jamie Goode’s book, Authentic Wine, and it’s a wonderful read. I think you’ll really enjoy it. Assume the review is for your blog? I’ll look forward to reading it. I’ll probably post something about Naked Wine in the next few days, and something later on about Authentic Wine.
On the issue of BD sprays, etc., on our last trip to California, I spent some time in Sonoma talking to vintners about organic sprays. Kathleen Inman of Inman Family Wines was particularly generous with her time. At that time, I was a bit skeptical of the idea of using wild yeasts since everything I had read up to that point said they would produce inferior wines, but I’m very interested in that approach now, partly because of Feiring’s book. I was very struck by Kathleen’s comments about organic sprays and organic soil amendments (compost tea, etc.), but pretty much everyone I spoke to back here in Virgnia said they wouldn’t work in our climate. I’m wondering now if it might be possible to at least minimize the use of synthetic sprays, and balance out with organic ones.
I’m looking forward to some experimentation, both in the vineyard and in the cellar. We’ll see. Oh, and by the way, I’m pretty sure annoyingly is a word. And if it isn’t, it should be.
all best,
Bob
I had no Idea Steiner wrote about agriculture as well.I am very familiar with his educational philosophies via the anthropological schools we have here. While I don’t subscribe to the details in the practice of his philosophy, there is a lot of truth to his principals. Admittedly, I know very little about growing vines and making wine, but it seems to me that the same is true to his bio dynamic theories.
Hi Ruth: Though I’m not a Rudolf Steiner historian, he certainly was a man with a wide range of interests to say the least. From what I’ve read he picked up agriculture late in his life. He delivered the now famous agriculture lectures — credited as the foundation of biodynamics — in 1924, and he died in 1925. There are many sources of information about Steiner as you are probably aware. I think Wikipedia does a great job of highlighting many of his interests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner
Christine Vrooman of Ankida Ridge said “…there is still much that is unknown for which current technology is yet incapable of discovering and measuring.”
This the heart of any religious argument. I would just ask one question. Which has had a better track record in agriculture (or any technological endeavor), Science or Religion?
I’d also wonder what Steiner would think of the current practice of using diesel powered trucks and fossil fueled airplanes delivering outside inputs to biodynamic farms all over the country. I thought biodynamic farms were supposed to be a “closed system?” But like any religious endeavor, believers tend to cherry-pick what suits them and ignore the rest.
It is interesting how many biodynamics detractors want to turn any mention of biodynamics in to a science versus religion debate. I do not do biodynamics but the winegrowers i know in California and Oregon that do biodynamics do so totally for the health of their land. Never a mention of religion or rudolf Steiner just healthy vineyards. And haven’t farmers used lunar cycles for ages?
I, or any other “detractor,” as scientists are open to there being more that explains how the universe works than just what current technology supports. However, there has to be evidence. Just some evidence to suggest there are other forces at work. To date, there is not a shred of evidence that any Biodynamic preparation or practice has any positive result in any claim made by a Biodynamic supporter.
“Evidence,” in a scientific sense (not in common vernacular) has a stringent definition and meaning. It is NOT merely a preference for Biodynamic wines or wines made from some Biodynamic practices. The fact that there is a lot of wealth behind vineyards and wineries that have switched over to BD is not evidence. We demand evidence for every other facet of our lives, why are we so lax when it comes to agriculture?
All the BD crowd has to do is submit a tiny iota of evidence. The fact that they haven’t and the fact that they don’t care to suggests there will likely never be any. This has all the ingredients of a religion.
As someone who is not running to swithc over our vineyard to BD at this time, I still have to question the many advantages that new technology has brought to the wine world as well. Absolutely, new technology has been created to help assist in making technically sound wine, but the technology that is available and proven is about being safe. I for one did not get into the wine industry to be “safe”. I am smart enough that if I wanted a “safe” or scientifically proven product I would have chosen something else that would make me a lot more money.
As much as science has helped wine it has also hindered it by creating one dimensional wine that has a lack of sense of place. Terroir is not proven by science, but as a winemaker I certainly believe in it. There are climatic differences that can be proven, but minerality can not. If you are one to believe that a flinty soil, or limestone can add a flavor characteristic to wine, you are basing it on faith since there is no science proving teh minerals from the soil are actual transferred into the taste of the wine. Try tasting from of the great Cru’s from Chablis and tell me there is not some sort of minerality coming through!
I am not saying BD is the way to go, but to take that stance that because not proven by science leaves wine short of being profound. A little faith in our land and creative impression means every bit as much to wine as science.
Jordan, I’m not saying that “BD is not the way to go” based on it not being proven. I’m saying it because there’s no evidence.
You make a few points based on a misunderstanding of science and technology. First, “science” doesn’t make one-dimensional wine, people do. Science is just a way that helps us figure out nature. Ultimately people choose how to apply it.
Also, you say that terroir is not proved by science. You’re right, but neither is gravity or mass. Very rarely does “science” actually prove anything. Much more common is that it supports observations and disproves incorrect theories. Only when so many incorrect theories have been disproved can the scientific community make a general claim that the remaining theory is correct. Also, the fact that science hasn’t “proved” something doesn’t mean that any or every other explanation has validity.
Just because BD attempts to explain forces of nature that aren’t known to you doesn’t make it legitimate. We in the East Coast wine industry have made large advances in our ability to make world class wine. This has all been due to a better understanding of tried and true practices and to scientifically-based observations of how V. vinifera responds to our climate. The pursuit of BD would most assuredly be 2 steps backwards in our continuing success.
I for one beleive that organic and biodynamic can be done here. There are many vineyards that have a similar climate and similar mildew, black rot and botrytis issues as us. The problem is that to do organics and biodynamics in a challenging area requires full time attention. It can not be done by someone that is multi-tasking the management of the winery, making the wine, marketing, etc, let alone if you have a seperate day job. The wineries that do organics and biodynamics well have full time winemakers and vineyard managers generally. It is about attention to detail and most of the challenges we face can be remedied through proper canopy and crop management as well as site selection, soil preparation and allowing some of the indigenous insect life to take care of the balance. Do we practice organics or BD? No. Do I plan on it? No, definitely not certified anyway. There are some elements I think are great and some I don’t think are worth the hassle. I also don’t need another reason to be audited. If we do something organically or with BD methods it is because we think it is the right thing to do, not because of the marketability.
Bob – as far as natural wine is concerned, sure it is possible. We don’t use commercial yeast on most of our wines and our sulfite use is minimized simply because we use screw tops and don’t want to risk reduction issues and the seal holds the free SO2 better. There is a strong misconception though that sulfites are solely from that addition of sulfur. Sulfites are also a natural by-product of fermentation and will always be in wine to atleast around 10ppm. There is very few wines that are much lower then this. There was recently lobbying behind trying to allow sulfur additions in organic wine as well since the levels that are in wine is under 50ppm by law in most countries (not the USA, there is only a total SO2 reg that I am aware of). If you are a responsible winemaker there is less free SO2 in the wine then there is on many salads people eat in many restaurants (especially salad bars). There is no need for use of many of the enzymes, tannins, flavors, etc, etc on the market and hense we don’t use them. If the grapes are grown well, they have what is necessary to make good wine. Sulfites is simply an anti-oxidant preservative. It should also be mentioned that Sulfur is one of the allowed sprays for organic viticulture, as is copper which are prohibited then in the winemaking for organic wine. Strange!
