"Biodynamics and the Limits of Rationalism" by Clark Smith

"Biodynamics and the Limits of Rationalism"
http://www.winesandvines.com/sections/printout_article.cfm?article=column&content=82315.
Please, fight amongst yourselves. The essay from Wines and Vines contains some of the reddest meat there is to be had in the wine geek troll world.

Smith, founder of Vinovation, a firm best known for reconstructing wines using reverse osmosis and other thoroughly modern methods, makes statements like, "My goal in this article is not to defend Biodynamics[sic]." He spends the rest of the essay doing exactly that, with claims such as, "systems don’t need to be rationally derived in order to work."

As a scientist, these sorts of anti-science screeds drive me nuts. I admit right up front that science is not needed in all cases and has limits. I would be a fool not to, as millenia worth of evidence shows that non-scientists lacking even the rudiments of a scientific method or theory have done very well for themselves in countless fields, from eclipse prediction to winemaking. But when a trained scientist turns around and claims that he is "attracted to the experiment of Biodynamics[sic] because of its intractability to conventional scientific practices," I start looking for my gun.

Sorry, but biodynamics (it ain't a proper name, folks) is not unexplainable by science just because it is currently not explained by by science. It doesn't seem a big scientific leap to me that folks adopting out-of-the-mainstream principles like biodynamics make wines that taste different. Furthermore, I would be shocked if those wines weren't "better" than wines made by people concentrating on hitting a price point with a style designed to attract the largest number of wine drinkers. Smith even admits as much, saying "The Biodynamic[sic] flavor profile has a higher tolerance for microbial defects such as VA and aldehyde, but it holds the wine to a much higher standard in terms of flavor interest, distinctive character and minerality." Nowhere is there a shred of evidence that the tools of science are powerless in the face of mysticism.

Rant over, read the essay and tell me what you think.

Walt

read the essay and tell me what you think.

Wait, we have to READ it before expressing opinion? Jeez.
I find Clark S challenging/irritating, but will try to read.

As a hard-nosed science type, I dispute the "limits of rationalism" bit. But from what I know about Biodynamics, it looks like practical organic farming with a lot of mumbo-jumbo BS ritual attached to it. I'd wager that a lot of the success attributed to Biodynamics is actually just self-selection. If you're willing to follow all that Biodynamic BS ritual crapola, it's clear that you're dedicated to what you're doing, you care, and you're applying attention to detail. Those factors (care and attention) are going to put you at an above average level in any endeavor.

So just keep the vines weeded and fertilized properly, and lose the ground ram's horn sprinkled at the equinox, or whatever.

-Paul W.

Precisely what Paul said in the post above.

[David M. Bueker]

I want to read the article a second time before making extensive comments, but one of Smith's early sentences set my teeth on edge:

"Varietal purity and sterile bottling may be fine for Riesling, but you need more game than that to play in the Cabernet big leagues."

That might be one of the most arrogant statements I have ever read from someone in the wine business.

More comments to come.

I want to read the article a second time before making extensive comments, but one of Smith's early sentences set my teeth on edge:

"Varietal purity and sterile bottling may be fine for Riesling, but you need more game than that to play in the Cabernet big leagues."

That might be one of the most arrogant statements I have ever read from someone in the wine business.

More comments to come.

California Ueber Alles!

(just how do you get an umlaut on the board?)

[David M. Bueker]

(just how do you get an umlaut on the board?)

On a Windows machine with a keyboard that has a number pad:

NUM Lock key "on"
Hold down ALT key and type 0252 on the number pad to get a ü with an umlaut. ATL with 0228 gets you an ä with the umlaut.

Bd is a good marketing tool. Ten years ago no one knew burying cow horns full of sh#t could get you so much free publicity.

(just how do you get an umlaut on the board?)

On a Windows machine with a keyboard that has a number pad:

NUM Lock key "on"
Hold down ALT key and type 0252 on the number pad to get a ü with an umlaut. ATL with 0228 gets you an ä with the umlaut.

