Wednesday, September 22, 2010

It's the Equinox, by Jove!

Well, today's a big day: Jupiter was in opposition yesterday and Uranus is in opposition today, then Jupiter moves into conjunction with Uranus today, then the Equinox occurs, then we have the full Harvest Moon in the sky (which frankly was spectacular in the near-full state this morning setting pale yellow-orange on the western hills of the Russian River valley....)!
Good lord! Where do we begin with all this?

Hmmmm. If you're a believer in biodynamics - or the impending Mayan Apocalypse - then maybe today's the day to pull out that "special" bottle of 1941 Inglenook Cabernet you've been saving just in case there's a preview of the Universe-in-all-Her-Glory smacking us poor humans about the ears! Earthquakes?! Tsunamis?! Tax breaks for the rich?!
Who knows what evils lay in wait for us at this troubled time. 
Wait- what's that up in the sky? It's a bird...it's a plane...No! It's Steiner-man, here back from the dead to protect us all with his wisdom of the ages!!
How would Steiner advise us to conduct ourselves today? Surely the father of biodynamics had some words to keep in mind?

First I should mention that Steiner's cosmology didn't include Uranus (discovered 1781), Neptune (discovered in 1846), or Pluto - though we have to cede that Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930, six years after his death. His philosophy was essentially a regurgitation of the Ptolemaic system based on Aristotle's armchair philosophy centuries before. So even though Steiner was no doubt aware that Uranus and Neptune existed, he didn't have a place for them in his ramblings on agriculture and the Cosmos since he wasn't creating anything new - just rehashing tired and outdated cosmology whereby the heavens were perfect and complete while the earthly sphere was the realm of decay and imperfection...
All of which had been tossed onto the rubbish heap since Galileo!

So there is nothing mentioned by Steiner about any opposition of Jupiter, Uranus (or any opposition, conjunction or even solstice for that matter), even though one would expect there to be some discussion of these events in relation to Jupiter, or the harvest moon, both of which he did know of...
What he did say about Jupiter was that it was...
"...the force of Jupiter, supplementing the cosmic force of the Sun, brings forth the white or yellow colour in the flowers..."
...and that Saturn influenced (controlled) plants with blue flowers, and Mars reddish ones. So perhaps we should swap that Cabernet for a Chardonnay, or maybe just any white wine would do today. And is there any omens, evil portents or warnings about a celestial line-up?
No, none. So even if someone believed that Steiner was brilliant, he couldn't apparently predict the Mayan Apocalypse, which he should have foreseen.

If you believe in Biodynamics, today would be a good day to go to the beach...and be sure to bury your head in the sand until the Heavens calm down again.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Biodynamics is a Hoax!

Stu Smith of Smith-Madrone Vineyards & Winery in Napa has launched his own blog - dedicated to the exposure of Biodynamics as a hoax!


From his June 1 post:
"Welcome to “Biodynamics is a Hoax.”  I created this blog to offer an alternative view to Biodynamics and to engage the Biodynamic community in debate over the merits and efficacy of Biodynamic farming.  I challenge any Biodynamic farmer or supporter to defend the writings of Rudolf Steiner.  I submit that if you believe in science you cannot believe in Biodynamics, and the corollary is just as true, if you believe in Biodynamics you cannot believe in science.  As you can tell by the title I believe that Biodynamics is a hoax and deserves the same level of respect the scientific community has for witchcraft, voodoo and astrology."

Done in Stu's no nonsense style, and backed with his 40+ years of industry experience, this will be one blog not to be missed...
For those of you willing to try to defend Steiner, be sure to try to explain WHY Steiner suggested distributing "finely divided lead" over a rose garden would combat mildew (yes - that's elemental lead, Pb!)
Extra credit if you can reason why ANYONE could see Steiner as the father of ORGANIC FARMING -and all that is good agriculture- when he had such obviously crappy ideas as that whopper!

Labels: ,

Monday, October 12, 2009

Mystic Rhythms

"...The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown
We suspend our disbelief, And we are not alone...
We sometimes catch a window, A glimpse of whats beyond
Was it just imagination Stringing us along?
More things than are dreamed about, Unseen and unexplained
We suspend our disbelief, And we are entertained..."

RUSH, Mystic Rhythms 1985
What, didn't anything front-page-worthy happen on Saturday October 10th, leaving the paper scrambling for something to fill the void?
 Kudos to the Press Democrat for giving away yet another front page spread - this time to Biodynamics.

Yet more free press for the Benzigers, and another shot of their comments as fragments left hanging for the public to absorb, without much in the way of explantion of the oddities they practice, and why or why not those practices should work. I do feel Guy Kovner was trying to write something that presented both sides...but it doesn't seem he understood the foundations of Biodynamics himself, or perhaps the editors didn't give him enough space to present it...
More likely it was the first. I doubt many people wold suffer through Steiner's Agriculture lectures if they didn't have to...I almost didn't finish it, and I had reason to read the damned thing! Maybe this reporter wasn't given enough time to research fully.

Shall I go into the multitude of errors he made in his farming philosophy? Maybe, but what I really want to focus on is the way wineries which practice this "spiritual science" -even though it has nothing to do with science- can capitalize on the articles it generates. Witness the quote by Mike Benziger:
“I can't look you in the eye and say it's better,” said Mike Benziger, head of the family-owned winery. “I can say it's different.”
Making biodynamic wine isn't about “technical perfection,” Benziger said. “It's about an authentic vintage, an authentic place.”
Notice that?
See the way in which he disarms you and "doesn't" throw mud in your eye, but then throws mud in your eye at the same time?
It's NOT about it being better...but it IS about BEING BETTER than the rest. The slight is that everything else is NOT AN AUTHENTIC vintage, and doesn't REPRESENT an authentic place

Answer me this Mike Benziger....if Biodynamics is so great, why is it you only bottle up ~30,000 gallons as BD certified and not ALL your production?
Is it because you don't have to risk your entire production volume this way, yet still get all the talking points?

