On biodynamics
It has been fascinating to see biodynamic wine covered on mainstream news (both TV and newspapers) here in the UK over the last few days. So I thought I'd draw readers' attention to some articles on the topic.First, the newspaper piece that started the discussion off. It was this article in the Guardian, which was the direct result of a press release by Quite Great Publicity (on behalf of David Motion's shop The Winery) that was sent on April 8th.
My take? I did a series on the topic which can be found here. And here's a video of James Millton preparing and spraying BD501, one of the preparations.
Then the nay-sayers: here's an article in The World of Fine Wine that's worth a read.
Labels: biodynamics
posted by Jamie @ 9:55 PM
7 comments
links to this post
7 Comments:
I don't really pay much heed to people with vested interests and their "opinions".
Show (or even propose) the physical mechanisms that make this "work" and I might take an interest. Until then "biodynamics" is filed under the category of "superstition" for me.
While I can see Biodynamics working as a method where the whole of the vineyard is treated as a whole. I still do not understand any of the logic behind root days and tasting. Are there any good references for this ?
I know The Guardian reporter - an oenophile friend who set up a review of their canteen for my blog!
I'd say that I don't pay much attention to opinions either, but I'd say that requiring an explanation of how it works is a bit OTT. The important mid-way point is evidence is that there's something to it. Once that has been established, it might be worth trying to work out some kind of mechanism.
Does anyone have an online biodynamic calendar resource they care to share?
I came across this but wonder if anyone has a more wine specific one;
http://www.the-gardeners-calendar.co.uk/Moon_Planting.asp
Steve, I can see where you are coming from - I think some bits of biodynamics are far more plausible than others.
Chris, I'm not sure that this is central to biodynamics - and I don't know of any good references.
Douglas - they did a very good job.
Alex - quite agree. That's a sensible suggestion.
Ashley, I'll look into this - I think you may have to buy the calendar for 2009
Alex/Jamie, I'm kind of assuming that people already think there is evidence for efficacy because they clearly feel its worthwhile expending money and effort on this; surely they must be seeing some positive results or why bother?
My point is purely a scientific one, i.e. propose the mechanism that explains the evidence so that it can be (blind) tested and the effects reproduced, shouldn’t be difficult?
Otherwise for me its just more pseudo-scientific crap up there with healing crystals, horoscopes, lay lines and homoeopathy, cleverly hand crafted by people to extract cash from other (more gullible) people and IMO it risks bringing the wider wine community into disrepute.
Of course, I have no objection to people spending their own money on whatever they like, but when reality based/scientific claims are made for something like this they should be properly substantiated or else how can the consumer be expected to take them seriously?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home