Decanter BioDynamic poll
Interesting to see Decanter.com with a small poll about what "biodynamic" means to someone when presented with it on a label: 
Now there really is nothing scientific about this reader poll, and it only reflects the thoughts/opinions of those wishing to respond, and some visitors might have voted several times.
But what we can say is that the majority of responses look unfavorably on the label of BioD on their wines:
Now there really is nothing scientific about this reader poll, and it only reflects the thoughts/opinions of those wishing to respond, and some visitors might have voted several times.But what we can say is that the majority of responses look unfavorably on the label of BioD on their wines:
If we extrapolate the "don't know" response proportionally to the other two categories it appears to be roughly a 60:40 split against BioD, which is what I remember the margin to be against Sonoma County's failed Measure M, the anti-genetically-modified-organism proposition from last year. (The two subjects aren't necessarily related, but I just thought the similar numbers were interesting.)
The best news is that it seems to show that the plain majority are skeptical of the effects of BioD on the final wine, so there may be hope for humanity yet.
Labels: biodynamic
posted by St. Vini at 6:09 AM
2 Comments:
I was dismayed to see Matt Kramer in the WS go to the barricades in favor of Bio-D. He really implied that Bio-D wines are inherently better than nonBio-D. This is a pretty terrifying position from a writer I always thought stood for good sense in winemaking and the wine industry. I don't mind pagans, but the sooner we deep-six this fad for planting and harvesting by the moon and stars (they're SO close to us) and burying cow manure in stags' horns, the better off we'll be. Then maybe growers can just concentrate on being good farmers.
I had a friend of mine recount a conversation he had with his boss the other day - wherein the boss stated he didn't know much about Steiner, and that he had some "wacky" ideas, but then went on to say what a marvelous thinker he must have been to be able to apply himself to such diverse topics as agriculture (BioD) & child education (Waldorf).
Having read Steiner - and Joly's interpretation of him - I just can't see how it possibly could influence my outcome if I applied it. Essentially it's just another manifestation of the 1970's "I'm Ok, You're Ok" / flower-power psycobabble. And I can't help wonder if Kramer has ever read the source material. Anyone who has had some basic agriculture, physics & astronomy can see right through it.
Yet I'm continually saddened that people suspend their thinking, and then empty their wallets for various supplies & consultations. Sad indeed to think where that money could have gone if only into some research or better equipment, which could have a direct relationship to improving their wines.
Good news again though is that the results from the Decanter poll - while not scientific - do point to the majority not buying into this hogwash.
Thanks Frederic for the clarity - and while I enjoy people getting out to champion new wines, I too have the same fears when I see writers of note take up pen to champion these "techniques".
Good night, & good luck to all.
V
Post a Comment
<< Home