OPEN SPACE
Return to list of Open Space topics
|
Biodynamic viticulture
We did indeed ask Tom, who kindly found time during his harvest in the Languedoc, to respond. At the end of that is some correspondence between Jancis Robinson and two sceptics (one of them Grape editor Tim James, the other a British agronomist) on the subject of biodynamics.
FROM TOM LUBBE First off, the standards by which we judge phenolically ripe grapes may differ from other winemakers in this country. We do not wait for the pips to turn a shrivelled darker shade of brown before we feel the grape has acheived ripeness. Second, what the biodynamic preparations such as tisanes of rooibos, honey bush and buchu do, at a very basic level, is to provide an easily absorbed foliar feed for the vine consisting of elements such as magnesium, calcium and potassium which effectively nourish the vine as it works to ripen the grapes. Thus, because the vine is assisted at this stressful point in the yearly cycle (especially in this warm area), ripening will be more even and the grapes will become phenolically ripe more quickly, thus the suger acid ratio is balanced at the point of phenolic ripeness with the obvious benefit of a lower pH. Stirring the tisanes effectively draws universal energy (including the intention of the stirrer) into the liquid which charges the electron pairs into a state of quantam coherence; once such pairs become entangled any change that occurs to one occurs to all regardless of subsequent distance between them. From http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/biodynamic.htm:
Not only is the potency of the beneficial substances in the tisane magnified but the actual intention of the person stirring and applying the preparation becomes an important part of the process. An awareness of what the preparation is intent on achieving – ie a vineyard better able to ripen its grapes consistently, improved fruit character etc etc. [Lower alcohols] The ‘mid palate drop out’ so often referred to in lower alcohol wines and blamed upon this warm climate is often merely a case of vineyards, fed solely on a diet of chicken shit, Round-Uped [ie herbicided] monovarietal cover crop and the odd dollop of lime, struggling to bring their grapes to anything approaching phenolic ripeness. Thus residual sugar has become a sad substitute for the rounded flavour of a grape that has been given all the nutritive requirements for adequate ripening. South Africa was capable of producing some excellent wine at lower alcohol without the drop-out effect but this was before influence of the agro-chemical companies led farmers to abandon traditional ways of farming in favour of the vineyard desert approach. The simple act of putting organic cow manure on to the vineyard – or, even better, applied straight from the beast itself – is a way of helping the vineyard attain the microbial life it needs in the soil in order to break down the trace elements and minerals contained within the earth; thus the vine can feed itself better and, in turn, struggles less to ripen its grapes. Whilst stress can undoubtedly be a good thing in the ripening process, the climate provides enough of a stress to the vines without them needing to be starved as well. Use of preparation 500 (cow dung stuffed into a horn and buried in the vineyard) is simply a way of magnifying and enhancing this already natural process, especially in vineyards which have been chronically depleted due to the practices mentioned above. [Fynbos character] As to the fynbos character [in the wines from these vineyards], this is basically due to a naturally occuring yeast population that is allowed to thrive in the vineyards. The less chemicals you spray in your vineyards the stronger the naturally occuring yeast populations will be. Wild yeasts originate in the vineyard and are airborne; therefore they will be influenced by whatever is allowed to grow in the vineyards. Dr Johann Marais of ARC Infruitec had this to say about the impact of wild yeasts (click for the article in Wynboer http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/0501sawwv.php3.):
Hope this begins to answer your questions. |
|
JANCIS AND HER EMAIL CORRESPONDENTS The following is taken, with permission, from the restricted access part of Jancis Robinson's website. As one who can always see both sides of every argument and who spends her life sitting rather boringly on the fence, I am fascinated by the depth of emotion stirred up by the subjects of organic and biodynamic agriculture in general and viticulture in particular. Below are two recent correspondences I have enjoyed with two fierce opponents of biodynamics, a South African wine writer and a British agronomist. I thought you might also find them interesting and thought-provoking. I had been told by Chris Williams, winemaker at Meerlust in South Africa, that South African wine writer Tim James, editor of grape, passionate exponent of the importance of terroir and lover of classically styled European wines, had strong feelings about biodynamics, so I asked Tim to send me a few of his thoughts on biodynamic viticulture. Tim James, South Africa: Gosh. At what length? A few random points: Bottom line: It is unutterable rubbish: in itself, it seems harmless at worst, beneficial at best if it encourages 'organic' rather than agrochemical-based production, and makes growers love their vines (though I suspect it can make some growers love their vines more than their wines - ie get too involved in the process). Though organic aims also accomplish this. Difficult to argue on the basis of quality that it achieves anything in itself. There are good and bad of both types. The only tests (life in soil, etc) seem to be when the distinction is between agrochemicals and organic - none about biodynamic. I hate the whole biodynamic idea, I confess - not for it in itself, but because it is a part of the mumbo-jumbo (cf Francis Wheen [who recently wrote a book, How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World, about how enlightenment has been vanquished by ‘cults, quackery, gurus, irrational panics, moral confusion and an epidemic of mumbo-jumbo] anti-rationalism that is conquering the world. That's why I hate seeing people doing it, because of what it is implying and furthering! I can't see any basis for anyone doing it or accepting it for any other reason than that they have chosen to believe in it for whatever reason (as with astrology, God, other mysticisms, etc). I get apoplectic when I see the unutterable, indefensible rubbish spouted by Joly [Nicolas, of Savennières] et al, which I think he is allowed to get away with far too often too easily by too many people who should know better. I think often marketing comes into it not insubstantially. Connectedly: part of its appeal (connected in some ways with the general appeal of New Age irrationalism) is because it seems to bring back some of the 'mystery' to wine [agriculture]. I don't think it's the only, or the best, way of doing this. So.... Enough? I could carry on at length, but probably to the same effect. Yours very sincerely and angrily
me, somewhat flippantly, to Tim: Sorry to (unwittingly) raise yr blood pressure on a Sat morning. Honestly didn't realise you felt so strongly! I must say I am impressed by many of the results (not Joly's, it goes without saying - it's a shame he's involved in a way) but the health of the grapes, the directness of the wines, in the right hands.... Sounds as though you have been lectured to...? Can't see a connection between Lalou and Al Qaeda myself...
