Biodynamics are 'emotional black magic': Richard Smart

Why do these "luddites" (a term used by many) want to return to the dark ages. Using terms like "panoply of poisons" just proves Dr. Smarts claim of emotionalism. Nothing wrong with chemistry and modern technical developments. Terroir is a bit more than a mystical component. It can be described as the total environment of the vines consisting of the soil, microclimate, and cultural methods employed by the viticulturalist. If you add conventional methods it just adds another dimension to the terroir. Nothing wrong with trying to learn from BD and organic methods, but to outright scorn and villify in an emotional manner is as Dr. Smart proposes. I've had disagreement in the past on some of his points, but on this one I pretty much agree with him.

Terroir is an interesting marketing word, but how is it plausible that a person can claim wine is made from the soil using conventional methods? At best, the type of conventional terroir takes on a form of chemistry additions to influence the 'soil properties'. I don't recall being exposed to that part of the marketing equation when they were selling me terroir from conventional processes. I wonder how Richard Smart thinks a true definition of terroir should be written.

Ones I worked at a premium quality vineyard and Winery in Napa Valley. They gave a 5 acres plot to a BD guy. He asked for the history of the vineyard and picked the 5 acres that did not have any pest and/or desease problems. If the VM did not spray the 5 acres at night (when the BD guy was not there), the fruit was going to be ruined by mildew...the BD guy no longer works for the company. A mix of BD and organic practices are ideal. If you have a problem and a organic options are not available...use chemistry. You do not need a certificate to be in peace with mother hearth. Or this is all about marketing and no the enviroment?
Protect your investment! Finally, is the meeting going to happen during a full moon?

@Jeff Morgan: If Dr. Smart has been - and is - such a driving force in ecologically friendly viticulture (canopy management, trellising, etc.), then I wonder why he would go out of his way to advocate conventional viticulture? And not just in the upcoming debate; I refer to his recent article: "In defense of conventional viticulture" , Practical Winery and Vineyard Journal, Summer 2011. And when Dr. Smart says "conventional", he can only mean viticulture dependent on synthetic herbicides, fungicides, pesticides and fertilisers. As for Smart's claim that wine producers are being pressured into converting to organic viticulture solely or mainly for marketing reasons: while I don't doubt that the label "organic" can and does play a role in marketing (whether it's wine or any other agricultural product), does anyone seriously believe that growers such as Pontet-Canet (Pauillac), Zind-Humbrecht (Alsace), Leflaive (Puligny-Montrachet), Chapoutier (Rhône), Christmann (Pfalz), Jasper Hill (Heathcote, Australia), Cullen (Margaret River), Henschke (Eden Valley, Australia) - I could easily add dozens of prominent names to the list - would be willing to sacrifice the real quality of their wines merely for the sake of some kind of short-term marketing fad? Even if there is - were - not the remotest connection between organic viticulture and the quality of the wines made by these growers, the fact that they can do it without resorting to the chemist's panoply of poisons is argument enough for me.

Richard Smart is missing the point .We should learn from nature he has some facts true but to presume that BD is black magic shows a high level of ignorance . soluble fertilisers on drip fed vines ,cannot produce fruit like dry grown colloidal living soil can its not all about canopy.

I've been told by a Rudolph Steiner expert that in his lectures he actually proned refraining from alcohol consumption and that his theories applied to agriculture and were not necessarily intended for viticulture. If this is true, I wonder what he would think about this debate.....!

Just have to look over my non organic next door neighbours fence to see what is essentially a dead, hydroponically grown vineyard hooked on synthetic inputs. Then you will see that sustainable, organic systems are the way forward. You don't need a PhD, but hands on working knowledge of vineyards to know the facts. Less production and transport of superphosphates, systemic fungacides and herbicides and less tractor passes and vineyard compaction.

As I've written previously, it's quite possible that burying a cow's skull in one's vineyard will help channel cosmic forces...provided the cow jumped over the moon before having its head removed. That said, I also find Dr. Smart's comment the the wine industry should not support the notion of organic and biodynamic viticulture rather disturbing and over the top.

Dear Ian,

You are right, most organic wine producers claim to be just organic, but a significant number do also use full biodynamic methods but have "only" organic rather than Demeter (or Biodyvin) certification.

There are a number of reasons for this.

If you think biodynamics is only a "belief system" consider this: one leading certified organic wine producer in the UK used its very well equipped lab to analyse its own certified organic compost (which was used by the estate and was made available for commercial sale) versus some of its own, made on site biodynamic horn manure which was not made for commercial sale. The horn manure had a greater range of microbes and contained higher (much higher) levels of microbial activity for every type of microbe tested. The estate then converted to Demeter biodynamics.