Beware!
Large companies are starting to take notice of the BD movement, and are looking to remove your talking points! For example, I have heard from several sources within Kendall-Jackson that they (one last year, and again this harvest) are now starting to farm using Biodynamic methods. I doubt they will convert their whole vineyard empire over to the practice, or even to get the certification, but undoubtedly they will have a few blocks they can use as a talking point. There are a few articles out in the past about how the Jackson empire had approached Biodynamics years ago [Alice Feiring], but passed on the idea of implementing it at the time.

Hopefully this move by large companies will sully the image enough for the "true believers" to abandon their odd ideas...
Read the article by Smith & Barquín at Fine Wine Magazine.com listing well thought out criticism of the movement, and link here to follow up on it with the comments.
In the meantime, I'll leave you with my past posts about the subject [link here].

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

an EARTH DAY present from Randall Graham

...[f]or Mr. Grahm, that means owning a vineyard, embracing biodynamic viticulture and farming without irrigation, as the best Old World vineyards are farmed. “Dry farming is absolutely crucial,” he said. “It’s more important than anything — biodynamics, schmiodynamics.”
And...
“I actively resorted to all manner of marketing tricks,” [Randall Graham] said, as if standing before the congregation to confess.
 "Biodynamics, schmiodynamics....”!
"...marketing tricks..." !!

For anyone who's been asleep at the wheel these past 10 years, the truth is now out in the open! Now Randall implies that perhaps the entire thing (biodynamics) was a mistake, and he should've been paying attention to the amount of rainfall his vineyards get and how deep the local aquifers are instead of stuffing cow horns with "poo".
Well I saw that for what it was!
Simultaneously sad and funny to see, but here's the story: a man who set himself up as the advocate of this preposterous method of agriculture for marketing purposes is now backing away from his previous positions to focus on his NEW MARKETING position: Dry Farming!
Unfortunately, Randall hasn't given up all his old ways...
He seems to be relying on a geomancer to evaluate his newest vineyard acquisition's water potential, rather than hiring a certified hydrologist or geologist.
C'mon, Randall!  Make a clean break and purge your soul...
...you're so close to redemption!

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, April 17, 2009

A voice of Reason in these dark times...

 
I just got through reading his letter to the editors of the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, somewhat taking them to task for the nonsensical video of Mike Benziger on the PD site touting his Biodynamic philosophy. I've clipped the letter he wrote here, as well as provide the link for the PD letters for Fri April 17th...
The best lines have to be...
"...People today make all sorts of assertions with little or no connection to the truth, and biodynamics is no different. Show me the scientific experiments that prove biodynamic soils and vines are healthier and biodynamic wines are better.
... in my opinion, biodynamics is a hoax and deserves the same level of respect we give to witchcraft. On Earth Day or another day, animal sacrifices (a biodynamic farming practice) should not be an acceptable practice of modern day agriculture or our society."
Damn!
That's poetry. And my heart is warmed that people out there are starting to take notice of this mis-represented farming practice which wants everyone to think it naught but "peasant agriculture".......

A BIG thanks to Mr.Smith for his letter of reason!

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 10, 2009

A good show (dinner not included)...

I found this on the web while looking up a few points for this post:
"You do not 'believe' in science. Science is not a BELIEF SYSTEM. Science is a method of inquiry. If you do not know what deduction and induction are you need to LOOK THEM UP. Don't try to burn Galileo, you villianous Heathen!"
         - Angry Pontiff
All the same, put this on your calendar:
Friday April 24th, 7 PM @ the Jackson Theater, 4400 Day School Place, Santa Rosa...keep critical thinking points like that above in mind while attending...
Why?
Because this location is hosting an evening of Biodynamic Q&A put to a trio of proponents [link]: Alan York (BD consultant), Paul Dolan (winegrower), and Jeremy Fox (chef @ Ubuntu...uhhhm, so how's he fit into this exactly?). Tickets are $20 in advance/ $25 at the door, and the proceeds go to the Sonoma Co. Wine Library, which is housed at the public library in Healdsburg. This is the type of theater which is most amusing, and my suggestion to you all is to read up on a bit of the BioD nonsense and then ask the hard questions of those assembled on stage, to wit: "exactly what forces are those that we are 'concentrating' by using these BioD preparations?"...
After all, these are the 'experts' - hell, York charges MONEY for those types of answers everyday! - and if they don't have clear answers to these questions, or if they conflict with each other, then we can draw one of three conclusions~
  1. they don't have a clue...
  2. they know, but don't want us to know...
  3. there is no answer because there really aren't any forces being concentrated, and to say such would expose the farce that biodynamics is.
 Personally, after about a decade of trying to fathom what-the-Hell BioD actually is doing in the vineyard by talking with growers & proponents, I believe the answer is a combination of 1 & 3. You can witness this firsthand by viewing the video below of Steve Beckmen of Santa Barbara "explaining" what they do at his vineyard...and "why"... 
This last part is the most telling, due to his rambling answers and lack of anything concrete. How someone can produce a video where the "expert" being talked to can stumble when trying to relate what "forces" are being "excluded" or "enhanced" is beyond me. Why anyone would then post that video w/o cleaning it up first to make sure it made sense is even further beyond me (c'mon! you've got all the time on your hands to make it as authoritative as possible, and ensure it flows smoothly...why not do a couple of takes and get it right?).
A few high points of the video are: 
  • Steve telling us about how his magic plywood box (lined with peat) keeps out unwanted "energies" from his BioD concoctions (sadly, those "energies" remain unnamed)...
  • relating the "art" of dynamization, and his confession that although hand stirring is best, he uses a machine to do the job so he doesn't have to hire 8 people to get the same job done...
  • that they CAN'T get the job done by following the biodynamic calendar, because you only have 2 days out of every 8 where the system allows for the work you need to do to actually get done - so they wrap the work onto other "similar" types of days ...
  • ...and many more!
And look here, you can actually see the potent cosmic-type energies escaping the box when it's opened!
Well, we're back to the beginning again, just like the snake eating its own tail, no closer to the real answers about what this system is really trying to do, or better yet "how it gets those things done". And why when people ignore the doctrines of that system it continues to deliver the wanted results. As I've said before - if you can delete or ignore certain parts of the system, did they really contribute to the overall results in the first place? 
Did any of it ever contribute to the results??
Hmm. Reminds me of a post from back in March '06 where a writer had published all sorts of nonsense re BioD and their silly calendars (don't forget to plant your potatoes this coming Monday after Easter...unless you're Greek Orthodox, when the best day will be the Monday following THEIR Easter Sunday...).