UGH! I will continue with ueber, etc. !

I want to read the article a second time before making extensive comments, but one of Smith's early sentences set my teeth on edge:

"Varietal purity and sterile bottling may be fine for Riesling, but you need more game than that to play in the Cabernet big leagues."

That might be one of the most arrogant statements I have ever read from someone in the wine business.

My guess is that's just a bit of troll fodder to distract you from how weak his other points are...

The funny thing is, I'm absolutely pro-biodynamic. If I'm looking at two bottles of wine from the same region, producers unknown to me, hell yes I'm going to choose the biodynamic. Organic often gets the organic crazies and raises the price, but in my experience, biodynamic is a potential signal of a style I prefer. Lord, save biodynamics from its "friends" like Smith.

Walt

P.S. One of the many good things about the Mac is that pressing Option-U adds an umlaut to the next letter you type. No three digit codes, all you have to remember is "u" for "umlaut."

I really liked how early in the article it states that

Newcomers to postmodern methods are often disturbed by our high reliance on the human palate over lab-generated numbers. Because we lack tools and information, for example, to measure reductive strength, minerality or colloid shapes, today a strictly analytical approach cannot succeed.

and then later states

The Biodynamic flavor profile has a higher tolerance for microbial defects such as VA and aldehyde, but it holds the wine to a much higher standard in terms of flavor interest, distinctive character and minerality.

Maybe I am not getting his point. How does Biodynamic FARMING allow for microbial defects in the wine. Also I can measure VA so I guess the point is that for some magical reason I am willing to accept more VA in a wine that is made from biodynamically farmed grapes. Just not sure why elevated VA taste more acceptable in that wine than wine that is not biodynamic. Which again may be his point.

Also:

It’s fair to say that we would not try to test, say, a new carburetor design disconnected from the rest of the engine.

I have to say that is the strangest thing I have ever read. Of course we test a new carburetor design diconnected from the engine. Its tested a lot disconnected from the engine. Changes are often made to the design based upon this testing. Only when the new design is mature enough to test on the engine does it proceed to that point. And yes more changes to the design will take place once the interection with the engine is tested but to imply that testing of the carburetor alone does not happen and is not of value is completely baffling to me.

It's true that the scientific process involves "instinct, patient observation and pragmatic trial" and that "to navigate uncharted realms, we must often let go of the comforting props of plausibility, logical extension of theory and statistical testing." But I do not agree that biodynamics is "intractab[le] to conventional scientific practices" (as Smith claims). I agree with you, Walt, that just because biodynamics is not currently explained by science doesn't mean it can't be. I believe that if there's any legitimacy to spreading dilute preparations of fermented manure that has been buried in cow horn, then a scientific explanation for it will exist.

I'd say, by Smith's own criteria of the "many approaches to validating or debunking [biodynamic] practices [that] seem worth looking at":

1. Assess its historical foundations - pretty unscientific and pretty unreasonable, but Smith's right that having "no farming experience... [and no] experiments to back up [the] theory and methodology... doesn’t prove that [the] system doesn’t work."
2. Conduct controlled experiments - research has shown that biodynamic agriculture leads to quantitatively improved soil health (e.g., microbial activity) but so does organic agriculture. Whether biodynamics has any edge over organics in this sense has not been proven AFAIK. And that's not even considering wine - which adds a whole other complication to things (we're not talking grapes, we're talking processed grapes).
3. Evaluate product quality - there's no doubt that biodynamic wines are favourable among the wine cognoscenti, so on this point it wins out. But it's not clear whether that's because of biodynamic practices (specifically) or something else associated with them
4. Observe long-term survivability - yet to be seen, but doesn't prove anything in itself anyway

But much of the discussion of biodynamics (and Smith's article) really delves beyond wine and into philosophical issues (like the philosophy of science). Isn't it nice that the beverage of wine can do that?

"Varietal purity and sterile bottling may be fine for Riesling, but you need more game than that to play in the Cabernet big leagues."
That might be one of the most arrogant statements I have ever read from someone in the wine business.