Soil tests by ex-govt soil micro-biologist Claude Bourguignon produced similar results on soil tests in Burgundy.

Bourguignon repeatedly says he does not know how biodynamics works, but it does seem to work.

Organics is very different to biodynamics on three levels: farms must try to become self-sufficient organisms, there is an acceptance that forces as well as substances affect us/plants, and there is the use of things like horn manure.

I have worked in organic and biodynamic vineyards. I am very pleased the number of organic vineyards in NZ in increasing, you should also be pleased that biodynamic wine growers in New Zealand are investing time and money in showing the rest of the world that vineyards can become much more self-sufficient to the point where even organic sprays like the ones (I guess) you use, copper and sulfur, and which are allowed in organics/biodynamics but which do damage soil microbes have been replaced with teas made from biodynamic compost (which enhances soil/vine microbes).

I agree, some elements of biodynamics are bonkers but the microbes present in biodynamic composts are not there by chance, and commercial organic wineries don't give up the crutches of copper/sulfur without good reason and good science.

M

perhaps you are Right, it looks like science fiction.
But there is one reason that makes me think they are doing something right: I`ve Tried too many cavas here in Spain and for me Recaredo, (BD Farming), is the best. The red Wines of Federico Schatz in Ronda, Málaga, are marvelous. Hacienda Monasterio from La Ribera del Duero and the famous Pingus of Peter Siseck, are also BD.
It will be a nice debate.

Dear Ivan,
To whom do I sell my "precious services" in Montalcino?
Monty

I invite everyone to try farming biodynamically (or even organically) for one season. Then try farming conventionally for one season. After trying both farming techniques, ask yourself which food/wine would you rather eat.

Please do not make the assumption that organic is the same as biodynamic. the majority of organic producers claim to be just that - certified organic. The organics we practice at Fancrest Estate in New Zealand embraces scientific method and makes no claims other than being organic . This is very different from a belief system that biodynamics is based on.

Will it be webcast???? I'd LOVE to see this.

The sellers of Biodynamic thought remind me more of snake oil salesman or high priests than real scientists.

You guys know science right? It has brought us vaccines, lower child mortality, cities, the internet, longer life spans, healthier diets etc. Stop looking backward at the "Good Old Days"...they is no such thing! You mean when people had one toilet and it was outside?? When you shoveled coal into a furnace in your basement??? If you doubt the facts just go talk to your Elders.

Biodynamics...just another great marketing scam in the long line of history.

Please read this blog to understand the problems with BD (http://biodynamicshoax.wordpress.com/). Organic and/or sustainable agriculture are reasonably well defined and based on empirical data. BD is more akin to a religion and is truely an offense to those who practice organic agriculture in that it claims to be "better than organic". Better yet, read Steiner for yourself, and then you will understand....

The vast majority of the organic wine producers go into that for marketing reasons - from one side "organic" permits to have higher margins, on the other side it's a very good excuse for lower quality wines. "This wine is not so good, but it's organic, so it saves the nature" - the consumer is expected to say. The same consumer that has 3 cars in the family and looks for organic products as an excuse for his own sins concerning nature pollution.

Biodynamics accept sulphur and has a very "beautiful theory" built around this item in order to "prove" how natural it is. There are far more "conventional wines" that contain less sulphur than biodynamic wines just for the reason that sulphur is the only protection for the latter unlike the first.

And do not forget to ask Mr. Waldin why he sells his precious services in Montalcino? Why not Puglia or Valtellina? I'll tell you - because there's money there and proprietors consider that "just another toy" that can bring more money in.

Mr. Semmens

You are wrong to state that California ruled 'supreme' on both occasions. The second tasting suggested the reverse, in fact

I applaud those who successfully farm biondynamically and/or organically. But Mr. Sims is apparently unaware that Richard Smart is perhaps best known for his seminal work in naturally harnessing the sun's energy to ripen grapes and discourage pests via innovative trellising--an extremely bio-friendly form of viticulture. Mr. Sims chemical tirade is, sigh, somewhat puerile and woefully uninformed.

"Smart promises to... argue strongly ‘against any wine trade support for organic and biodynamic wines’."

I find that the evangelicals in either camp are too limited in their views. I'm not an organic or bio-dynamic viticulturalist, but I very much agree with the holistic approach they take to the the farm as a sustainable mini-ecosystem. (On the other hand, organic/biodynamic practices which are based in ideology or spiritual belief are questionable and potentially detrimental to the farm and to the environment.)