Tim James again: Yes - good results in the right hands - I've also seen that. I remember how impressed I was, eg, by the pure, alive beauty of the Nikolaihof wines, tasted there [in Austria]. How do you know that the results wouldn't have been as good otherwise? With Lalou's yields, fanatical care, etc, is she likely to make poor wine even if she doesn't bury cow horns in her vineyards, or shake the mixture the right number of times, etc? To me there is often an element of intellectual flabbiness in accepting these things without questioning them as one questions less charming truths. If you're going to ascribe the good results to biodynamics, what, please, are you going to do with the bad results? I'm willing to bet that there are more bad biodynamic wines made than there are wonderful ones (and also quite a lot of lovely vinegar!). And then once you are forced to admit that biodynamics in itself is not going to produce good results, the way is at least open to ask yourself if it’s picking at the right phase of the moon that has done the trick. No, I haven't been lectured. Either way. The connection between Al Queda (or - let's be fair - Christian fundamentalism à la Bush et al) and Lalou? Well, as the biodynamists would no doubt tell you, everything is connected. Myself, I certainly see social phenomena as connected in a very real way if one bothers to look. Whatever else the flourishing of religion in the world (as is occurring everywhere except Europe) means, it means a turn away from rationalism (the action of human intelligence), a growing and perfectly justifiable despair at the possibility of human actions leading to a decent world. The direction that turn has taken is obviously dicated by different things - but is generally a sign of deep social decay, whether it's in America or Afghanistan. When Lalou turns from the horrors of many aspects of modern life, concentrating on the area of it she knows best, viticulture, she is similarly turning from the failures and unpleasantness of modern late capitalism, as expressed in the denial of a genuine spiritual element as well as the soullessness and destructiveness of agro-industry and the market it feeds. Where is she (and where are we?) to turn to? What is on offer? Surely, in looking for a way away from the worst in human progress, there is something better than something involving a retreat from all that is good in human progress via the rambling mysticism of a proto-Nazi? Similarly, I'd like to think that in challenging imperialist brutality and the destruction of cultures, Al Queda could do better than they are doing. There, that to me is the connection you rhetorically and glibly deny! But, as I say, it seems to me all a matter of belief. If you want to believe that some or other definition of biodynamics can make wine better, then that's fine. I do hope that you will try to introduce intellectual rigour into the enterprise.
me to Tim: Very
bracing! Thanks.
Tim: No-one who believes in astrology can be called totally rational, surely. And surely that is part of believing in BD - according to most accounts of it. Astrology is one thing. And it is most unfortunate that biodynamics travels with this aura of mysticism around it. And even more unfortunate that Rudolf Steiner, to whom the biodynamic principles are attributed, was a pretty dodgy character (and as far as I know never mentioned viticulture). I certainly don’t buy every quaint little detail of biodynamism, and nor do the biodynamic growers I admire most, but it does seem as though following the lunar cycle is one of the things that causes most irritation among the doubters, as though this truly is the sign of a lunatic. But isn’t lunar influence very obvious? Tides for a start, and in our own little world of wine, many of the most rational winemakers have observed a correlation between wine’s clarity in barrel and the phases of the moon and they time their bottling dates accordingly. [This is refuted by Tim, who calls as witness against lunar influence on tidal pull http://www.jal.cc.il.us/~mikolajsawicki/Tides_new2.pdf.] In response to my article on various means of making lower-alcohol wines published in the Financial Times last Saturday, I received the following though-provoking emails from a British agronomist and self-styled ‘scientific reductionist’.