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Another worthless item to buy for your winery

Much has been made of "dynamization" of water by Rudolph Steiner and his biodynamic followers. The theory is that water as we see it today is disorganized and somehow "unnatural", needing to be corrected by applying dynamism (forcing a vortex to occur in the water by mixing it rapidly in one direction, then reversing the flow by stirring in the opposite direction)
At the site below you'll see yet another of the devices which supposedly delivers better water (to your house-winery-vineyard so that you can experience better heath and nutrition: the much anticipated "Vortelys"® (Terre de Lys®)....

And it's so easy to use:
"The main application of the Vortelys is the revitalization of drink and food. Earth is the planet of water. The human body consists of 90%-70%...."

Hmmmmmm....I think they're off by a little bit. I've never met anyone who was 90% water!
It continues....

"...Our development is done in a liquid medium. Our food contains between 50 and 80 % of water..." 

They obviously haven't been over to taste Mrs.Johnson's grilled burgers (dry as a witches teat, and only slightly more palatable than a hockey puck...a point I never waste mentioning to her as I sprint to the grill to take charge of the burgers before she does!). Anyway these points are really non-sequiturs. Again....

"The water molecule made of 2 hydrogen atoms and one atom of oxygen. Oxygen is the pole of communication. Hydrogen is at the same time the referential and the regulator. This unit is governed by very complex natural laws. The technologies and techniques of Terre de Lys respect natural dynamics, which are the source of well being. The use of Vortelys requires as a preliminary treatment of the electric pollution using the CHL01 protect which treats the electromagnetic pollution. To regenerate the water of the house, the Vortelys is placed near the water meter."

All the incorrect physics and pseudo-anthropomorphism ascribed to these elements aside, I believe they intend it to be "in-line" with your water service flow. Notice how their product "respect[s] natural dynamics" and is implied to do the same for the "very complex natural laws", which remain undefined in the sales pitch. And I've absolutely no idea what the referenced "CHL01" is, but I imagine they'll SELL you one whatever it might be...
"Consequently all the water consumed is revitalized. All water usage such as drinking, cooking, liquid used in healing, gardening and the others benefit from the treatment. In the same way the environment benefits from the discharge used water which has undergone revitalization: Little by little the ecosystem is regenerated. If you wish to benefit from the revitalization of food, and the drink wine, fruit juice etc.), it is enough to place for few minutes the products to be regenerated on the Vortelys. This will greatly enhance the taste of water/liquids and foods. Other applications are taught within the framework of BioSyntonie during our Biosyntonic seminars."

Ah-ha! We see what they really want to do is sell you this item so they can charge you to learn how to use it! And apparently just placing the item you want corrected upon the Vortelys is enough to impart the powerful "electric decontamination" effect, as they state you can do that with wine, juices, foodstuffs, etc.

Ha! What a load of manure this all is.

Labels: ,

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Savor Sonoma, cheers & jeers

This past weekend was the Savor Sonoma wine tasting event, and after inviting several friends to this barrel tasting event for the umpteenth time, I thought it'd be a good post if I had everybody gather all their impressions at each winery and put it all together. Here's a run-down of what the group found to be the best (& worst) of the weekend.....tasting staff and volunteers were all very helpful, except where noted otherwise...

Cheers:

Mayo Family and Collier (at Family Winemakers in Kenwood) tied for the best overall performances, and the 2-for-1 special at Collier was fantastic (bought a case of the '04, got a case of the '03 FREE!....now THAT's marketing!), and the winemaker at Collier was a hoot!
Mayo was very good overall, with very drinkable sangiovese, chard, and viognier. The petite sirah was a tad aggressive, but would do well with a bit of age on it, and the
cab franc was classically (read as "old world") less-ripe than most of the other cab francs produced these days in California, so a nice change on that varietal. The Meritage and Cab were both put together very well, and could use a few years to pick up some bottle bouquet. The port was excellent, and was "futures" worthy.

Eric Ross Winery had a very nice "light style" pinot, which was also worthy of buying futures, but the rest of their wines were not all that exciting. I'm still surprised Gallo hasn't tried to sue them for having a black rooster on their label...perhaps they're waiting to see if the Chianti Classico organization in Italy will take care of that for them...

Valley of the Moon had the best food pairing, with a tomato-bread soup that paired perfectly with the wine. The recipes were available on postcards for everyone to pick up if they wanted...another nice touch. The syrah they were sampling wasn't all that great, otherwise they were good.

Muscardini had some nice wines, the Unti Syrah was good, as was the sangiovese and the "Tesoro" blend, which we grabbed a few bottles of for dinner that night.

VJB...in a tent outside the tasting room right on HWY 12 in Kenwood, we felt a little like we were going to be hit by a car careening off the road at any time, but the wines were good: both their primitivo and the Dante blend were very good to excellent.

Jeers:
Ledson......has been much better in the past, not very impressive this time around. Also, the "kid" who was pouring behind the bar was, well... the best phrase is "somewhat lit". And as he poured us all a Brett ridden petite sirah, proclaiming how "...most wines need quite a bit of time before they're ready, but this wine's ready to drink right now. Really just an excellent barrel of wine..."
Right. It was poured out directly into the spittoon, and I even opted for a fresh glass, but was disappointed by receiving another Brett wine, this time a Cab.
(So, if you're going to have a wine event, make sure your employees aren't drinking more than your guests, and make sure they know the difference between Brett and complexity from
aging!)