The other huge misconception I hear all the time is that organic is better for the environment. It is one element of potential sustainability. Just because a vineyard is organic or BD does not make it sustainable or environmentally friendly. You can spray your sulfur and copper using a 1970 Three stroke engine tractor coughing our black smoke while making 10 passes with your broken down sprayer and still be organic. It is one step, but don’t be fooled into the thought that because something is organic it is better for the environment that something that is conventionally farmed. There are far more questions that need to be asked before making that judgement.
Overall, I do find BD very intriguing and do believe that there is a lot more behind it then simply faith. It forces a frame of mind that can be developed without BD as well. It forces one to think far bigger picture as to how you are interupting the land and the life cycles surrounding it. With everything we do there is a cause and effect. The more we mess with the natural balance by introducing outside sources be it synthetic or not can cause dramatic changes to the land, the ecosystem surrounding the land therefore the crop that is on that land. Those that are serious about the concept of BD like as mentioned Zind Humbrect or Nicolas Joly also use things like horse drawn equipment for cultivating or sowing seeds, etc. This is for less impact on the soil through compaction. They will think about the soild type in whcih they are on for everything that is pulled across it. The reason is the less you “disturb” the surroundings, the more potential to truly express the terroir. They want the vineyard to come across as naturally balanced and healthy with the least sign of human intervention. It is not about the sprays and composts as much as it is keeping the land as natural as possible. It is a frame of mind more then a process in my thoughts.
Cool subject Frank. Thanks for getting me thinking early this year.
I second that Jordan about not doing the certification, the last thing a winery needs is more oversight. Consumers would not believe the amount of paper work already. I dont see any benefit to having a biodynamic type of certification. I may be missing something about the biodynamics but the certification is very stringent and I am not convinced that a winery can go for the full certification here even with all the of time in the vineyards. Weather is too unpredictable and uncooperative. The Ankida ridge approach of flexibility seems the best approach for our environment. I think it would be interesting for a vineyard to go for us. Would have to be a small one. This is a great subject to talk about as Jordan said.
Thanks for your comment, Jordan. Though I obviously haven’t polled all vintners, you may be one of the few that holds this view; “I for one beleive that organic and biodynamic can be done here.” Wow. You make a great point about the need for full time attention to even get close to going 100% organic/biodynamic, but will a full time person be able to overcome climatological disease pressures? I’ve had several email conversations about this subject with one of the winery owners quoted in this article and this person has mentioned the same thing, however, this seems to be an overly optimistic position. Like Jeff noted, seems that a small vineyard could perhaps make a go of it.
Like you, I don’t see much of a point or benefit of a formal certification like Demeter Biodynamics (TM). Though, Demeter is a non-profit, I believe they (non)profit based on each certified wineries sales.
As noted in the post, I do hold the view that when organic/natural/biodynamic sprays/composts are used in lieu of synthetic pesticides/herbicides there is an environmental benefit (to what extent is definitely debatable) – 1970 three stroke tractor notwithstanding.
I find this to be a very interesting subject and hope the discussion will continue.
All the best in 2012!
Frank – to say that we can not possibly do organic or BD due to our weather conditions seems short sighted and is really going to hurt us in the future. To say that we have a worse climate then Burgundy (loads of Powdery and Downy issues, Black Rot and Botrytis) is really saying something. They are huge champions of BD and organic and are growing only Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. If you can grow Pinot in those conditions, certainly with some research and time we can grow Viognier, PV, Merlot, Chardonnay, etc in ours. It isn’t easy, but getting better at what you do never is.
Almost every major region in the world (including East Coast with similar humidity and rain potential in Niagara) is strongly working with Organic and BD successfully. The major difference once again goes back to none of the organic or BD vineyards in these more challenging areas are part time. Do I hoope that we can get there one day and offer the time that is necessary, absolutely. I also think we will, but it will not be starting in 2012.
I just sincereley believe that if we are found to be the only wine region in the world stage one day that “Can’t” grow organically we are going to be facing some pretty serious push back from consumers. It will one day become the expectation, not the advantage.
Jordan, interesting comment. I’m still a novice, and the first books I read on winemaking all seemed to suggest that the first thing you should do after the crush is to use SO2 to kill all the natural yeasts, which these books suggested range from the inferior to the dangerous (e.g., Brett), and then inoculate with a commercial yeast. On a trip to Sonoma last year, I talked to a couple of winemakers who said they use only wild yeasts, and at the time, I thought they were really out there on the edge. Now, I’m interested in finding out as much as I can about wild yeasts, and minimizing the use of sulfur.
BTW, I’ve been meaning to visit Tarara – my brother lives close to you on Limestone School Road – and I’d love to continue this conversation in person some day.
all best,
Bob
Hi Bob:
You will never find a book that will say that Native yeast is a smart thing to do, and if you don’t know what to watch, then it isn’t. SO2 at the crush pad really only stuns the yeast and buys you a little time. The SO2 will bind very fast in the juice especially due to the oxygen uptake through processing. Really it is only an anti-oxident at this stage and there are other measures that can be taken.
Brett feeds mostly off phenols and won’t do all that much about fermenting sugars. There are however other spoilage yeasts that can be a problem and need to be watched. Commercial yeast was all isolated from some fermentation somewhere. These were at that time native yeast fermentations that have simply been reproduced so you are essentially just using someone elses native yeast in your ferment in a very controlled atmosphere. It is slightly more complicated then that, but that is the gist of most commercial yeast. Native yeast is not on the edge or really as exciting or risky as people think. If you are willing to be diligent and watch your ferments closely, you should be fine. I do however always have a very powerful killer Bayanus yeast on site incase things are not going well. The biggest challenge to native yeast in my mind is just the lag phase and trying to build a good population. It is at this point that some V.A. can be produced, but with building strong cultures during cold soaks and settling and good temperature control this can be slowed.
I would love for you to come visit some time. If you are coming to visit your brother anytime soon drop me a note and I could go through some of our wines with you.
This is one of the better, if not best, articles I have read on Bio-dynamics. I believe that there are certain merits to it, but I don’t have the faith required to say that Bio-dynamic is the Way! Keeping industrial chemicals is a good idea if you have tried and trusted ways to the alternatives of fungicides, insecticides, and fertilizers. Your article is wonderfully balanced and refreshing allowing the reader the option to establish his own opinion.
Check out my WINE WALK at http://www.hcnonline.com.