Perhaps somewhat arrogant, but it is not entirely unfair. There's a legitimate argument that winemakers making a style of Riesling that is "(varietally) purer", has residual sugar (and malic acid) in bottle (and is therefore sterile filtered for security), doesn't see oak, and doesn't undergo the (same degree of) complex phenolic reactions as red wine, aren't dealing with the same level of technical detail as those winemakers who work with Cabernet. Perhaps "more game" is unfair because it implies superiority, but there's at the very least a significant ("game") difference.

Maybe I am not getting his point. How does Biodynamic FARMING allow for microbial defects in the wine. Also I can measure VA so I guess the point is that for some magical reason I am willing to accept more VA in a wine that is made from biodynamically farmed grapes. Just not sure why elevated VA taste more acceptable in that wine than wine that is not biodynamic. Which again may be his point.

I wondered the same thing, but I think you're right that his point is: we don't know why, but for some reason VA is more acceptable in biodynamics wines. I'd really like to at the very least hear of some examples to be persuaded by that argument though, rather than someone's (in this case, Smith's) subjective tasting experience without any examples.

[David M. Bueker]

"Varietal purity and sterile bottling may be fine for Riesling, but you need more game than that to play in the Cabernet big leagues."
That might be one of the most arrogant statements I have ever read from someone in the wine business.

Perhaps somewhat arrogant, but it is not entirely unfair. There's a legitimate argument that winemakers making a style of Riesling that is "(varietally) purer", has residual sugar (and malic acid) in bottle (and is therefore sterile filtered for security), doesn't see oak, and doesn't undergo the (same degree of) complex phenolic reactions as red wine, aren't dealing with the same level of technical detail as those winemakers who work with Cabernet. Perhaps "more game" is unfair because it implies superiority, but there's at the very least a significant ("game") difference.

Of course Cabernet makers often blend with other varieties (e.g. Merlot, Cab Franc) up to the varietal purity limits (e.g. 75% cabernet), and get to use the makeup of oak barrels to mask fruit that has been left to hang until it is devoid of any real character.

Smith's one Riesling is a bland and formless creature, and I think his attitude is part of the cause.

OK, finally read, and I guess I can't get that time back, damn!

As I've stated here before, I love a lot of biodynamic wines, but would need to see some proof that the difference is anything more than putting a lot of care and hands on time in vineyard.

"How little we understand how little we know"
Clark is just like Bill O'Reilly!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/0 ... 05848.html

Walt,
I guess I agree with you in the following sense. It doesn't matter what the grower believes as long as the attention to detail of vine health and grape quality is the conscious objective of his/her practice. None of the voodoo has an effect on the vines, but it may very well have an effect on the commitment to quality.

Of course Cabernet makers often blend with other varieties (e.g. Merlot, Cab Franc) up to the varietal purity limits (e.g. 75% cabernet), and get to use the makeup of oak barrels to mask fruit that has been left to hang until it is devoid of any real character.

Yes, the balancing of blending different varieties and oak adds another level of complexity that is just not present when making Riesling. For these reasons, also, the "game" difference is also justifiable to some extent.

Smith's one Riesling is a bland and formless creature, and I think his attitude is part of the cause.

I haven't tasted his Riesling so I can't comment on that, but whether it's bland/formless or not, the point he makes still isn't entirely unfair as a general statement.

[David M. Bueker]

Of course Cabernet makers often blend with other varieties (e.g. Merlot, Cab Franc) up to the varietal purity limits (e.g. 75% cabernet), and get to use the makeup of oak barrels to mask fruit that has been left to hang until it is devoid of any real character.

Yes, the balancing of blending different varieties and oak adds another level of complexity that is just not present when making Riesling. For these reasons, also, the "game" difference is also justifiable to some extent.

Smith's one Riesling is a bland and formless creature, and I think his attitude is part of the cause.

I haven't tasted his Riesling so I can't comment on that, but whether it's bland/formless or not, the point he makes still isn't entirely unfair as a general statement.