Benziger. How could I NOT stop by the Sonoma bastion of all things biodynamic?
Ok, to be fair, they had a very nice Sauv Blanc barrel
being sampled, which was paired extremely well - most of us felt perfectly- with a slightly spicy asian noodle salad. I also hold their stated desire to farm as responsibly as possible in high regard. But the rest of the wines were average to disappointing, with both the BD wines being Brett tainted. Not a great advertisement for the potential for BD which they preach so loudly...

As we made for the exit, I recognized one of the gals behind the bar as the one who'd helped some guests
and myself a few years back...and for a moment I panicked that she recognized me also, as my friends stopped to taste what she had to offer behind the bar.

This I should explain: on that particular occasion years ago we had gone to their tasting room for my guests' introduction to what BD was, and how the resulting wines turned out. We had tasted thru the wines available at the bar, and had opted for the "premium" reserve tasting. We paid our money and shuffled into an adjacent room where this gal got into the whole BD is the best-thing-since-sliced-bread was invented, and how the wines we were about to imbibe were fantastic, low-yield vineyards, and how no better example of what quality wines BD could produce. Long story short, we tasted thru the first wines with not much comment, happy to let her go on-and-on with the winery's spiel...until she poured what she assured us was the finest of their offerings: a BD cab sauv from McDowell (?) vineyard. I was the lucky schmuck who got the first pour, and before she had gotten the glass poured for the person next to me, I was pouring mine into the spittoon. It never made it closer than arm's length from my face - it never was tasted.
At this point she stops pouring,
aghast & with a unique mixed expression of disbelief and utter shock, said "That's our best wine...".
My reply was "No. Thanks, but I can smell band-aids and barnyards as soon as you started pouring. That wine's contaminated with Brettanomyces yeast."
She haughtily countered with "It's a style...." (as if I was an idiot she could pull that crap on.).
Flatly I replied, "No it's not...it's a contaminant yeast which is producing those aromas. There's no fruit to be found in here...what's next to pour today?"
The pissed off look on her face spoke volumes.
Needless to say, our tasting ended soon afterwards...and we broke for the parking lot...

How this all ties in: This same lady just this past weekend, while pouring a BD wine for one of my guests which was Brett ridden, started waxing about how great a wine it was, and about the exquisite fruit it came from. My pal, quick to get the strong band-aid odor wafting from his glass baited her by asking "what is it that you smell in this?"
Her reply - "All that makes this vineyard special, the terroir of the site."
My pal persisted "It smells quite strong..." to which the gal replied "That's the soil you're smelling..."
He poured it out & took her to task by saying "No. That's Brett making that band-aid smell, NOT the soil!".
(I felt quite happy with myself, as though I'd just completed some magna opus, hearing my pal stand up for himself to this snotty lady...)

Here it was several years later, and I found my party walking out of the tasting room - again - and this particular pour staff gal still hasn't improved either her demeanor or her knowledge base.
If indeed she DOES know what Brett is, then she needs to improve her delivery to people so she's not continually talking down to them. It was just insulting.

I think she's had enough of the company Kool-aid, boys...
PS - it's time to change your staff out when they can't offer anything but a scowl to your patrons...I don't recall her smiling once the entire time we were there. Frankly she looked like she'd just swallowed a live scorpion.

Better luck next year...I hope....

Labels: , ,

Monday, February 25, 2008

Happy B-Day, Rudy Steiner!

An historic day!
The 147th Birthday of Rudolf Steiner!
Born Feb 25th, 1861, we can see from the following astrology chart that he was destined for greatness right out of the womb....

Note how the "inter-connected-osity" of his planetary alignment provided a superior complex polygonic network of communication pathways -an über-functionality, if you will- allowing him to commune with Nature and discern Spirits the rest of us can only sit back and marvel at!
Why even the lowliest inorganic elements were not immune from his powerful psyche - we read of his
wonderous, momentous interrogations of Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Phosphorous!

But anyway, enough of that nonsense!
So here's a glass of our best raised to you, Rudy, without whom I wouldn't have nearly so much in life to lampoon!
Uhhhh, I don't believe the producer was BD...sorry about that...
*** Not that it would matter, but I have no recollection where I found that chart on the 'net. Not that a fact like that would change any - and I mean ANY - description you wanted to attach to it....
And what of the fact he shares that birthdate with untold numbers of others? Then that description would effect EVERYONE who shared that same birth chart. So perhaps the question shouldn't be "Didn't his astronomical chart indicate he was unique", but rather "where were all the people in the world who should've shared his amazing attributes due to being born on the same date at the same time disappear to"?
I mean, really, why weren't there 6,000 (or more!) Steiner-esque philosophers unleashed upon this world on the day he was born? Or do we need to talk about how this sort of psuedoscience (both astrology & biodynamics) is bunk...?

Labels:

Friday, December 21, 2007

Biodynamic wine guidelines

BD (biodynamic) wines are better for you and don’t have any "nasty additives", right?

What’s the difference between "BD wine" and "Wine made from BD grapes"?

Can someone "spike" his BD wine with common "organic" wine?

From the DEMETER website come these delightful documents to help us all understand what they're attempting!

First, since I’ve parodied this topic many times before, I feel it important to note that I really do want to know what all the fuss over BD wines is about. And to the point of this post, I’ve been rather frustrated by the lack of specifics when BD proponents and producers talk of these wines.

We now have something a bit more detailed to work with: DEMETER USA has a Wine Standards document posted on its website. That should provide us with a good foundation to decide what is and isn’t allowed in BD wine production. (I'll try to help by translating the more "interesting" phrases in the document... but to view it in its entirety please use the link provided above).

The Standard is of 16 parts, and not surprisingly, the first part is relegated to establishing the vision of the BD wine movement. It also contains the single largest caveat/disclaimer of the document:

Now isn’t that a kicker?

That warning is there to put the producer on notice that BD in NOT a panacea, and that even using it and its associated “spiritual science” you still won’t be able to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. Also, that since you won’t be able to use some of the common “traditional” winemaking techniques to adjust your wines that other producers can employ and still call your wine your wine BD. They expect to have variation from one vintage to the next, so big producers who try to minimize those variations by blending on large scales may be out of luck

But you might end up reading it thus: IF you happen to have a fantastic vineyard which churns out fruit to make a wine which in your eyes is exactly what you want from the start without manipulation, then BD would be happy to ride along on the coattails of your successes!