May your year be punctuated with wonderful wine experiences!
Christine Vrooman makes the case so eloquently, I have little more to add on the subject. We in Virginia often bemoan our humidity, but I remember a visit to Rome one March and found the heat and humidity comparable to other places in the mid-Atlantic. Which leads me to think that if growers in other parts of the world that have some degree of humidity can achieve biodynamic certification, why not Virginia? But then many of them don’t have hurricanes to contend with, I suppose. But then Australia has violent storms in season. Rigorous discipline in the vineyard and cultural controls like leaf pulling seem to be key. Someone mentioned full-time attention to the vineyard is likely essential, and I’m inclined to agree with that. We don’t have that luxury (yet).
We at Annefield Vineyards take the same approach as Ankida Ridge, I think. We want to “do the right thing” to the land and the critters that live there, so (for example) we refrain from using insecticides unless absolutely necessary. When you walk through the vineyard in the height of summer and see all the praying mantises, spiders and the like, we can’t bring ourselves to “carpet bomb” the vineyard and wipe out all those beneficial insects. Unfortunately one pest that is endemic to our region, the Grape Berry Moth, can’t be trifled with, so we use an insecticide called Intrepid that targets just that one pest. We have little choice because they are a native species that evolved feeding on the native grapevines that blanket our woods — and Charlotte county has a lot of forest land, and forestry is one of the largest industries here.
Is there a natural alternative? Would a large colony of bats on the property help? We’ve seen them feeding at night near the house, and we have a neighbor who had lots of them living behind the shutters of their house, but while we use conventional fungicides we are reluctant to put up bat houses near the vineyard for fear of harming them. We need to research this more (whether they would be affected or not). But that isn’t biodynamics — encouraging bats is part of integrated pest management.
We also put our foot down on some substances. For example, we refuse to use any pesticide that requires special certification to use. If a substance is that toxic, we don’t want it and won’t use it — and you know what? Our vineyard consultant always finds an alternative for us.
So we “layer” our conventional sprays with biodynamic ones, all while trying to follow the biodynamic calendar. I say “try” because the calendar and when the work must be done don’t necessarily coincide. The bottom line is, it isn’t expensive, and it really can’t hurt.
Christine’s point about “La Lutte Raisonnée” reminds me of something that appeared in one of Wink Lorch’s columns; she asked one of the winemakers in The Jura region of France about following the biodynamic calendar (“Wink’s Wine and Travel World, “Jura Update Part 2”: http://tinyurl.com/83cjnda)
“Let’s face it, it is not easy being a wine producer anywhere, and the Jura with its very unpredictable weather and heavy soils has emerged as a surprising region to be so focussed on organics. When I asked Jean-François Bourdy of Demeter-certified Caves Jean Bourdy in Arlay recently if the domaine followed the phases of the moon for their biodynamic practices, he answered that yes for some things they do, but with their heavy soils and unreliable weather, the moon be damned, they would work the soil when they needed to – when not too wet and not too dry.”
Frank, we do have several bottles of Joly’s Coulee De Serrant lying around (I think 2002 vintage), and we’d love to share one with you when you finally come out our way.
Happy New Year, Stephen. Thank you for all of the information and help you provided on my path to better understanding biodynamics. For me biodynamics has proven to be one of those subjects where the more I learn the less I know.
From talking with both you and Christine, Annefield and Ankida do take a similar approach in terms of refraining from using pesticides unless absolutely necessary. I am really on the fringe of my knowledge about this subject so I will stop here since other farmers/vintners may be taking the same approach (although I suspect spraying may be a default setting for some farmers).
Beyond the biodynamics discussion, I continue to learn with each new comment. The diversity of challenges ‘within’ Virginia is fascinating. You reference the Grape Berry Moth, a native species that feeds on the native grapevines in your area. Sounds like other regions of Virginia may not have to deal with this nuisance. One could spend much time studying the various region-specific (within Virginia) challenges. So much to learn.
Ah, Coulee De Serrant? Most excellent – I look forward to sharing that bottle on my visit.
All the best in 2012!
To Virginia Winemaker above (and others, of course) …. In my most recent “Leaning Green” column for the quarterly VA Vineyard Asssociation Newsletter, I discussed “Salicylic Acid (SA) and Systemice Acquired Resistance (SAR)”, which might be considered a scientific explanation for some anecdotal responses over the centuries. This is a fascinating topic upon which a growing number of studies are being generated. Essentially, “SAR” is a systemic response in a plant (vine) to defend itself from attacking pathogens. The plant, in its defense, utilizes its own metabolic pathways, one being that of the salicylic pathway. Stimulation of this pathway was shown to be a strong component in a plant’s defense against powdery mildew (research listed below). The intriguing thing here is the effect this response has on the plant’s phenolic compounds, aka flavor components. By stimulating the SAR response, enhanced flavors are created, which obviously is desirable for our wine grapes. A naturally growing plant that contains salicylic acid is the willow tree, which has been known for centuries (if not millenia) to be a pain reliever (the precursor to aspirin, acetylsalicylic acid). Only recently has science been able to explain how salicylic acid works, but it has been used for ages, based on anecdotal reports. There is still much to be researched obviously. If a vine is allowed (even for a short while) to defend itself, are we giving the fruit an opportunity to develop enhanced flavor components? The practical issue here goes back to some of the previous discussions… the time it takes to monitor a vineyard to the degree necessary to intervene quickly when an issue arises. Most vineyards are too large and work on tight budgets to make this a feasible option. But for many smaller vineyards (and newer) such as Ankida Ridge, we can incorporate these practices and serve as a bit of an experimental station, if you will, for other vineyards of various sizes interested in implementing greener viticulture practices.
Two interesting science-oriented links, one an article and the other an interesting piece of research offer greater detail for further reading:
http://www.organicwinejournal.com/index.php/2008/11/wine-quality-organic-viticulture-and-vine-systemic-acquired-resistance-to-pests/ and
Click to access PJB39%281%29183.pdf
Great discussion!
Christine, I thought the most recent issue of Grape Press was an all-around winner, and your piece on SAR was one of the best articles in this edition. I was especially interested in your comments on the use of willow bark. If a foliar SA spray like willow bark can trigger a SAR response that will work as well (or better?) than a fungicidal spray for diseases like powdery mildew, that would be a real step forward for small vineyards like the one we are about to plant (and by small, I mean very, very small). I know that in Virginia you need to spray, but I still feel a bit uneasy about some of the non-organic sprays that most vineyards use. I’d rather spray than lose the vintage (or risk damage to the vineyard), but I think we should all do the least that is necessary, and I like the idea of helping vines create their own systemic defenses against disease.
Thanks again for contributing that article to Grape Press.