John Landell Mills of Bradford-on-Avon: I'm 150 per cent behind your campaign for lower alcohol wines - or least fewer high alcohol ones - so read your FT article on 03 sep with interest and close attention. Changes both in the vineyard as well as in the winery are needed - but I'm concerned at any suggestion that biodynamic methods are the way to get there. What surely matters are the specific changes that Gauby (for instance) has made. You mention not using agrochemicals (presumably fertilisers, herbicides and fungicides), early picking plus homeopathic does of (presumably) the various biodynamic concoctions. What I think it is very important (as an agrononmist/ scientific reductionist!) to know precisely is which of these changes have actually made a difference - and the contribution of each. At a guess I would hazard that using cultivations rather than herbicides to control weeds has reduced the nitrates available to the vines and thus limited growth, but that early picking is really the key. Maybe he has also changed his pruning and, with any new vines, changed the spacing and/or trellising. What I'm pretty sure (but of course would like to have the evidence one way or another) is that the biodynamic nonsense has nothing to do with it: any changes shown to be effective could be adopted pragmatically by other wine growers - but dressing it all up as 'biodynamic' creates more darkness than light and discourages growers who instinctively dislike flat-earthery from adopting the changes one would like to see. More generally I just wish writers in the FT and elsewhere would be more sceptical of the benefits of biodynamic/organic methods (your colleague Madame Davenport and NL [Nick Lander] in particular!) as any benefits these methods provide can be obtained just as well, if not better, within the so-called integrated approach (l'agriculture raisonnée in France) that is on its way to becoming mainstream. Because they are so inefficient and unproductive, organic methods will always be only followed by a small minority of farmers, and supporting organic/biodynamic just delays the more widespread adoption of integrated. There are many other objections to organic which I won't bore you with here, but I hope I've managed to make my main point.
me: Thanks
very much for those fascinating comments. You may well be right. I'm
interested that organics and BD stir up such passionately negative John Landell Mills again: You might also care to add the point that most organic growers use copper sulfate as a fungicide which has, at least until very recently, been permitted under the organic certification regulations since it is virtually impossible to grow the main wine grape varieties without some sort of fungicide treatment (except in a very few very favoured spots). And of course copper sulfate is many times more toxic than modern fungicides, and far more persistent in the soil. A few
years ago I did a case study for the EU on organic wine production and
went to visit the president of the Bordeaux organic wine growers
association - he had a vineyard near the river a couple of kms from
St Emilion. When I asked why he was 'organic' he told me the
move had been made by his father. "Monsieur - it was a problem of
mathematics. When the new fungicides appeared, he couldn't work out how
much to put in the spray tank so he continued with the old ways - and
was delighted when some German wine buyers appeared and offered him a
nice premium for his wine!". The stuff was pretty ordinaire, I can
remember ...like so many if not most organic wines!
me to JLM: But you have started!
me to you: These comments from a professional agronomist are particularly interesting, and salutory. I certainly take on board the point that we don’t want to discourage the general and desirable agri-/viti- cultural movement towards using fewer and fewer agrochemicals. Perhaps it is indeed some of the practices involved in BD that have the beneficial effects and you don’t need to embrace the whole ‘mumbo-jumbo’ of BD to achieve these. But does it really do so much harm to give the practices a name? Why is it, I wonder, that what John Landell Mills calls ‘flat-earthery’ stirs up so many negative emotions? Many, I’d say possibly the majority, of the better growers who adopt organic or BD methods tend to have questioned them and adopted only those that seem to work for their local conditions. Many of them keep pretty quiet about it and just carry on trying to produce better quality crops in a more sustainable environment. Certainly I had to drag out of one well-regarded producer near us in the Languedoc that they were moving to BD; they didn’t want to be ridiculed by their neighbours. And I learnt only yesterday when reading some notes about a Haynes Hanson & Clark burgundy tasting that Michel Lafarge of Volnay is now biodynamic and found that he can pick much earlier and was much less scarred by the extremes of 2003 than his neighbours. It does seem to me that there is an element of paranoia in attitudes towards those who choose to abandon ‘conventional’ farming. I fully accept that there are far too many organic and BD practitioners who do it for marketing reasons (and perhaps sheer laziness like that St Emilion example). They are the ones most likely to jump on the bandwagon and trumpet their status most loudly and, generally, least justifiably in terms of the quality of what they produce. But this, surely, does not negate the efforts of those who, often quietly, achieve truly superior results by following these methods?
|
|
COMMENT From Clive Sindelman, asker of the original
question to Tom: The ultimate irony of all this organo-biodynamism is that it gets applied to the thoroughly unnatural propagation of monospecies ie vines. Please, let's have lots more good science and less religious prescription and witchcraft. A sensible place to start would be to find a cure for phylloxera so that we can let vines interpret the soil through their OWN roots!
|
In
response to the