One would assume from that statement that blending from one vintage to another is verboten (currently allowed under TTB reg’s @ 15% max), but that restriction sadly remains unstated…so its anybody’s guess on how that’s handled for any given wine.

§2 defines the various types/categories of BD wine, as well as placing some restrictions on how the DEMETER name/ BD branding may be used and products labeled.

DEMETER recognizes two distinct categories:
“Biodynamic wine” (explicit)
“Wine made from Biodynamic grapes” (explicit) …

[The document then goes through much of the remaining restrictions applying them to both classes, so the points between them are few, but significant ones at that.]

This same section lays out what it means to be “Biodynamic Wine”, and states curiously, …

(§2.a) “...Common manipulations such as yeast addition, enzyme addition, acidity adjustment, tannin addition, oaking and chappalization (sic) are not permitted.” (See “Oaking”, below…)

However, that doesn’t apply to “Wine made from Biodynamic grapes”, where you can add yeasts and ML bacteria, and can even adjust acid and or sugar as needed, so long as…

(§6.b) “Justification for acid and sugar adjustment must be documented.”

What was that?
Would “it tastes better with the extra acid” be sufficient justification?
What qualifies that addition to be made? Do we need prior authorization, or just to scribble a note to ourselves “wine needs acid” before we do it?
How long does it take for DEMETER or one of its reps to get back to you, in the event you need to make a time-sensitive adjustment?

The door is left wide open on that point…

And there’s no real difference between the acids you can add as a BD producer and the acids you’d be allowed to add if you were a conventional producer: citric, ascorbic and tartaric are all currently allowed under TTB reg’s - depending on what type of wine you are making. The restriction for the BD producer is that those acids must be either organic or BD in their origin (conventional producers can use synthetic...not that there's anything wrong with that...).

And yeast nutrients CAN be added to any/all BD wines, provided it doesn’t contain DAP (see below) and is otherwise approved of by DEMETER.

What is explicitly forbidden is the use of any material which has a GMO (genetically modified organism) origin, either directly or through the process of its manufacture. Also expressly prohibited are;

Diammonium phosphate (DAP) – a yeast energizer (Steiner feared man-made ammonia!)

Isinglas (swim bladders from Sturgeon, which they have errantly called “Sturgeon gall bladders (isenglas)” in the document),

PVPP (polyvinylpolypyrrolidone) – a clarifier which is added then filtered out of the wine (I think they did this because it is synthetic…but that wouldn’t explain why they later allow polypropylene and nylon filtration membranes to be used…curious, eh?)

Blood – classically used in the Rhone region of France to clarify wines (but not currently done to my knowledge)

Gelatin (because of the animal origin, though again that’s curious as they allow –nay require- you spray your vines with various concoctions made using bovine intestines (from BSE free countries), skulls ([only bone] from cows [less than 1 year old], pigs or horses), and stags' bladders (not originated from North America, for whatever reason...) [see link].

Neither class of wine is required to go to bottle unfiltered. In fact, there are no real restrictions on filtration, other than the glaring omission of cross-flow filtration. Unbleached pad filters can be used for any BD wine. So can DE (diatomaceous earth), gold filters (I don’t know anyone who’s using those – and it would be kind of a waste anyways…), and the aforementioned polypropylene and/or nylon cartridge filters (standard industry issue there…).

Wine labeled “Biodynamic wine” must be restricted to a single vineyard estate, but can be of various blocks within that vineyard –provided they are BD farmed vineyards (see my post on single-vinyard-wines here). Regarding blending and topping-off (§10.b) BD wines are stated that this should be done using wine made from BIODYNAMIC grapes.” I think they meant MUST , not should…though that means you could top a BD wine with BD or organic wines, or maybe even conventional wines – though that would really not be in keeping with the spirit of BD production…

OAKING

This point made above of not allowing “oaking” is misleading – under §7, titled “Oaking” we see the following applied to BOTH classes of BD wines: “§7.a) Oak may be provided by using oak barrels or oak chips. Chips should be barrel grade.

Ok…first things first. Get your document in order so you don’t include self-contradicting propositions. Secondly, it’s pretty hard to classify chips as “barrel grade”, they’ve been through a chipper, and are unevenly toasted, etc….

To paraphrase the old anti-Chicken McNuggets ad “chips are chips”. Frankly, you’re never really sure where they came from or how they looked before the got ripped apart.

So I guess I’ll have to settle for anything other than barrels and chips being outlawed (that being oak extracts and oak powder)…otherwise its still business as usual!

STANDARD PRACTICES

Fining and filtration still can be done. Bentonite and egg whites are still possible agents for that. Most of the language that is included is the document merely outlines what would be considered “industry standard” practices – like the use of food grade equipment. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) can still be used, up to a total level of 100 ppm, which is lower than the TTB reg’s 350 ppm total sulfite level for conventional producers (my experience is that most conventional table wines in the US hover around 25~35 ppm free sulfite, and 100~120 ppm total sulfite).

CONCLUSION

What we see is an attempt to minimize the influence of the winemaker in making the wines. What I also notice is that despite all of the protestations of the adherents of the system, it is rife with “standard industry practice” and manipulation. Glaringly open manipulation still exists. Other production restrictions also apply as general Demeter production standards are evoked as well, but those can be boiled down to prohibiting the following: GMO products or products made via a GMO, irradiating, fumigated (except for N2 & CO2), and pretty much any treatment involving microwaves. Other restrictions also apply –see the links below for full details.

DEMETER Wine Standards (US)

DEMETER Processing Standards (INTL)

DEMETER Production Standards (INTL)

DEMETER Beer Standards (INTL)

Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 02, 2007

BioD and Ghosts

I know....Halloween is over.
But I came across this just today...a report on CNN by AP/IPSOS: Ghost poll finds that 1/3 of the population believes in ghosts...