Bob
Some facts about the origin of Biodynamic agriculture and it’s inventor, Rudolf Steiner:
Biodynamic agriculture was born out of a series of lectures given by Rudolf Steiner in 1924. Steiner was not a farmer and did not come from a farming family. Though in his first lecture on agriculture he says:
“It ought to be clear to anyone that people have no right to talk about agriculture, including its social and organizational aspects, unless they have a sound basis in agriculture, and really know what it means to grow grain or potatoes or beets.” In addition to him being uninformed about agriculture, he’s also a hypocrite.
In one of Steiner’s lectures on agriculture, Steiner warned that, because of tomatoes’ “independent nature”, people with cancer should not eat them. He said that tomatoes “are the least social beings in the entire plant kingdom.”
Steiner blamed human beings’ and animals’ materialistic nature on potato consumption.
Of the more strange BD preparations is #500, a buried cow horn filled with manure. BD proponents claim that the subsequent compost it creates is full of nutrients and microflora that is beneficial to a farm. Indeed it is, but that’s not how Steiner saw it. Here’s the original rationale for BD preparation #500, quoted directly from Steiner:
“You see, by burying the cow horn with the manure in it, we preserve in the horn the etheric and astral force that the horn was accustomed to reflect when it was on the cow. Because the cow horn is now outwardly surrounded by the Earth, all the Earth’s etherizing and astralizing rays stream into its inner cavity. The manure inside the horn attracts these forces and is inwardly enlivened by them. If the horn is buried for the entire winter—the season when the Earth is most inwardly alive—all this life will be preserved in the manure, turning the contents of the horn into an extremely concentrated, enlivening and fertilizing force.”
The 9 BD preparations weren’t “discovered” by Steiner, they were invented by him. BD is supposedly a system that pays homage to ancient farming practices, but the 9 BD preparations never existed before Steiner’s lectures on agriculture. Steiner did not perform any experiments to suggest why he believes the preparations would work, and he offers no mechanism to explain how they should work.
Steiner said that insect pests could be created spontaneously by “cosmic influences.” Here’s how Steiner suggests farmers deal with insect problems:
“With the insect you must not take just part of it, as with the mouse, but rather the whole insect… Here you need to burn the whole insect. Burning it is the best and fastest way to go. You could also let it decay, but it is difficult to collect the end products of decomposition, although in some ways they might be better. In any event, you will certainly accomplish your objective by burning the whole insect. You may need to dry and store the insects, however, since the burning must be done when the Sun is in the sign of the Bull, which is exactly opposite the position Venus must be in when you make the mouse-skin pepper. The whole insect world is related to the forces that develop as the Sun moves through the Waterman, Fishes, Ram [Bull], Twines, and on into the Crab, although by the time its gets to the Crab, these forces are quite weak, as they also are when it is passing in front of the Waterman. While the Sun is moving through this part of the heavens, it is radiating forces that have to do with the insect world….”
Proponents of Biodynamic agriculture will shield you from these nonsensical ramblings of Steiner. They are embarrassing. Yet they are the foundation for this movement. Nothing uttered in his series of lectures makes a lick of sense. It’s obvious that Steiner’s agenda for his lectures had nothing to do with formulating a new path towards agriculture. Who knows what his motives were.
The foundation for Biodynamic agriculture isn’t just shaky, it’s nonexistent.
One could take this same approach and say some unpleasant things about the Bible, too, what with its talk of miracles and resurrection.
Finding flawed statements does not negate the philosophical undercurrent that is the basis for biodynamic thinking: that agriculture needs to be connected to the greater world and its spiritual side, expressed by Steiner as the ethereal and the astral (you were quoting Lecture No. 4, I think). As Christine Vrooman noted so eloquently, “If the moon emits enough force to move oceans, why isn’t it possible there are other subtle forces existing that can create subtle influences on minute portions of plants or soil?”
Not that Steiner’s writings are anyone’s Bible — perhaps they are. Nevertheless experiments testing and re-testing the preparations, Steiner’s theories and what has developed from them have been conducted for some 58 years by Maria Thun at her farm in Germany, and each year she publishes a Biodynamic Sowing and Planting Calendar that is used by many practitioners. These experiments probably have not been subjected to rigorous “proof” and peer review and are likely dismissed by those inclined to do so.
Some may “pick and choose” what to listen to or believe when reading Rudolf Steiner (not easy, I admit), but its the heart of the thing that counts: connecting agriculture to the spiritual, gardening with nature, not against it. We see what technology and science has given us: things like weeds resistant to Roundup that grow so big they destroy farm equipment.
Funny thing about the observation of the potato — scientists are now blaming the humble potato for the rampant obesity in the nation — isn’t that the very manifestation of a “materialistic nature”?
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/23/health/la-he-diet-obesity-20110623
The Grape Berry Moth is an east coast nuisance, not just limited to Southern Virginia. See http://www.virginiafruit.ento.vt.edu/GBM.html
California recently had a scare where they discovered the presence of the European Grapevine Moth, the European equivalent transplanted to California.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/eg_moth/index.shtml
One more thing — on anti-social tomatoes:
Pingback: “Bury Cow Horns, You Say?” « Bottled Poetry.
I see that this post has re-lit the smoldering fire of controversy that surrounds the rationale, efficacy, and veracity of biodynamic practices in the vineyard. While I understand that you were using the post to explore the concept, and see where it fits in to the east coast wine scene, the conversation has expanded to the many boundaries that this topic manages to delineate. In an effort to assist your original intent, I’ll say that I know a number of people who are using biodynamic principles, some here in New England, as an inspirational force, in the complicated formula that is their own approach to wine. All of those folks are judicious enough to refrain from claiming that their product is superior, or at the very least, not poisonous, and instead take the attitudinal approach, that the practice helps them to make the best possible wine that they can.
I personally am not an adherent, but I do appreciate some of the very fine work being done by folks who are. To put it in context, I grew up in a family of European immigrants, that did not have much money, grew a lot of our own food, used manure teas, and homespun agricultural methods to produce what we could to nourish ourselves for as little fiscal input as possible. I read my grandfather’s original Rodale press Encyclopedia of Organic gardening cover to cover as a ten year old, and found BioD and Steiner mentioned within. Subsequent studies in philosophy, and re-introduction to Steiner through exposure to Waldorf schooling via friend’s children, allowed me to appreciate the holistic nature of Steiner, and also forced me to seriously call into question both his underpinnings and arguments. I’m not going to go there, since so many already have, and frankly, at that intellectual level, the discussions need to be far more involved than is appropriate for blog commentary as a medium.
The way I see it, it is far to easy for detractors to level the charges of religious thinking, and the placebo effect, when the intersection of human nature and intellect are far too complex to be explained by either limited phenomena or framework. The folks that wish to follow a biodynamic path are completely within their right to do so, in an effort to improve their process. Just as were the Burgundian monks in their abbeys, praying for the lord’s intercession with insight to their lands, the devotees of Bacchus making sacrifice for the vintage, and countless generations of humans before that, engaging in some kind of vinous ritual and ceremony, in an effort to ensure a success, based on their context. Reality is a moving target, and simply because science can neither prove nor disprove, we need not be existentially bound to that experiment, for the experimental process has its own limitations. For science buffs, especially those ready for quantum mechanics, check out the Pauli effect, and ask what is the nature of scientific reality. For science buffs that actually want to get their hands dirty, and see that there are other options for creating a closer spiritual connection to the land, please move past your Western construct, and read Massanobu Fukuoka’s “One Straw Revolution” & “A Natural Way Of Farming”. Then do just as this trained agro-scientist did when he moved back to the farm of his birth, and put principle into practice…a very different scenario than Steiner.