I completely disagree with you. The Cabernet maker has an arsenal of tricks at his disposal to cover up any potential flaw/imbalance. It's a different game perhaps, but the level of skill that is required is likely the same regardless of variety employed to make the wine.

Of course Cabernet makers often blend with other varieties (e.g. Merlot, Cab Franc) up to the varietal purity limits (e.g. 75% cabernet), and get to use the makeup of oak barrels to mask fruit that has been left to hang until it is devoid of any real character.

Yes, the balancing of blending different varieties and oak adds another level of complexity that is just not present when making Riesling. For these reasons, also, the "game" difference is also justifiable to some extent.

Smith's one Riesling is a bland and formless creature, and I think his attitude is part of the cause.

I haven't tasted his Riesling so I can't comment on that, but whether it's bland/formless or not, the point he makes still isn't entirely unfair as a general statement.

I completely disagree with you. The Cabernet maker has an arsenal of tricks at his disposal to cover up any potential flaw/imbalance. It's a different game perhaps, but the level of skill that is required is likely the same regardless of variety employed to make the wine.

I think that you guys are both right. There are any number of tricks one can employ to alter, cover-up, deceive, or improve any wine (depending on your perspective), and many of them are legal. Leaving out the procedures that are illegal, Cabernet can be doctored with 25% something else (in CA, not sure about WA), Riesling (in the EU) can be doctored with 15% something else (even something else from last year.) Riesling can be chaptalized with sugar before fermentation to bring up the Oechsle, or balanced with süssreserve after fermentation. That fermentation can come by way of wild or packaged yeast (or, OK a combination of them). It can be acidified, de-acidified, fined, filtered, given nutrient supplements to discourage yeast-stress, fermented at a high or low temperature to promote extract or aroma, and fermented and aged in any number of vessels from Stainless steel, fiberglass, enamel-lined concrete, new oak, old oak, and amphora to help reduce or promote oxidative nuances and aged for an extended period on fine less even with battonage to build body. The same can all be said of Cabernet Sauvignon (or Pinot Noir or Frontenac.) Cabernet could also be subject to tannin-control methods like micro-ox and shorter, or longer maceration (I suppose the same could be true with Riesling if you were going to make an orange wine of it.)
The style of the times for Cabernet is well-documented, but the Zeitgeist for Riesling is bordering on predictable too. Most producers in America, and Australia, and GERMANY and consumers in America do seem to favor the varietally pure, straightforward, ‘sterile’ version of reductive Riesling (which can be employed for both dry and sweet styles). It can be brilliantly flavored, balanced, charming, delicious, but it is also too often too damn technical, and with that lacking soul.

The technical purity of (some) Riesling and the extravagant costume of (some) Cabernet are equally boring to me. This is why I like to drink interesting wines from fringe-producers who often use Bio-Dynamic viticulture as PART of what they do.

Biodynamic viticulture is very interesting to me. I am not a huge fan of Rudolf Steiner or of Anthroposophy (and certainly not of Steiner’s racist Aryan leanings), but I am for a doctrine of opposition against industrialization and chemical agriculture. Can you get as far with organic viticulture? Sure. The ‘rules’ of Biodynamic agriculture aren’t what is important to me, and the additions (the various preparations, water-vortex machines, biody-calandar etc.) aren’t as important as the subtractions (chemical fungicides, fertilizers.) I agree with what Paul said up at the top of this thread about the attention to detail that is necessary and like many of you guys, have seen this passion first-hand. It’s contagious.

Plus, I have always preferred crazy people to normal ones.

My last point is that maybe Clark Smith wrote this article as a PR piece to soften some of his critics voices over how fabricated the wines his company consults on/makes really are. Can Biodynamic viticulture and Reverse Osmosis really exist in the same bottle of wine? That hits me like Thoreau sleeping with Pam Anderson.

Cheers,
Bill

"Varietal purity and sterile bottling may be fine for Riesling, but you need more game than that to play in the Cabernet big leagues."