Weird, but that's roughly the same percentage of the respondents in the recent Demeter poll who believed that seeing "biodynamic" on a wine label conferred some higher level of quality than a wine without that branding.
The revealing part of the article is the link to what to do if your house has ghosts...

And as hokey as all that is, there are several items in the news this past week which help illustrate why some people see or believe when others (and science) don't. Mainly the reports center on the ability of the brain to see patterns in all that we do - whether they exist or not. In some people those subliminal desires to see patterns are so strong they produce "something" to satisfy that need. This may reveal why some people can "see ghosts", or get into the esoteric-etheric side of BioD. And by that explain how the majority of us cannot
understand what the hell they're doing or how they can believe in astral spirits looking over their fields, the dynamization of water, etc...

Certainly having this "extra desire" to see patterns would be a big help when trying to establish some sort of "reading" when looking at the dubious plates produced by "sensitive crystallization"...like it means anything at all...

...but then again, perhaps I'm just exposing my inability to the non-existent patterns they imagine...

Labels: ,

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Ahh! Those good ol' days...

Yes, time yet again for a reminder that Grandma & Granddad didn't have it as easy as we imagine they did. (if you're ever in doubt, re-read the book Rascal by Sterling North, and think about the influenza ridden hospital wards back in the 1910's...)

We're light years ahead of where viticulture and winemaking were a century ago, and our technology has brought us better tasting and more stable wines than we have ever experienced in history...
Right about now is where I'd usually start deriding Biodynamics for its constant call to a return to some imaginary euphoric-utopian agricultural world...but since the Demeter Association (which certifies farms as BioD compliant) states that the only difference between an organic farm and a BioD farm is the use of those crazy shamanic potions they concoct, an couple that with the fact that Rudolf Steiner himself (the founder of BioD) stated that it wasn't even important that those very potions even worked, and I think it pretty clear that BioD as a concept is just a movement riding on the coattails of organic farming's success...

(I'll try to get the original statement from the Demeter site up here today or tomorrow....)

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Earthworms used to predict earthquakes

This is a great article that really illustrates why we need to ask more questions before jumping to conclusions when presented with new & novel things happening in our vineyards:

"...Wu, who bought the vineyard 40 years ago, said he has never seen so many earthworms in his vineyard before and estimated there were 200 to 300 kilograms of them. Seeing the large numbers of earthworms Wu feared that a major quake might be coming because worms and snakes are known to come to the surface when disturbed by seismic activity.

Wu consulted a farm expert who said the earthworms crawled out because his vineyards were flooded when Typhoon Krosa hit Taiwan on October 5. Although earthworms like humid environment, they cannot stand extreme moisture or when the underground water level rises too high, so they came out of the earth, the expert told Wu.

Wu's worry about an upcoming strong earthquake eased when it was pointed out that another vineyard near Hu's house has not been invaded by earthworms because it was not flooded during the typhoon's passage."

(read the article here @ EARTHTimes.org)

Hmmmm....
Is there any need for me to point out the obvious differences with the resolution of this matter in Taipei and the Biodynamic movement?

(Hint: in Taipei they actually consult REAL experts about the phenomena they experience rather than just making some reason up out of thin air to justify why it should be happening....
The scientific method is still alive!!!!)

Read this article by Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott titled "The Myth of Folklore Gardening"...it seems the folklore in Taipei is as strong as it is here...

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Wake up call: red moon rising

So I'm up at 3:45 this morning, and there's no fog...
Dim up in the sky hangs the eclipsed moon, dark red and orange...



I'm wide awake, so I start to wonder what our dear old friend Rudolph Steiner and his creation -Anthroposophy (and "biodynamics")- had to say about eclipses, particularly lunar eclipses. Certainly, it must've been something sublime and insightful, no? Does it portend a decline in the Moon influence and signal a day where we can combat mold & fungi more effectively? Is it a day in which we must exorcise the lunar demons to free the solar influence to be "rayed back" upon us?
Are there ritual to be performed of any type....?
After all, these are the two diametrically opposed celestial powers which somehow influence all life on earth...that HAS to be worth mentioning and discussing with his erstwhile diciples...these two celestial bodies rule supreme over his universe!

Off I head to the internet and to my copy of his 1924 agricultural lectures...

Nothing. Not a peep about eclipses...

Even if they are opposed forces, one would expect the eclipse days to be described as "caution" days, or perhaps days where no activity should take place as the universe was "unsettled", or in "flux" and without clear direction - a "rest day", if you will....

Nope. Nothing. Nada.

What bunk that all is, to ignore what must fit into your philosophical system somewhere...but then again, maybe he was just too busy describing how to skin young field-mice to make a cure all "pepper" to rid yourself of those same field-mice...

Labels:

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Boonesdonny #3

Where we see the kids a bit down over the fact that nobody's flocking to their doorstep to shell out money for nothing... But they've got an angle: they just need a Hotshot Sales & Marketing team!!!

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Boonesdonny continues...

Another frame in the epic story of a boy in search of money from the gullible...
What a fun way to parody & satire BioD!
I should've thought of this years ago!!


Stay tuned for more fun in the coming weeks...

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, July 09, 2007

About BioD...

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Mail Call...

This from an anonymous comment on my review of Msr. Joly's book Wine from Earth to Sky...

"if you could care less about food or wine that tastes,looks,and smells as it should naturally, because it's a little funky from time to time... (as one should expect, because well,...fermented or aged fruit, milk, meat,ect. is by the very process of ageing a bit...um... funky.) and only care about how lip smacking tasty something is, then try pounding down some twinkies and chaseing[sic] them with big gulps of pepsi.
it's damn good stuff! i don't care how it's made."

My reply: Bullshit...
"Anon -

The inference from your statement is that winemakers don't need to try to make good wine, they get carte blanc because it's a "natural product" despite the fact that all foods (other than those consumed directly-off-the-vine, so to speak) have some human manipulation (although I contend that the manipulation goes back to the planning stage as we have to determine where & what to plant, etc).