Let the folks who choose to follow that path go their own way, and do the personal work that they need to do. The great ones will not wear it on their sleeves, and the holier than thou, will spend much more of their time defending their position and attitude, than paying attention to making great wine. If in the meantime, someone comes up with a natural and non-toxic solution to black rot, god, Bacchus, and the universe be praised.
Awesome article. I liked the way you inquired into the topic and offered a variety of stances. I have a wine website focused on sustainability, and I’ve been into biodynamic farming for about 5 years. I attended a year long Biodynamic Farming Course at the Rudolf Steiner College in Sacramento, CA which really opened my eyes to some new perspectives. While working NY wine retail I discovered one of my favorite wines was farmed biodynamically. Research led me to find out that 4 of my 5 favorite wineries farmed biodynamically. That made me curious. I agree with you that wineries such as Brick House, Zind Humbrecht & Coulee de Serant offering a depth of personality that doesn’t want to let go. I also believe that from visiting a lot of vineyards & many biodynamic ones there are some things about biodynamic farmers that stand out. Included are attention to detail, lots of time spent observing detail & the whole farm, along with developing an intimacy with the vines, soil & surrounding elements. From that place, I perceive many of these farmers see themselves as part of the farm themselves.
One thing I’ve noticed about many well made biodynamic wines is the tendency to not innoculate with yeast. I’m also a strong believer that that supports the sense of place that is cultivated expressing itself vitally in the wine. I’ve noticed a pattern with well made biodynamically farmed wines that are not inoculated… they tend to open up beautifully over a few days once the bottle is opened and unfold like a good book. Delicious first sip is not usually what I find with these wines, but delicious stories are.
And I totally enjoyed being introduced to some folks working with biodynamics on the east coast! Thanks for the cool article!!!
Really interesting article and responses. I think from the winegrower’s perspective, we should all follow the path that we think makes the best wine while keeping a healthy farm – for some that includes BD, for some not. From a Journalistic perspective, I think it is unfortunate that BD gets so much publicity for burying horns, skulls, etc. because that is such a small part of BD, but I guess it makes a sexier story. I also bemoan the link that many winegrowers and writers have tried to make between BD and “Natural Wine”, which is a concept I don’t understand. To use a food analogy, I grow grass fed BD beef cows on my farm as well: if I make a nice Bearnaise sauce to go on my Filet, am I ruining my terroir, or just exercising my skills as a chef? I’d like to see BD considered on its own merits as a farming system whatever practices you choose to use in the winery, and maybe we’d have a few more growers experimenting with it.
As for BD or Organic certification, that is a marketing issue, not a farming issue; the land doesn’t know whether we are certified or not, and there is a legitimate debate about the environmental impact of some of the Organic/BD products vs. conventional options (e.g. Copper vs. Phosphorous Acid). Also, most of the BD and Organic vineyards in this country are located in irrigated deserts; I’d argue that vineyards like Ankida Ridge are more sustainable than vineyards like Benziger and Ceago. The tendency to push food production to irrigated deserts is a real downside of the Organic movement, and may prove to be its downfall, so we in the East need to think about a new way of marketing our sustainability.
I believe the systemic thinking behind BD/Organic/Lutte Raisonee is the most important benefit of these approaches. For instance, at Black Ankle Vineyards we don’t use sprays for rots, so we have to find a different way. That search led me to some research in Europe which pointed to much lower rot levels in well-drained soils; that led me to research what practices effect soil drainage, which led me to the studies showing the damage compaction does to drainage and water-holding capacities of the soil. That led us to crawler tread tractors (no horses yet), and to renew our commitment to weed mechanically or by hand (herbicides, especially pre-emergent herbicides, can lead to severe compaction in the vine rows). If I could have solved the problem by spraying Vanguard or something similar, I would have saved a lot of research time, but the compacted soils would have reduced my wine quality, especially here in the Eastern US where we get more rain than any other major growing region. This kind of systemic thinking is strongly enhanced (necessity being the mother of invention) by the inability to use conventional methods. Gotta love working without a net.
This will certainly rank as one of the best free-wheeling discussions of biodynamic viticulture so far, especially in the Eastern US, and Deep Creek Cellars was pleased to be a part of the original article.
I second the praise noted here for the eloquent elaborations by Christine Vrooman at Ankida Ridge.
I also rebuke, gently, the Virginia winemaker who wants “one shred” of scientific evidence to support claims by BD proponents. Scientists crave results that can be replicated in a controlled setting, for that is the best, sometimes only way to study results and apply mathematical probabilities to them. The Virginia winemaker may also be correct that so far this hasn’t been done with BD. I don’t know, or much care. I say it’s okay to let some mysteries be.
Now, while Ms. Vrooman hinges her not going full-out for BD on black rot, in our setting at 2,000 feet above sea level in the mountains of western Maryland, Fungal Enemy #1 is phomopsis. With either disease, and others that bedevil us in the East, it is our summertime’s tendency to consecutive days of rain and humidity that, I think, sets our region apart. In May 2011, it was rainy for six consecutive days and another time for five days. That’s a third of the month — not counting the merely cloudy, humid days. Others here mentioned the region being prone to hurricanes, usually later in the summer. I just don’t know of another major wine-growing area where such extended bouts of rain and oppressive humidity occur during the growing season, on home turf for five major fungal diseases.
At Deep Creek, phomopsis often gains a foothold in the stickiness of May and, there being no eradicant, much less an organic or BD-based eradicant, it can have a destructive run through mid-summer. Yet, I recall the vintage of 2001, blessedly free of May rains, when I used zero non-organic fungicides. The 2007 and 2010 vintages were also drier-than-average years, with minimal fungicide applications.
As Frank’s article notes, we do perform many tasks such as pruning and racking of the wine according to moon phases. And I have sporadically sprayed nettle, BD preps, compost, and ground-up Japanese beetle concoctions, but I would not be a worthy candidate for Demeter classification. Plus, only 30 percent of our wine is made with our own grapes.
