"Acidity," confided Claude, "is plant excrement. In ordinary plants like cereals, that excrement is evacuated via the roots, into the soil. But fruits evolved a system to propagate themselves by creating fruit around a seed. The animal eats the fruit, swallows the seed and then propagates the plant, via its own excrement. If animals are going to find the fruit attractive, it must be sweet. The problem with sugar, though, is that it ferments. To avoid having that happen right away, the plant sends its excrement, its acidity, up into the fruit. And we drink it."
The Bourguignons are best known nowadays as viticultural consultants, but for much of their early careers they were involved in helping subsistence farmers in Asia, Africa and South America make a better living. They are in no doubt that wine, on which they now spend around 80 per cent of their time, is special. "Viticulture is the sort of agriculture which is closest to the consumer," Lydia points out. "It’s also where what you do in the fields has maximum effect. And you can actually show that and talk to consumers about it." Much of this significance, Claude adds, is due to the fact that "wine is fermented grapes. When you ferment, you have an exacerbation of perfumes, of flavours, of everything which has been inscribed in the fruit by the place in which it grew. You don’t have that with cereal growing: the trace is soon lost."
The consensus surrounding terroir in English-speaking countries is that it is climate which is most important in revealing (both aesthetically and economically) the propitiousness of a region, and that soil is secondary. Once a region has proved itself, of course, soil then becomes more important in teasing out the differences between that region’s distinguished sites. When I put this theory to them, the pair bristle.
"It’s false," retorts Claude. "The soil comes before the climate. Why is Alsace overwhelmingly a white-wine region? The climate is warm enough for reds. It’s because it has white-wine soils. From the point of view of climate, you should be able to produce Burgundy’s best wines in Chalon and Mâcon, not the Côte d’Or. But the monks in Burgundy found that soil is important, which is why the greatest wines come from the Côte d’Or." "All the air gives you is sugar," adds Lydia. "The atmosphere is responsible for 94% of sugar in the plant."
They are now into their stride and, when I suggest that we might put soil first and climate second because soil factors are easier to research and to measure than the significant minutiae of atmospheric conditions, they soon have me tackled. "What matters," insists Claude, "is microbial activity in the soil, interacting with the vine’s roots, processing oligo-elements and stimulating enzymatic activity. If you grow fruits in a hydroponic regime, they don’t have any flavour, any aroma. It’s the microbes in the soil which permit the synthesis of the aromas. This has got nothing to do with the atmosphere. There’s no zinc in the atmosphere, no cobalt, no manganese. That’s why canopy management chiefly affects sugar levels in the grapes, and nothing else."
My credibility now shot, I decide to see how far I can probe their espousal of biodynamics. I suggest, warily, that it’s hard to find scientific support for many aspects of biodynamics, citing the use of ‘dynamised’ homeopathic teas as one example. Claude swiftly refers me to Jacques Benveniste’s controversial work on ‘the memory of water’ as counter-evidence, before unexpectedly adopting a more emollient tack.
"The problem is that pure science is not good as embracing the complexity of living things. In wine, you don’t just have science. You have art, culture, many other things. The rational or scientific dimension doesn’t explain everything. We have measured the biological activity in biodynamic horn compost, and found an enormous amount there. For us, that’s not absurd. But if you ask why it's there, and you read Steiner, it gives you a fright, at least if you have a scientific mentality." "We never reject a conventional client," stresses Lydia; "quite the opposite. Our real challenge is to work with those who are practising conventional viticulture, and lead them towards organics. That’s very rational."
And on that, we agree, chink glasses, and swallow a little more diluted plant excrement.

Decanter World Wine Awards








Have your say!
David Cobbold
June 17 21:20
Quite, Anchois. I agree with you, and so one could say that the proof of the dung is in the eating, which could put biodynamists into the coprophagic pervert category
Rick Schofield
June 11 18:29
Great stuff. I still say climate is most important. Sun & temperature determines which varieties will fully ripen and which kinds of vines will survive winter temperatures, and how much alcohol & acid a given grape type will yield after fermentation.
Soil & microbes only determine the nuances of lavor the same vine will have from plot to plot. Chalon wines are quite similar to Cote d'Or wines, at least compared to a juxtaposition of Chassagne and California Chard, or even a Pouilly-Fuissé where it is warmer.
Alsace has a quitled patchwork of many soils - quite a few suited to red grapes. Historically it was harder to ripen red grapes so whites are traditional in Alsace. Today with global warming and advances in viticulture, Alsace could easily make a lot of good reds, including Pinot Noir.
Today's Alsace whites have so much potential sugar that they often require residual sugar for balance. Today, the South-facing slopes are are detriment to refreshing Alsace whites. These vineyards are labelled "Grand Cru" because of the historical ripening issues which are not a problem today even for reds. In warm years I think the Non-Grand Crus taste best.
It is not a soil issue there for reds. Likewise, I wouldn't bother growing Riesling in the Alexander Valley even if I filled a hole with soil from the Mosel.
Rick Schofield
Port Ewen, NY
Grahamn Reddel
June 11 13:46
Well, lets look at the science for a second. Its actually the case that plants absorb mineral ions into the roots via two mechanisms (i) passive, down the concentration gradient through a semi permeable membrane into the root hairs, and (ii) active, via a proton pump - effectivley hydrogen ions (acidity) out of the roots, and mineral ions in. The active mechanism requires expenditure of energy in the form of hydrolized ATP. So pushing acidity out through the roots is something every plant does. Not just vines.
They are right that microbes are important. Without their role in turning insoluble minerals into mineral ions, most plants would be mineral deficient after a few years. However best current theory is that teasing out the best from a vine may in fact be down to nutrient and water stress (ie what is missing) rather than what is there, ironically. Stones contribute nothing to the vine other than heat and drainage. However they are excellent at taking up space and making soil infertile.
Nitogen stress may well force yeast to metabolize proteins such as cysteine which contains a sulfur atom, thus increasing the production of thiols and adding aromas. A case of less is more!!
Anchois
June 11 12:19
"The memory of water" has never been replicated in other studies which consigns it to a scientific dustbin along with cheap fusion power. Biodynamics, along with homeopathy and astrology among others, has its fervent disciples, and who will rarely be convinced by the scientific argument however well it is argued. The reason biodynamics appears to "work" is that its adherents are devoted to looking after their crop, but a hornful of dung will make little difference. I expect that there is a lot of biological activity going on in dung or compost wherever it is.