However, if Mr. Smart intends to argue that the wine industry should not support the notion of organic and biodynamic viticulture, he has gone too far in my opinion.

The wine industry should support those viticultural practices which are valued by the consumer- assuming of course that the practices aren't detrimental to the environment. If consumers value organic or biodynamic production- and I believe that many do- that should be an option available to them.

There has been much said about this subject over the last few years. (For one fine example see Stuart Smith's(Smith-Madrone Winery)blog entries on the subject).(Alice Fearing is obviously a big supporter, and I cannot fault her for her desire and knowledge on the subject).
I believe there are many on this bandwagon just due to the cool factor, and positive feel that it engenders from a particular and growing portion of the wine consuming public.
I believe that the best stewardship of vines, vineyards and the ecosystems in which there are situated is nothing but progress from the chemical bombing approach of vineyard management of yesteryear!
But as a retailer and wholesaler of wine, I also understand that there is a broad section of consumer who desire nothing more from their wines than good fruit, pleasant palate presence and most of all consistency, why do you think McDonald's is so popular, and for these wines the advances in chemical science and wine making technique and agribusiness approach to vineyard management will remain effective and necessary.
At the Artisan end of the spectrum, organic and bio-dynamic vineyard management and wine making methodology, seem to make some positive differences, in the perception and even conception of the wines produced this way, whether these are chemically identifiable remains a valid and highly contentious issue.
I agree with Mr. Nanson that some of the cosmic nonsense that goes along with Rudolph Steiner's approach, should be taken with a grain of salt and looked at in the context and time frame in which these ideas were originally espoused.
All in all, I think a melding of these ideas and current technological advances will come about,and be accepted as the norm, in which we will see more natural looking vineyard landscapes, and wines produced with a conscious nod to the world around them in which they are produced.

great viticultural schism!

And: Well said, Mr Finch!

Why "black" magic, rather than "white" magic, I wonder? Is the latter not demonic enough? For all his accomplishments, Dr. Smart is simply showing his age/generation and obviously falling further and further behind the game and the times, clinging desperately to his bag of chemical potions. It's surely no coincidence that more and more of the world's absolute top wine producers (for example) are converting their vineyards to organic or even biodynamic viticulture (er, "magic") and viewing their farming practices in a far more holistic fashion. And the way I see it, while fungicides, pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilisers can hardly be said to be GOOD for the ecosystem (not to mention human health), at least organic/biodynamic viticulture doesn't leave poisonous residues in its wake. Whatever the outcome of the debate, Dr. Smart's technocrat voice will be increasingly drowned out by the noise of savvy wine drinkers clamouring for organic wines and who no longer want to support the chemical-industrial complex with its panoply of poisons. And keep up the wonderful work, Monty Waldin!

as the stephen spurrier california vs. france wine taste-0ff 1976,showed unequivocally,the same result,same wines 25 years later,retasted that california reigned supreme both times,a similar event could be iniated, i.e. bio-organic vs. conventional winegrowing.The results would be as equally interesting as the prior contest.Can't Wait!

My conventional (chemical) science education included a lecture by Dr Smart. My post grad studies have included quite a few local and international BD advocates. Having practiced both types of viticulture at the a professional level my vote is emphatically with Monty. That science can not measure what is clearly obvious to taste, smell and touch is not our fault.

At one level the answer is simple: I don't want wines with added colours, 'rectified' flavours, and any extra chemical additives; I don't want wines from different districts mixed together; I don't want factory farmed machine harvested fruit bombs where the effort goes into the marketing and not the wines. I also don't want winemakers claiming that one should appreciate sourness, or that overt sulphur is just 'terroir' (Germany).

That said, I don't care what one calls the opposite approach. I'd be happy with a set of principles based on hand harvested, minimally sulphured, and broadly 'natural' principles that everyone could agree, and put as a couple of initials on the left hand corner off their label: VT (Vin du Terroir) and a code number as being registered, in the same way as Champagne has RM and NM on the labels. Anyone who new would then look for VT as a guarantee of a certain set of broadly appropriate wine-making standards, and New Zealand and Australia could apply it as much as France and Italy.

Go Monty!

Fine. But is it emotional blackmail when Domaine X chooses to 'go' biodynamic but not use it as a selling argument, and not tell customers?
I could probably supply at least a dozen names - so what's in it for them except more work and more expense?

Instead of such poor rhetoric it's time people cut through the 'cosmic forces' BS and really studied what is different between bio and non-bio wines and then set about finding the real reasons...