Still, overall, I am satisfied with the results in my vineyard from the “low-input,” sustainable “system” I have developed that relies on 1) constant scouting for disease, and even “spot” treatments with a back-pack sprayer 2) constant awareness of incoming weather, at least four days out 3) typically two or three sprays between bud-break and berry-set (plus one more in wet early summers) using organic materials, plus some Manzate or (rarely) Captan, and no intra-vascular chemical fungicides 4) extreme tolerance of Japanese beetle depredations that sacrifices large parts of the canopy in some years, and spraying only to prevent defoliation, with no other pesticide use at all 5) no herbicides during the growing season 6) no fungicides after berries reach pea-size, except organic sprays to protect leaves from late-season mildew 7) extreme tolerance of late-season cane and leaf fungal infections that do not affect the fruit and 8) acceptance most years of 5 to 10% fruit rot from fungal diseases (usually phomopsis) and occasionally a bit from grape berry moth.
Using this approach, we harvest residue-free fruit from about 2 acres total of Cabernet Franc, Chardonnay, Vignoles, Vidal, and Frontenac, grown mostly on VSP, with a mix of spur and (more and more) cane-pruning. We fertilize with organic compost and manure, twice in 16 years augmented with commercial nutrients, and maintain soil PH at 6.0 or higher by adding lime. I do not hedge the vines during the growing season, which relates to the beetle control scheme I devised.
I pull and clip lots of leaves in the fruiting zone. Canopy management is the best fungicide, followed closely by sunlight. Fungal disease is largely a physical phenomenon.
As may be immediately recognized, this is not an approach captured by any obvious two or three-word label. It is ultimately very close, I think, to la lute raisonée that Ms. Vrooman describes.
What I think I share with my BD-heavy brethren is a spiritual appreciation for animal and plant life, along with nature’s mysteries, and a desire to make my impact in the mono-culture I practice as small as possible.
Why have there not been any scientific studies on BD? Perhaps, it is because scientists do not see any basis for the Study. I offer a challenge to BD vineyards.Go seek a university such as UC-Davis to work with BD Vineyards in assessing the scientific values in BD! A consortium of BD vineyards across the country could be an OPEN LABORATORY for these researchers to visit, inspect, di-sect, and be involved in the actual operations of these BD facilities. Funding should be applied for via USDA, private sources, and perhaps even the institution that certifies BD to put their money where their controversaries are. Have any of the BD facilities tried this approach to establishing such studies with an institution of higher learning?
Secondly, is BD taught in any of the colleges any where in the world?
Lastly, Paul inquired about major grape-producing regions of the world under such humid conditions as his. The upper Gulf Coast of Texas has hundreds of acres of grapes under culture (i.e. Blanc du Bois, Black Spanish) with wines from these areas earning Gold Medals (i.e. Haak Estate Blanc du Bois, Messina Hof Tawny Port). None of the Texas vineyards are BD-certified, but many work with Mother Nature in their own way making advances such as Red Caboose Winery.
There have been a few scientific studies on BD farming. One specific to vineyards and wine grapes was published in the American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. (2005 56:4 pages 367-377). They charge you to read it online.
The comparison was not to “conventional” farming methods but to organic methods. Here’s the take away message from the Results and Discussion section:
“No consistent significant differences were found between the biodynamically treated and untreated plots for any of the physical, chemical, or biological parameters tested. … Our results are consistent with the literature in that responses to the use of the biodynamic preparations have been seen in some situations but not others.”
Ron, you’re right in that those applying for funding for studies will follow what’s generally of interest. But I will say that, having come from that background, scientists are unusually creative people that follow no agenda. If there is truth to be learned, then they will pursue it. But they are also not likely to throw funding away with a shotgun approach to experimentation. That is, there must be SOME evidence, even anecdotal, to suggest that a phenomenon is worth their time, and the funding source’s resources to pursue the study.
Having gone to school for Oenology and Viticulture i can say that there is a lot that is not taught. It does not mean that it is irrelevent. BD is not widly taught or worked on in the acedemic world because it is not “safe” wine growing. The goal of eduactional institutes is to give the basis for it’s students to grow from. If we all made wine based on what is worked on in the College systems we would have some pretty boring wine to drink everywhere that would hardly resemble what nature offers.
When I referred to comparable humidity in “another major wine-producing area,” I did not mean either my own county or “districts” comprising a few hundred acres in Texas; I meant it in the macro sense, referring to US wine-production areas roughly east of a line from central Ohio, and north of, say, South Carolina, plus the shoreline of the Great Lakes. Humidity does vary within this region, but overall it is a lot more humid during the growing season than northern California, central Oregon or the Walla Walla Valley — or France’s Languedoc, SE Australia, Italy’s Veneto, etc.
Secondly, by “major wine-producing area,” I also did mean a region growing primarily vitis vinifera, with its best-known wines primarily being table wines. “Major” had a second meaning beyond hectares under vine; I also meant prestige and total economic value.
But you do hit on a point barely mentioned in this discussion: growing non-traditional, non-vinifera varieties. No question, some hybrid grapes grown in humid areas resist fungal infections better than nearly all vinifera, and, for the East as defined above, planting them is probably the single best choice for reducing inputs and disease pressure. It is why the only new planting on my property is Frontenac. Most seasons, it requires no spraying and seems nearly immune to phomopsis. But, this step poses other questions about wine styles and consumer acceptance.
As for your BD Challenge, I don’t have an answer. Maybe federal money would pay for such a program. Maybe Demeter would kick in. It would be fun to call Monsanto.
I would firstly like to congratulate Frank on a well written and obviously well researched article on biodynamics. I would be the first to admit that my knowledge of the subject is vague at the very least, but I do admit to a smidge of curiosity when hearing from advocates of these farming principles.
Afterall, finding out that Opus One is 30% biodynamically farmed and Grgich Hills 100%, there has to be some merit to this approach and probably warrants some consideration. I only mention these two perennial standouts in Napa as I have had the pleasure of walking and seeing their vineyards, proof is in the pudding. It is worth noting that Romanee Conti, arguably one of the most famous estates in the world is also biodynamically farmed.
As a winemaker who is also responsible for the vineyards, may number one priority each year is producing the quality of fruit that will allow me to make the best possible wine. Be it conventional, organic or biodynamic farming, my responsibility is to explore the best ways possible to farm my vineyard, also in such a way that promotes health and longevity for many years down the line.
Without reading any of the comments, I would imagine that detractors of this type of farming would point to a lack of scientific evidence to support biodynamics and it’s implementation. Luckily enough I am married to a scientist and I can attest Kath running multiple tests and trying to replicate her findings, only then can a true hypothesis be accepted as true. Results that can be replicated time and time again.
Unfortunately I have found this hard in Virginia, with vintage variation being as extreme as 2010 and 2011. How can farming practices, quality of fruit and style of wine be replicated in Virginia? How can the value of biodynamics ever be quantified, and as such how can we possibly support any claim?
Biodynamics therefore has to be seen as a leap of faith, blind farming to a certain extent. An endeavor that requires the utmost of commitment and fortitude. Unfortunately the practical ramifications are that my time is limited, and between growing the fruit, making and marketing the wine, I cannot truly commit myself to this holistic attitude to grape growing.