As such, we should therefore try to make the best of what we do, not have some half-assed cosmic theory to exculpate our half-assed attempts. If someone wants to try to make wine with unproved & untenable theories then go for it. But don't bother me about how "that's the way Nature intended it"...because Nature provided us with the capacity for rational thought, and intended for us to apply ourselves to the problems we encounter, not make excuses...

Wine should taste good...otherwise why bother with it at all? If you're looking for something with some acidity then we could substitute cranberry juice, or something else. But we don't - we search for that elusive complexity in wine instead."


Frankly, the debates about BioD remind me of that 2002 South Park episode where Stan Marsh confronts John Edward, the self-proclaimed psychic who uses "cold reading" to manipulate his audiences:

Stan: I am saying this to you, John Edward. You are a liar, you are a fake, and you are the biggest douche ever.

John Edward: Everything I tell people is positive and gives them hope. How does that make me a douche?

Stan: Because the big questions in life are tough - Why are we here, where are we from, where are we going. But if people believe in asshole douchey liars like you, we're never going to find the real answers to those questions. You aren't just lying, you are slowing down the progress of all mankind. You douche.

"Slowing down the progress of all mankind"...that phrase really brings it all home.

About having these "cosmic forces" that only Steiner or Joly seem to be able to channel, and that practitioners of BioD are benign (though perhaps mistaken) individuals there is the following exchange which perfectly sums that claim up:

John Edward: Look, what I do doesn't hurt anybody. I give people closure and help them cope with life.

Stan: No, you give them false hope and a belief in something that isn't real.

John Edward: But I'm a psychic.

Stan: No dude, you're a douche.

John Edward: I'm not a douche! What if I really believe that dead people talk to me?

Stan: Then you're a stupid douche.

Anon, go ahead and pour yourself that Pepsi - or if you prefer - some stinky substandard wine.
It's your choice after all, but I'll stick with wines made by people who aren't looking to hide behind something.

/V

Labels: , , ,

Monday, March 26, 2007

Sustainability

Many people are waving the flag of sustainable agriculture these days. In particular, we hear it mentioned more & more often in regards to viticulture and wine production.

But what exactly does it mean, and how does it shape our agricultural practices?


"It's easy to understand why key individuals and organizations in agriculture have flocked to this term. After all, who would advocate a 'non-sustainable agriculture?'" [Charles A. Francis, "Sustainable Agriculture: Myths and Realities," Journal of Sustainable Agriculture (1990) 1(1): p.97].
Sustainable Agriculture: Definitions and Terms

Rightly observed seventeen years ago, the allure of the term alone makes it something which most people would assume is a good thing without asking what it entails. Note that I’m not knocking it – in fact the ideal of the sustainable philosophy is something we should all strive for - but this subject needs a little more light on it, as Biodynamic producers (and some media advocates of BioD) continue to claim that they practice the most sustainable form of agriculture. An interesting claim to make when decades of studies have merely reinforced the notion that the organic foundation of biodynamics is what makes it effective, and not the preparations, the “cosmoculture”, nor the celestial calendars they use. Perhaps they are making that claim based solely on BioD’s prohibition of all pesticides? even the naturally occurring ones? Hmmmm…..

Unfortunately, the concept of sustainable agriculture is somewhat nebulous – even 15 years after the NGO Sustainable Agriculture Treaty of 1992. But the majority of definitions seem to agree on a few core topics:

§ Reduce use of synthetic agrochemicals
§ Reduce the risk of waterway pollution
§ Conserving natural resources and energy
§ Promote responsible use of fertilizers and pesticides
§ Minimize environmental impacts of agriculture

After that, definitions start to vary quite a bit. And nowhere in the mainstream definitions do we see a prohibition of all fertilizers or pesticides. Why?

Here’s a list of what we see on the major points:

Interesting, eh? Note that Sustainable and Conventional are identical in that there isn’t anything actually prohibited as far as sources of agricultural inputs. IPM (Integrated Pest Management) isn’t prohibited either by any of the three systems, or by the Sustainable philosophy (except where the use of pesticides would be prohibited under the system in question).

But perhaps a few working definitions of the three systems are in order…

CONVENTIONAL

This is the standard 20th century agriculture. Nothing (originally) was prohibited form being used, and over time laws were put in place to prevent the greatest threats from products that later turned out to be too broad-spectrum or too long-lasting.

Much maligned for early abuses, the system as a whole also suffers from public perceptions that it’s the cause of such environmental damages as waterway and stream pollution from pesticides, fertilizers, and “factory farm” waste runoff. While the indiscriminant use of synthetic pesticides and herbicides HAS been a contributor to this problem, the “factory farm” (e.g., large concentrated feedlots with poor sanitation and living conditions for the animals in general) is wrongly attributed in the public eye solely to Conventional Ag.

While I believe that those runoff and living condition problems are very real, they represent an extreme of the conventional ideology which has largely been exploited by bigger farming operations. This of course, is the crux of the objection to Conventional Ag, as concerned people point out the need for farms to be profitable and the (potentially) large amounts of capital spent for those synthetic pesticides and fertilizers – a need to grow the operation and maximize the return by using a larger scale (the much dreaded “scale of economy”). The Government has been somewhat successful at combating those problems, but they haven’t been eliminated yet.

As for pesticide residues, they are regulated by the Government (FDA) and those limits should represent a fair consensus of what research has shown to be safe. Still, objections are made appealing to the paranoia (perhaps correctly) that big business interests have somehow corrupted the system at the consumers’ expense.

ORGANIC

Improving on the Conventional perspective, Organic eliminates the reliance on synthetic chemicals, and substitutes a more holistic view of the farm within its environment.

As such, runoff from synthetic chemicals is essentially eliminated. But note that runoff problems (erosion, manure, etc) may still exist.

With a reliance on compost, crop rotation, and better tilling practices, Organic provides the best system to date which balances the need for production and environmental preservation. Naturally occurring pesticides (B.thuringenesis, rotenone, etc) and fertilizers (compost, guano, etc) can still be used. This allows the farmers some protection from pests without the reliance on synthetic chemistry and hopefully a more specific effect. Pesticide residues are still regulated by the Government.