There’s another way to look at this. I think the author’s phrase “varietal purity and sterile bottling” is throwing you off. I like Ben’s description much better “has residual sugar (and malic acid) in bottle (and is therefore sterile filtered for security), doesn't see oak, and doesn't undergo the (same degree of) complex phenolic reactions as red wine”. Riesling if handled this way might loss its “somewhere-ness” might be “bland and formless” to some, but to most knowledgeable wine drinkers it will unmistakably almost always be Riesling. Now if Cabernet Sauvignon is handled in a similar fashion not only might it loss its “somewhere-ness” (and become maybe bland and formless to some) it could easily be mistaken for any other red wine.

Salute

[David M. Bueker]

Well first of all, there's a wealth of great Riesling that doesn't have residual sugar.

Does the winemaker make and/or toast the barrels in which he ages his Cabernet? No? They are just vessels to age the wine you say? Like the stainless steel or large oak casks the Riesling maker uses? Hmm...sounds like a distinction with no difference to me.

Well first of all, there's a wealth of great Riesling that doesn't have residual sugar.

Yes, but those are not (or at least aren't the majority of) the wines Smith is talking about (he is talking about "sterile bottled" Rieslings - that means sterile filtered to prevent malo or alcoholic (sugar) fermention in bottle).

Does the winemaker make and/or toast the barrels in which he ages his Cabernet? No? They are just vessels to age the wine you say? Like the stainless steel or large oak casks the Riesling maker uses? Hmm...sounds like a distinction with no difference to me.

Of course, that's true for Cabernet Sauvignon matured in "neutral" oak. But there aren't many producers who mature Riesling is new oak, whereas there are Cab Sauv producers who do.

Though Bill's right - there are Rieslings and Cabernet's that fall in both ("brilliantly flavored, balanced, charming, delicious... [and] too damn technical, and... lacking soul") camps.

I completely disagree with you. The Cabernet maker has an arsenal of tricks at his disposal to cover up any potential flaw/imbalance. It's a different game perhaps, but the level of skill that is required is likely the same regardless of variety employed to make the wine.

I am not arguing the case from a personal standpoint. I actually (personally) see the style of winemaking that Smith is referring to for Riesling (i.e., white wine without the phenolics of a red, generally more reductive handling, no malo, old oak/SS, etc) as essentially a different "ball game" from the style of winemaking involved in the typical Cab Sauv style. I was only pointing out that I didn't think it was a wholely unjustified position to assert that making good Cabernet required "more game". I agree that "the Cabernet maker has an arsenal of tricks at his disposal [that aren't really available with winemaking of the kind of Riesling we're talking about" and that could be seen either as (1) making the winemaking more complicated because there are more options at the winemakers disposal (essentially one of my arguments above), or (2) making the winemaking easier because the techniques can be used to "cover up any potential flaw/imbalance" (one of your arguments above), or (3) niether. As Victor alluded, it just depends on how you look at it.

Can Biodynamic viticulture and Reverse Osmosis really exist in the same bottle of wine? That hits me like Thoreau sleeping with Pam Anderson.

Perhaps it depends on whether the philosophy of biodynamics is extended to the winemaking, or limited to the viticulture?

Exploring the efficacy of biodynamics with a believer has something akin to trying to convince a devout Christian, Jew or Moslem of the possibility that there is no God. That is to say, we have entered here into the metphysical aspects of life and them that believes, believes.

As to "proof" that biodynamics does or does not have validity, I am reminded of the very old tale of the two men travelling in a first-class train compartment. That one of the men is constantly snapping his fingers distracts the other man and after a while he cannot resist and says "If I may ask, why areyou snapping your fingers?" The second man says: "I do that to keep the tigers away". The first looks at him increduously and says "But there are no tigers within a thousand miles of where we are sitting". The second smiles and says: "See...it works".

Personally, I doubt very much the validity of biodynamics but I am firmly with those who feel that many involved in this system have a deep respect for the earth and the vines and that it is this respect and its subsequent actions in the vineyards that can impact positively on their wines.

Best
Rogov