I am therefore resigned to using conventional methods to control botrytis, black rot and mildew in the vineyards [although I would like to mention that we use as little as possible and spray on a need to only basis].
Is there validity to this argument and does it have a positive impact in certain vineyards around the world? Absoloutely. I only have to taste the wines to recognize the quality of the product, I do not need to understand how this works as I certainly do not. Will I ever practice biodynamic farming, probably not due to a miriad of reasons. At any rate this is why I love winemaking, for the reason reason that I do not understand everything and the wine is part science and part love and dumb luck [as in my case].
One further thought though, does farming a vineyard biodynamically mean that the winemaker cannot use any commercial products in making the wine? I would love to see how these biodynamically grapes are treated in the cellar, for I believe that if you are committed to growing the grapes in this manner, that philosophy has to be extended into the winemaking process.
Gee Wiz Frank, could you not have written a blog and nuclear physics, would have been much more simple.
Bravo though, really great article that will envoke much discussion. I look forward to reading all the comments now
Stephen Barnard
Keswick Vineyards
Stephen – there are a lot of resetrictions to BD wine in the cellar as well. In fact a lot of the cellar activities also make a lot of sense to me. Practical, not always, but they make sense.
I do believe they have to be indigenous yeast and there is control of sulfites. The problem as both you and I know, it is much easier to hide something in the cellar then it is in the field so any controls and regulations need to be taken with a little faith and trust in the winemaker themselves.
Racking wine during a full moon is supposed to result in greater clarity, due to the moon’s gravitational pull. Sounds good, reasonable….
Until you learn that you standing next to the barrel results in a MUCH greater gravitational pull than the does the moon (though it’s still inconsequential).
But this is irrelevant because there is no precedent for ANY cellar procedures as they were never discussed by Steiner. It’s all been made up over the years by its practitioners.
Racking during a decending moon makes plenty of sense if you are dealing with quantities of any consequence. Once the lees are further compacted they are not going to go back up without wild temperature variations. Sure there are other ways to create further gravitational pull but unless you would like to stand by my tanks and barrels to several hours and wait i would rather rely on the moon.
You can fight against the concepts and philosophy all day long with BD, organic, conventtional, science or non-science. The reality is that many of the best wines in the world are made by organic and biodynamic standards. Is that the reason their wines are better, I don’t know. They do however seem to put a lot of emphasis on it though and how it has improved their wines so i will take that as some sort of proof. It is not scientific, but it is rational and logical. The results are good, this is one of the reasons they deem is how. I don’t hear a lot of winemakers out there saying that their wine is better because they sprayed gramoxone to kill the weeds, sevin to kill the insects, and prophyt to kill off mildew then added enological tannins at high levels with oak chips at fermentation with BM45 yeast, loads of Fermaid K to keep tha YANC up, Gum Arabic to stabilize the color and help body, enzymes to enhance aromatics, etc. Many of these things have been scientifically proven to help, but if I have to make franken-wine to have something that tastes good, I really don’t want to. Plus, from my tasting experinence I have had more bottles from people that stuck to nature, whether BD, organic or otherwise that has been superior to these anyway.
In other words you can argue everyone through here that BD is unproven garbage and you may be right, but I am willing to take the words of Nicolas Joly, Aubert de Villaine and Olivier Humbrecht over an unknown winemaker. The proof is that there are some stunning wines in the world that got even better when they started working with the land using processes lik BD.
Jordan, You put a smile on my face:)
On top of that, you are correct. Much of Biodynamics has been made up by its practitioners instead of simply Steiner. Steiner is the person in which brought it to the attention of many, but like science, BD will always be enhanced. It is part of the philosophy of BD. You are always looking for better ways to achieve a greater end result while minimizing your impact as a human. In ten years from now there will be more advancements as well as it pertains to BD. Just because it is a philosophy that is older then stainless steel, designer yeasts and specialty enzymes, does not mean it can not advance as more people understand it.
Jordan, there’s a lot of money behind Scientology too. Does that make it any more believable?
You said “Steiner is the person in which brought it to the attention of many, but like science, BD will always be enhanced.” Not so. It’s important that everyone realize a few things:
1. BD wasn’t “discovered,” it was invented. Its concepts, rationale, and concoctions were imagined on a whim. There is no explanation for how any of this was derived or is supposed to work. We wouldn’t accept that for any other facet of our lives. So why agriculture?
2. Science is merely a framework for how to make sense of nature. It has no agenda and there are no limitations to what can be discovered by it. BD is the opposite. It is an end unto itself. I find that a rather inelegant and uncreative way to pursue any endeavor, agriculture or otherwise.
Thank you for the kind words, Stephen. Check will be in the mail. 😉 You make an interesting point that I’ve heard several times — time, or, lack thereof. I believe it was Stephen and Jordan who both noted the importance of time to successful transition from conventional to biodynamic or organic vineyards (time defined as someone who’s responsibility is for the biodynamic/organic vineyard).
Also good point about several of the most notable vineyards in the wine world being biodynamically farmed – Romanee-Conti sticks out. BTW, if you happen to have a bottle tucked in your cellar, I’d be willing to help test it for biodynamic efficacy. 🙂
All the best in 2012!
Well, it’s inevitable in these long discussions that eventually someone says something that makes him sound doctrinaire, or maybe simply “reductionist” (pardon the pun, everyone). To say that creativity isn’t involved in growing grapes and making wine using BD techniques makes me wonder whether Virginia winemaker actually read what people wrote. (I, for one, expressly said that one reason I rack by moon phases is that I enjoy living by moon phases; it isn’t only because it “seems” to make the lees more compact and stable. And he may be right that standing beside the barrel achieves even more gravitational pull, but still, what about the connectedness I feel to my ancestors, who knew nothing of science, or the beauty of a big moon at my dark cellar door on a cold winter night?)
I am no scientist, but I do accept that it has made human life better on the balance. But, in contrast to the above description, I just think what we don’t know about the natural world still greatly exceeds what we do.
Whenever someone sounds doctrinaire, I think it’s fair to ask that person questions he consistently avoids answering: if you believe BD is bull (but you agree that de Villaine and Humbrecht make sensational wines), does that mean you don’t think quality grapes can be grown organically? Seems you are striking BD as the explanation, so, in your opinion, is it the organic techniques that explain such quality? Or is it your opinion that those same growers could use standard, chemically intensive techniques and achieve the same ends?
Or are there many other factors?
The scientific proof is in the end product. What is the quality of the wine? In my humble opinion as an Engineer and part-time winemaker, the quality of the wine is what matters. For me personally, I am not brave enough to go outside of my education in my wine-making. As I am getting more experience, I am becoming braver. However, I am not brave enough to allow native yeasts to do their thing in fear of losing controls.
Lastly not everything in my life is scientific. I have faith in God. That faith extends out to your existence since you cannot justify logically and scientifically your existence. For now, it takes that same type of faith to accept BD with the end product being the scientific proof. Because someone has chosen BD to make their wines, does not give someone else the right to be critical of that person’s choice. Just as in religion, we have a diversity of faiths, the same should hold true in winemaking. We have faith that the innoculated yeast will do its work properly!
It is inspiring to read of the many progressive winemakers in our region who have voiced their opinions in this column. At the VVA Annual Meeting in Cville this Feb, there will be a discussion on the Sustainability Program currently under development. Hopefully, those of you from the VA region will be able to participate in that discussion. Your input is vital to the development of the program.
I just learned of an interesting seminar in NC on Feb 22 that might be of interest to many of you:
(Marshall, N.C.) On Wednesday, February 22, 2012, the Sustainable Appalachian Viticulture Institute and Jewel of the Blue Ridge Vineyard, in conjunction with Warren Wilson College in Asheville N.C., will host the 2nd Annual North Carolina Conference on Sustainable Viticulture.
Link: http://nctechnews.com/2011/12/28/agricultural-technology/second-annual-sustainable-viticulture-conference-to-be-held-at-warren-wilson-college/6481/
Well, Ron, I don’t mind critical and I stand by Virginia winemaker’s right to be critical. It’s just wine! And it is one of the ways we all learn.
But I really would like to understand better, from the perspective of a scientist, how organic “works.” It’s about as mysterious to me as BD! Ed Boyce seems to place a lot of importance on good drainage. It just amazes me that grapes can hang exposed to the elements in some places for six months, with no apparent protection from fungal disease other than sunlight and good air movement (and maybe good moisture drainage from below), and be harvested in perfectly healthy shape. It does seem broadly true that the places where organic is most widely practiced also have “classic” soils for viticulture.
Paul – that question should be asked whether conventionally farming or using organic or BD. Someone above mentioned (I think it was Christine) that the number one thing is still site selection. This is true regardless of how it is farmed.
Organic and Biodynamic are in every major wine region that i know of except Virginia at this point. Coming from Niagara i can attest that it is a major part of agriculture there and there are a lot of hard clay soils and one of the hardest aspects of the vineyard conventional or organic is the drainage.
I am personally of the opinion that if your soil drainage is the reason you can not do organic or BD, then it is simply not a plot of land suitable for quality viticulture period. Your roots will never have deep penetration, you will always have worse problems in wet years and always have irrigation needs in dryer years which is neither good for quality or sustainability. It will also form a stronger need for herbicide if you want the under-row clean of growth since using a grape hoe will possible damage roots. In time you will then be “killing” the soil surrounding your root structure which is the life support of the vine. Overall, drainage is important regardless of how the vineyard is farmed.
Virginia Winemaker – your comparison with Scientology to BD makes no sense. Just because there is money behind it does not mean quality. I am talking of quality when I give examples of success stories with BD. If I was talking about financially rewarded wine companies I would go toward Gallo who is no Biodynamic by the way. So if your belief is that the best way to show quality is by the amount of dollars that is invested we are not talking the same language.
Whether invented or discovered, it was still brought to the attention of people by Steiner. Even if it was simply his imagination, it started because he brought those thoughts to fruition. That also does not mean modern users can not expand on it as they are.
Why do we accept these theorys for agriculture, well…once again because those in which are being looked at as leaders in the industry (qualitatively) often use these processes. It is a matter of auditing the successes of others and seeing what can be adopted to make your own product better. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. But I can promise that if I wait for scientific proof before I make any decisions on how to make my wine, I certainly won’t grow nearly as fast as I am. I am not restricted by the slow pace of science so therefore I feel in the end I will be able to create a better wine whether conventional, organic, or biodynamic but it won’t likely be scientifically proven.
Fantastic post! I’ve been interested in understanding some of the specifics of biodynamics. I hear talk about it, but seems so few people understand exact purposes of the BD 500-508. The cow skull buried in a vineyard seems to frequently be the one thing people toss out as their knowledge base. The “jellylike” beings was completely new information to me, and certainly understandable why people would further question the practices.
I once heard of a non-belleving Aussie winemaker that purchased what he called a “nothing vineyard,” and was suggested to turn it biodynamic. He did, and he said it now produces amazing fruit, and really does not understand it all, but practices.
When people just hear about a cow horn in the dirt, or ground quartz silica in a horn, they often do not get the full picture of the purpose. I had the pleasure of conducting an interview of a biodynamic winemaker during last harvest and got a better picture of the purposes, which makes it all the less mysterious. Glad to get a fuller picture from your post!
Where can a person find a COMPLETE calendar of BD functions for the vineyard and for the winery that is concise and has links for each of the calendard events?
I would like to thank each of the vintners and wine enthusiasts that have participated in this discussion. I appreciate the insights each of you have provided and the thorough comments. Your comments are a great resource for any farmer considering biodynamic viticulture.
If the number and depth of comments is any indicator for interest in a subject area, it’s clear that we’ll hear more about biodynamics in Virginia, Maryland and in other east coast wine regions.
Cheers!
rather dynamic discussion you got going on here Frank!
What a wonderful discussion!
It seems to me that the level of homogenization in current vineyard practices has led us down a path where past information has been lost. The variants are where we learn the most – if we’re all pruning on the same day, spraying the same sprays, leaf pulling, et cetera – if we’re all following the same models – then we will make the same mistakes, and learn the same lessons. It’s important to allow room for growth with those who may do things more radically. If you think of the great wines of the world, or even Virginia, they rarely come from cellars where things are done by the books. Rather, they come from those who are trying new things.
Whether or not some of the esoteric pracitces of BD are scientifically based seems moot. Of course they aren’t. Rather what I find intriguing is simple: does it work? Would I rather bury a cow horn at dusk or inject another dose of systemic chemicals into my Chard? Do I enjoy coming home after leaf pulling with balls of sulfur on my T-shirt, or would I like to try something new? Any honest winemaker will tell you they have a few practices they love to do but can’t explain, or don’t quite understand. I have dozens.
The BD books I’ve read are some of the most interesting, though-provoking viticultural books I’ve read, and they’ve led my vineyard management down avenues much more satisfying and interesting than any “conventional” farming techniques. I’d say my crew feels the same: the sense of community resulting from some pretty “out there” things we’ve tried has brought us all together, and given each employee a better connection with the vineyard.
I attended a vineyard seminar a few months ago, and one topic was that of sustainable practices in Virginia. One winegrower asked, “Yes, but what’s in it for me if I do all these things?”
There have been studies. heres a good one. http://woodsend.org/pdf-files/bd_500.pdf
Hi, and thanks for the link regarding BD prep 500. I will check this out.
Pingback: Vermont Wine Media » A Toast to the Health of Earth Day
Pingback: View From The Punt — Ed Boyce of Black Ankle Vineyards Shares His View of Maryland Wine on the Eve the 2013 Drink Local Wine Conference | Drink What YOU Like
Pingback: Exploring BioD Austrian GruVee | Drink What YOU Like
Like more information on the cow horn fertizler