More flavorful food is one of the effects most touted by the Organic quarter, though some research has shown the improved flavor may be due more to the “local” nature of most organic production to date. Generally the produce isn’t shipped as far, and is consumed before too much time has elapsed since picking. As more large farms are converting to Organic, the hardcore natural (“Green”) movement is decrying this as an attempt by big business to cash in on (and corrupt) a good idea. However, I would wonder out loud if perhaps that scenario isn't such a bad thing after all...

...unless of course they are forming large “factory farms” (e.g., large concentrated feedlots with poor sanitation and living conditions for the animals in general) where overcrowding and other factors produce waste runoff which pollutes waterways or otherwise unnecessarily degrades the environment...etc.

BIODYNAMIC

Eschewing all natural and synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, Biodynamic (BioD) relies on a cosmic philosophy to keep pests at bay and fertility at its peak. Created by Rudolf Steiner in 1923, the system has taken many years to reach it's current acceptance but still struggles with the same issues of clarity and logical idea flow that hindered it when first revealed. That being said, the agricultural base is that of Organic, when stripped of all of the cosmic trappings.

Personally, I think any system which totally prohibits any fertilizers or pesticides – even naturally occurring ones – is myopic at best. With a constantly increasing world population, this civilization we have is more prone than ever to ravages brought about by drought, failed harvests, insect pressures, or even just reduced yields in one geographic location or another. And while the utopian dream of having a world free of any manipulation is admirable, it is not remotely realistic…not without putting all of Humanity at great risk. (Don't even get me started about the potential curveballs that global warming could throw us to exacerbate our sometimes tenuous existence...)

BioD’s main tenet is exactly that, and makes it unacceptably naïve from a long-term perspective (all of its other naïveté aside). Another thought about limitations brought about by adopting BioD is that “[s]ustainable agriculture does not mean a return to either the low yields or poor farmers that characterized the 19th century. Rather, sustainability builds on current agricultural achievements, adopting a sophisticated approach that can maintain high yields and farm profits without undermining the resources on which agriculture depends.” (Union of Concerned Scientists, 1999 – see link)

With BioD’s possibly erroneous emphasis on low yields (see my yields-quality post), one has to wonder where it will possibly put us if it were adopted across agriculture as a whole. Would there be a lower profit margin for farmers as they have less produce to sell, and higher prices for consumers? That’s something which could cripple emerging countries as well as condemn them to endless cycles of starvation…and would the current position that irrigation is taboo also hurt us with the possible changing weather brought about by global warming? (Point in fact, Steiner never prohibits higher yields in his agriculture lectures, he merely prohibits achieving them via modern fertilizers…
He also never prohibits irrigation. In fact, I don’t recall him ever mentioning it at all in his lectures. But somehow the modernized application of BioD adopts low yields and dry farming as signatures, at the very least within context of the viticultural movement. Another late addition to BioD is the prohibition of GMO’s, which again Steiner never envisioned.)

In the end, BioD is no guarantee that the system won't be applied on such a large scale as to produce some of the same problems that any "factory farm" might produce. And lastly, any system can cause runoff problems from improper fertilization or manure storage...

Where SUSTAINABILITY fits in...

Sustainability offers something flexible enough to be used in both the developed and emerging worlds: adaptability to various social and economic pressures while promoting well thought out usage and minimal long term effects.

All agriculture is in some way an invasive and destructive act, even while it creates food and textiles for our civilization. And that includes BioD agriculture (the very thing it proposes to promote is somehow lost when we extrapolate to its logical end).

Sustainable philosophy doesn’t lead to artificially low yields, overly high prices for consumers, or to starvation of the farmers. What the Sustainable philosophy preaches is responsible use of resources in our drive for production, while striving for an equitable exchange of goods - regardless of farming system employed.

From that platform, one can start to make some reasoned decisions about what practices to use that will allow the best protections of the environment without placing modern civilization in peril.

**********

Arm yourselves with knowledge! Read more here:

USDA: Sustainability publications list

The Wine Institute : Sustainability values statement

The Wine Institute : Benefits of Sustainability

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Fightin' the good fight

There are a number of articles hitting the traditional wine media pages lately which are troubling at best.

TIME magazine, Wine & Spirits, and Bloomberg have carried articles just in the past two weeks about Biodynamics. Sadly, each case has presented BioD in a rather benign light, and dismissed or just glossed over the "cosmoculture" and use of arcane rituals. But without those practices, there's really nothing left but organic agriculture - a point again which isn't emphasized in the latest spate of media attention....

The good news is that there are people fighting onward to see that the truth of BioD ag isn't misrepresented. In the last week there have been several letters written to the publishers of these magazines in rebuttal...like the following which was sent to the editors at TIME:

"March 1, 2007

To the Editor:

It is telling that in the week Time Magazine chose to publish an article praising biodynamics (“Virtuous Vino” - Lisa McLaughlin, February 22, 2007) a discussion panel convened by AAAS reports that Americans increasingly believe in pseudoscience (“U.S. Has More Science Smarts - Sort Of” - Randolph E. Schmid, Associated Press, February 18, 2007). According to Dr. Carol Losh (Florida State University), "Pseudoscience discussion often is absent from the classroom," so "we have basically left it up to the media." Time magazine apparently is contributing to this dubious honor.

Biodynamic agricultural practices are identified by recourse to astrology, homeopathy and alchemistic or voodoo-like preparations. They are simply pseudoscience in green clothing. To claim that biodynamic is somehow "überorganic" in virtue of these practices does a disservice to valid organic practices, to wine drinkers and to science literacy in the US.

[signed] Linda Chalker-Scott, Ph.D. (Associate Professor and Extension Urban Horticulturist, WSU Puyallup Research and Extension Center), Douglass Smith, Ph.D., [and] Lee M. Silver, Ph.D. (Professor of Molecular Biology & Public Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs, Princeton University)."

At least there are people out there - educated people - who are willing to put a little time into rebuttal of such nonsense as BioD.

Labels: