BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

Moderators: Jenise, David M. Bueker, Robin Garr

BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby TomHill » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:42 am

We all know that BioDynamic & (Christian) Religion are one in the same. The former is a faith-based (on RudolfSteiner's writings) belief that tells us how to grow our grapes. The latter is a faith-based (on the Bible) belief that tells us how to live our daily lives. There is no/little Science in either religion.
So...if the Reverend SomeMungMoon sets up his Church in lower Gomorrah and starts packing them in and raking in big $$'s and labels his mega-church as "Christian", there would be nary a consequence. But if he labels his mega-church as "Methodist"..even though he follows the principals of JohnWesley...you can bet there would be legal consequences from the UMC and he would have to cease & desist. OK....that seems fair enough.
So.....if the Baptists tried to trademark the word "Christian" so only they could use that word in advertising/promoting the Baptist Church...they'd be laughed out of court soooo fast that your head'd swim. OK...that seems fair enough. End of religion discussion.
So....if Casey Heartloop read Steiner's works, got really excited by this new grape-growing religion, and decided he'd go BioDynamic. However...driving his tractor in the nude under a full moon is something he just cannot bring himself to do...so he decides to pick&choose what BioDynamic practices he will follow...he refuses to buy his cow-$hit from the Demeter-authorized folks...but instead hauls it in from the local Boonville feedlot...where it's loaded w/ antibiotics and GMO corn feed. Crap that'd drive the Demeter folks apoplectic.
However...if ole Case decided to slap "BioDynamic" (a name that is trademarked by the Demeter folks) on his label....the Demeter crazies would come down on him so fast & so hard that your head'd swim. Maybe there's some wiggle-room there and ole Case could sneak by w/ "RudolfSteiner grown grapes" on the label....but I sorta doubt that and the Demeter folks would still be on Casey's case.
So...today's religious question is: Why can the Demeter folks get away w/ trademarking "BioDynamic"....but the Baptists can't get away w/ trademarking "Christian"???
It's sorta like when SutterHome or Montevina or whoever it was trademarked "Primitivo" as a wine label term...but eventually common sense (a rare comidity in the Federal gummint) prevailed and the trademark was thrown out.
Tom
TomHill
Here From the Very Start
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 pm

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Brian Gilp » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:00 pm

Tom, isn't sustainable more like Christian and biodynamic more like baptist? In this sense can't they defend their Trademark?

Also while BD was based entirely on faith isn't there now enough evidence that it impacts soil vitality such that it is no longer completely faith based? If one can prove causation is it still fair to compare it to religion?
Brian Gilp
Wine guru
 
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 6:50 pm

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Dale Williams » Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:34 pm

TomHill wrote: So...if the Reverend SomeMungMoon sets up his Church in lower Gomorrah and starts packing them in and raking in big $$'s and labels his mega-church as "Christian", there would be nary a consequence. But if he labels his mega-church as "Methodist"..even though he follows the principals of JohnWesley...you can bet there would be legal consequences from the UMC and he would have to cease & desist. OK....that seems fair enough.

Nope, there are several dozen Methodist denominations in US besides the UMC.

.today's religious question is: Why can the Demeter folks get away w/ trademarking "BioDynamic"....but the Baptists can't get away w/ trademarking "Christian"???


Because the Demeter people trademarked Biodynamic way before it was in common useage, and present a set of standards and certification.
Many people watch their weight, but WeightWatchers hold the trademark. Duh.
Christianity was in wide and common useage many centuries before any of the current Baptist denominations (and there's even more of those than Methodists) and so not trademarkable. But just as Scientology owns trademarks to Dianetics or E-Meter, Baptists could trademark some new training certification as Nazarenism or whatever. Just as Heartloop could make up his own certification program under a name that isn't already owned by another entity.
User avatar
Dale Williams
Compassionate Connoisseur
 
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Dobbs Ferry, NY (NYC metro)

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby TomHill » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:06 pm

Dale Williams wrote:
TomHill wrote: So...if the Reverend SomeMungMoon sets up his Church in lower Gomorrah and starts packing them in and raking in big $$'s and labels his mega-church as "Christian", there would be nary a consequence. But if he labels his mega-church as "Methodist"..even though he follows the principals of JohnWesley...you can bet there would be legal consequences from the UMC and he would have to cease & desist. OK....that seems fair enough.

Nope, there are several dozen Methodist denominations in US besides the UMC.

How about if you replace Methodist w/ Presbyterian???
.today's religious question is: Why can the Demeter folks get away w/ trademarking "BioDynamic"....but the Baptists can't get away w/ trademarking "Christian"???

Because the Demeter people trademarked Biodynamic way before it was in common useage, and present a set of standards and certification.

Didn't Steiner use BioDynamics in his original writings?? That was my impression..but maybe not. Did the Demeter folks come up/invent the name "Biodynamics"
Or did they have the forsight to trademark a name that was already being used to describe farming by Steiner's holistic methods?? Sorta like SutterHome (or whoever it was)
had the forsight to trademark "Primitivo" afore the Feds realized it was actually a grape name and not trademarkable?
Must admit...neither religion not biodynamics lie within my areas of expertise.
Tom
TomHill
Here From the Very Start
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 pm

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby TomHill » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:16 pm

Brian Gilp wrote:Tom, isn't sustainable more like Christian and biodynamic more like baptist? In this sense can't they defend their Trademark?

Also while BD was based entirely on faith isn't there now enough evidence that it impacts soil vitality such that it is no longer completely faith based? If one can prove causation is it still fair to compare it to religion?


Well, Brian....I think there is little doubt that biodynamic vnyds results in healthier soils. But, from what I read, there is still a lot of details
in the practice of Biodynamics (as defined by the Demeter folks) that you have to accept on blind faith and has no basis in Science.
You must stir the preps 20 times in a clockwise direction and then 20 times in the counter-clockwise direction (those numbers are made up).
What if you're lazy and do it only 15 times each direction?? It results in a faulty prep? Or you use a motor w/ a propeller on the end to stir up
the prep?? The people I know who follow biodynamics freely admit that certain procedures make no sense (science-wise), but they do them
simply based on blind faith.
Tom
TomHill
Here From the Very Start
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 pm

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Dale Williams » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:17 pm

TomHill wrote: How about if you replace Methodist w/ Presbyterian???


Around here (I work with at least a hundred churches) all of the Presbyterians are PC(USA), but apparently there are many others.
From Wikipedia
the United States, because of past or current doctrinal differences, Presbyterian churches often overlap, with congregations of many different Presbyterian groups in any one place. The largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States is the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) or PC(USA). Other Presbyterian bodies in the United States include the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Bible Presbyterian Church, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP Synod), the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America, the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS), The Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO), and the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS). The Free Presbyterian Church of North America was an anti-slavery presbyterian denomination established through the work of Rev. John Rankin of Ripley, Ohio.


Didn't Steiner use BioDynamics in his original writings?? That was my impression..but maybe not. Did the Demeter folks come up/invent the name "Biodynamics"
Or did they have the forsight to trademark a name that was already being used to describe farming by Steiner's holistic methods??

Steiner probably did use BioDynamics. Just like Hubbard used Dianetics. The woman who founded WeightWatchers used a regime from a NYC Health Dept clinic. You don't have to necessarily be person to invent method or first to use term to get a trademark (if you demonstrate you promoted/codified/popularized).
User avatar
Dale Williams
Compassionate Connoisseur
 
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Dobbs Ferry, NY (NYC metro)

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Brian Gilp » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:37 pm

TomHill wrote:
Brian Gilp wrote:Tom, isn't sustainable more like Christian and biodynamic more like baptist? In this sense can't they defend their Trademark?

Also while BD was based entirely on faith isn't there now enough evidence that it impacts soil vitality such that it is no longer completely faith based? If one can prove causation is it still fair to compare it to religion?


Well, Brian....I think there is little doubt that biodynamic vnyds results in healthier soils. But, from what I read, there is still a lot of details
in the practice of Biodynamics (as defined by the Demeter folks) that you have to accept on blind faith and has no basis in Science.
You must stir the preps 20 times in a clockwise direction and then 20 times in the counter-clockwise direction (those numbers are made up).
What if you're lazy and do it only 15 times each direction?? It results in a faulty prep? Or you use a motor w/ a propeller on the end to stir up
the prep?? The people I know who follow biodynamics freely admit that certain procedures make no sense (science-wise), but they do them
simply based on blind faith.
Tom

I guess it depends on what level you want to look at. As a whole, there seems to be something to it. Does every prep or step of prep matter? Who knows but probably not. So do the unnecessary parts invalidate the whole? I don't think so.

For me the problem arises when smart folks figure out that they don't need 2/3 of the stuff for the same result but now can't be BD because they decided not to do the unnecessary parts. As some folks are wrapped up in the BD is better wine belief this forces a business decision to waste money to do the whole package and stay BD or only do what's essential and risk a sales drop if folks (read wine geeks) stop buying your wine since its no longer BD.
Brian Gilp
Wine guru
 
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 6:50 pm

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby TomHill » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:59 pm

Brian Gilp wrote:I guess it depends on what level you want to look at. As a whole, there seems to be something to it. Does every prep or step of prep matter? Who knows but probably not. So do the unnecessary parts invalidate the whole? I don't think so.

Totally agree here, Brian. I would think you could pick & choose the parts of biodynamic that make sense to you and ignore the ones that don't (and cost you $$ if you do follow them). But the Demeter folks do not allow you
that option, from what I understand. It's their way or the highway.

For me the problem arises when smart folks figure out that they don't need 2/3 of the stuff for the same result but now can't be BD because they decided not to do the unnecessary parts. As some folks are wrapped up in the BD is better wine belief this forces a business decision to waste money to do the whole package and stay BD or only do what's essential and risk a sales drop if folks (read wine geeks) stop buying your wine since its no longer BD.

I guess this is a big part of my problem w/ biodynamics in this country. Why do the Demeter folks have the power (because of their trademark rights) to tell you exactly what you can & can't do if you want to farm
biodynamically...as you see fit?? The Demeter folks like to make you think they're little ole country farmers, shuffling about in their Birkenstocks, being stewards of the land. I think it's a sham and it's all about big business & $$'s,
not about preserving the Earth. I think a farmer should be able to read Steiner's works...choose the practices that make sense to him...discard the ones that seem like pseudo-religion..and still call himself biodynamic...according
to how he feels he interprets Steiner...not how the Demeter folks feel their's is the only correct interpretation of Steiner farming practices. Of course, if the Demeter folks are the ones who invented the term "biodynamics"..
then they do have that right.
Tom
TomHill
Here From the Very Start
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 pm

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Ryan M » Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:54 pm

TomHill wrote:Totally agree here, Brian. I would think you could pick & choose the parts of biodynamic that make sense to you and ignore the ones that don't (and cost you $$ if you do follow them). But the Demeter folks do not allow you
that option, from what I understand. It's their way or the highway.


Sorta like "cafeteria Christianity" then. :lol:
"The sun, with all those planets revolving about it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else to do"
Galileo Galilei

(avatar: me next to the WIYN 3.5 meter telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory)
User avatar
Ryan M
Wine Gazer
 
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Yankton, SD

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Dale Williams » Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:13 pm

TomHill wrote:I guess this is a big part of my problem w/ biodynamics in this country. Why do the Demeter folks have the power (because of their trademark rights) to tell you exactly what you can & can't do if you want to farmbiodynamically...as you see fit?? The Demeter folks like to make you think they're little ole country farmers, shuffling about in their Birkenstocks, being stewards of the land. I think it's a sham and it's all about big business & $$'s,not about preserving the Earth. I think a farmer should be able to read Steiner's works...choose the practices that make sense to him...discard the ones that seem like pseudo-religion..and still call himself biodynamic...accordingto how he feels he interprets Steiner...not how the Demeter folks feel their's is the only correct interpretation of Steiner farming practices. Of course, if the Demeter folks are the ones who invented the term "biodynamics"..then they do have that right.
Tom


I have never bought a wine because of a Demeter sticker or the word biodynamics. But a quick Google shows that Demeter was formed in 1928, and has held the biodynamics trademark for many decades (originally in Europe, apparently in Australia since 1953, while US Demeter wasn't formed till 1985. Believe me, Biodynamics wasn't a big selling point at that time, I would guess Demeter's efforts have added value to the term. But while I don't buy wine because of biodynamics, some people do. At least the Demeter certification means the buyer who it means something to knows what he/she is getting (from a practices standpoint). If your Heartloop gets to pick and choose, 5 different farmers would do 5 different things, making the term meaningless to the consumer who WANTS Steiner's methods.

Remember, this is only about using the term on the label, Heartloop is always free to use any biodynamic method. No one can stop him from farming any way he wishes.

Trademark is not about invention (that would be patent).

If someone thinks that there's some great stuff in the New Testament (love thy neighbor, care for the poor and imprisoned, etc) and rejects the parts about Jesus being God's son, "believe in me or perish" etc it's pretty unlikely they would campaign to be called Christian. So not sure why Heartloop expects to reject much of the principle of biodynamics and get called biodynamic.
User avatar
Dale Williams
Compassionate Connoisseur
 
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Dobbs Ferry, NY (NYC metro)

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Hoke » Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:03 pm

.today's religious question is: Why can the Demeter folks get away w/ trademarking "BioDynamic"....but the Baptists can't get away w/ trademarking "Christian"???


Is the assumption, then, that Baptists are "Christian", and define the entirety of the term?

Poor Baptists...they can't even trademark 'religulous'; Bill Maher already has that one.
User avatar
Hoke
Achieving Wine Immortality
 
Posts: 10444
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:07 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Steve Edmunds » Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:13 pm

I think old Heartloop is having another G&T and laughing his butt off! :D
I don't know just how I'm supposed to play this scene, but I ain't afraid to learn...
Steve Edmunds
Wine guru
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:05 am
Location: Berkeley, CA

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Hoke » Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:39 pm

I think ol' Steve Edmunds is right again.

Tom, Demeter has no power...or rather, they have only the power provided by their adherents. Doesn't matter whether you believe, or I believe, or whether you or I follow the stated principles of biodynamics or Steinerism, or whatever. What it comes down to is, regardless of how you farm or don't farm, regardless of how you make wine, if you adhere to Demeter's requirements and standards you are primarily interested in the marketing concepts of "biodynamics."

If you believe in the religion of biodynamics, whether it's your own orthodoxy or Demeter's approved orthodoxy, you don't need Demeter's sanction. If you want to use it for marketing purposes, you do.

Besides, I thought it was called Heartloops Patented Method, with the Heartloops Artisanal Agricultural Tea* (accept no substitutes) available for only $1,999.99 a bottle.

(* Contains real bullshit.)
User avatar
Hoke
Achieving Wine Immortality
 
Posts: 10444
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:07 am
Location: Portland, OR

Yup....

Postby TomHill » Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:59 pm

Steve Edmunds wrote:I think old Heartloop is having another G&T and laughing his butt off! :D


Yup....gave ole Casey a head's up. Don't know about the G&T....but he wants to know just how I know he hasn't
driven his tractor in the nude!!
Tom
TomHill
Here From the Very Start
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 pm

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Brian K Miller » Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:30 pm

Ryan M wrote:
TomHill wrote:Totally agree here, Brian. I would think you could pick & choose the parts of biodynamic that make sense to you and ignore the ones that don't (and cost you $$ if you do follow them). But the Demeter folks do not allow you
that option, from what I understand. It's their way or the highway.


Sorta like "cafeteria Christianity" then. :lol:


ALL Christianity is cafeteria Christianity. Heck, Christians can't agree among themselves what The Prix Fixe Menu IS. :?
...(Humans) are unique in our capacity to construct realities at utter odds with reality. Dogs dream and dolphins imagine, but only humans are deluded. –Jacob Bacharach
Brian K Miller
Passionate Arboisphile
 
Posts: 7028
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:05 am
Location: Northern California

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Hoke » Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:44 pm

Brian K Miller wrote:
Ryan M wrote:
TomHill wrote:Totally agree here, Brian. I would think you could pick & choose the parts of biodynamic that make sense to you and ignore the ones that don't (and cost you $$ if you do follow them). But the Demeter folks do not allow you
that option, from what I understand. It's their way or the highway.


Sorta like "cafeteria Christianity" then. :lol:


ALL Christianity is cafeteria Christianity. Heck, Christians can't agree among themselves what The Prix Fixe Menu IS. :?


Least of all amongst themselves (as in the joke you related recently in another thread.)
User avatar
Hoke
Achieving Wine Immortality
 
Posts: 10444
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:07 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Thomas » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:57 pm

Hoke wrote:I think ol' Steve Edmunds is right again.

Tom, Demeter has no power...or rather, they have only the power provided by their adherents. Doesn't matter whether you believe, or I believe, or whether you or I follow the stated principles of biodynamics or Steinerism, or whatever. What it comes down to is, regardless of how you farm or don't farm, regardless of how you make wine, if you adhere to Demeter's requirements and standards you are primarily interested in the marketing concepts of "biodynamics."

If you believe in the religion of biodynamics, whether it's your own orthodoxy or Demeter's approved orthodoxy, you don't need Demeter's sanction. If you want to use it for marketing purposes, you do.

Besides, I thought it was called Heartloops Patented Method, with the Heartloops Artisanal Agricultural Tea* (accept no substitutes) available for only $1,999.99 a bottle.

(* Contains real bullshit.)


Kind of like "Meritage."
Thomas
Senior Flamethrower
 
Posts: 3574
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:23 pm

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Hoke » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:12 pm

Thomas wrote:
Hoke wrote:I think ol' Steve Edmunds is right again.

Tom, Demeter has no power...or rather, they have only the power provided by their adherents. Doesn't matter whether you believe, or I believe, or whether you or I follow the stated principles of biodynamics or Steinerism, or whatever. What it comes down to is, regardless of how you farm or don't farm, regardless of how you make wine, if you adhere to Demeter's requirements and standards you are primarily interested in the marketing concepts of "biodynamics."

If you believe in the religion of biodynamics, whether it's your own orthodoxy or Demeter's approved orthodoxy, you don't need Demeter's sanction. If you want to use it for marketing purposes, you do.

Besides, I thought it was called Heartloops Patented Method, with the Heartloops Artisanal Agricultural Tea* (accept no substitutes) available for only $1,999.99 a bottle.

(* Contains real bullshit.)


Kind of like "Meritage."


Which is kind of an interesting comment, Thomas, since the "Meritage" concept met with little success, and as a marketing/promotion venture had to be deemed a lukewarm failure at best. Interesting also that Mendocino tried much the same thing with its Mendocino Heritage project, Coro (but I think it was better thought out and better structured). Casey was a part of that; made some damned good releases too. I think the society and venture are defunct now; never got any attraction at all in the big world.

In any case, "biodynamic" and "Demeter" on a bottle do not in any way predispose me to invest in a wine. I am stimulated not by the terms but by my knowledge of the person(s) behind the brand and their dedication and skill. Such as Frog's Leap and John, as a good for instance. It's not that his stuff is organic/bio; it's that I know John works his ass off every day trying to grow the best grapes and make the best wine he can, without shortcuts. So in that sense, I have a faith-based system; it's just that my faith is in the person, not the business or the corporate entity. And the faith comes from experience and extrapolation.
User avatar
Hoke
Achieving Wine Immortality
 
Posts: 10444
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:07 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Steve Slatcher » Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:25 am

I have not yet had chance to read this thread in detail, but would like to make a couple of points.

There is indeed some evidence that BD "impacts soil vitality", but only in comparison to conventionally farmed land. But when compared to organic agriculture, and there are no differences reported in proper peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to journals that are clearly promoting the use of BD). In other words, not one has demonstrated that the astrology and homeopathic preparations make any difference. That is all as far as I know. Tell me if you know otherwise - I might have missed something.

Regarding the term "biodynamics", Steiner did not use the term as far as anyone knows. The following text is taken from
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/pdf/6(1)-Paull-pp27-41.pdf
Note that even in this text the precise term "biodynamics", with no hyphen, is not mentioned.

Ehrenfried Pfeiffer refers to “Dr. Steiner’s biological-dynamic methods” (1928, p.34) and this appears to be
the earliest characterisation of anthroposophic agriculture as “biological-dynamic”. The term is used once
only in that article. Pfeiffer reports that: “the indications given by Dr. Steiner have been utilised with the
utmost success”. Pfeiffer’s account is a report of a meeting of “practical agriculturists”, who “met at
Marienstein6, from December 10th to 12th, 1927”, at “Herr Stegemann’s delightful house … for the
discussion which dealt in particular with experiments made according to Dr. Steiner’s biological-dynamic
methods” (p.34).

Pfeiffer has elsewhere stated that: “The name Bio-Dynamic Method of Agriculture was not given by Rudolf
Steiner but arose from the circle of those at the start who concerned themselves with the practical
application of this new direction of thought” (Pfeiffer, 1956b, p.5). The December 1927 Marienstein
(Germany) meeting is a candidate for the origin of the term ‘biological-dynamic’.
Steve Slatcher
Wine guru
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:51 pm
Location: Manchester, England

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Thomas » Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:58 am

Hoke wrote:
Which is kind of an interesting comment, Thomas, since the "Meritage" concept met with little success, and as a marketing/promotion venture had to be deemed a lukewarm failure at best. Interesting also that Mendocino tried much the same thing with its Mendocino Heritage project, Coro (but I think it was better thought out and better structured). Casey was a part of that; made some damned good releases too. I think the society and venture are defunct now; never got any attraction at all in the big world.

In any case, "biodynamic" and "Demeter" on a bottle do not in any way predispose me to invest in a wine. I am stimulated not by the terms but by my knowledge of the person(s) behind the brand and their dedication and skill. Such as Frog's Leap and John, as a good for instance. It's not that his stuff is organic/bio; it's that I know John works his ass off every day trying to grow the best grapes and make the best wine he can, without shortcuts. So in that sense, I have a faith-based system; it's just that my faith is in the person, not the business or the corporate entity. And the faith comes from experience and extrapolation.


Tom Wark will probably shoot me a missile, but the moment a seemingly interesting (at the least) and sometimes extremely valid concept is given over to marketing, rather than develop a message the marketers often muddy it--probably because they don't understand the concept near as much as they understand how to stimulate demand for it.
Thomas
Senior Flamethrower
 
Posts: 3574
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:23 pm

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Brian K Miller » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:47 am

Steve Slatcher wrote:I have not yet had chance to read this thread in detail, but would like to make a couple of points.

There is indeed some evidence that BD "impacts soil vitality", but only in comparison to conventionally farmed land. But when compared to organic agriculture, and there are no differences reported in proper peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to journals that are clearly promoting the use of BD). In other words, not one has demonstrated that the astrology and homeopathic preparations make any difference. That is all as far as I know. Tell me if you know otherwise - I might have missed something.


Could part of the perceived...and I emphasize that word...difference be related to more hand labor, more field work, simply walking the fields and observing close at hand the vines and the development of the fruit?
...(Humans) are unique in our capacity to construct realities at utter odds with reality. Dogs dream and dolphins imagine, but only humans are deluded. –Jacob Bacharach
Brian K Miller
Passionate Arboisphile
 
Posts: 7028
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:05 am
Location: Northern California

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Brian Gilp » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:43 pm

Steve Slatcher wrote:There is indeed some evidence that BD "impacts soil vitality", but only in comparison to conventionally farmed land. But when compared to organic agriculture, and there are no differences reported in proper peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to journals that are clearly promoting the use of BD). In other words, not one has demonstrated that the astrology and homeopathic preparations make any difference. That is all as far as I know. Tell me if you know otherwise - I might have missed something.


Steve have you seen this paper on yeast diversity in the vineyard http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052609? Not soil vitality and also no direct organic to BD comparison so not directly related to the previous point. It does however make me wonder if there is no difference between organic and BD or if the differences have just not yet been determined via scientific studies. While I don't buy into most of the BD claims I am also not yet willing to dismiss that there is no difference than straight organic farming.
Brian Gilp
Wine guru
 
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 6:50 pm

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Thomas » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:43 pm

Brian K Miller wrote:
Steve Slatcher wrote:I have not yet had chance to read this thread in detail, but would like to make a couple of points.

There is indeed some evidence that BD "impacts soil vitality", but only in comparison to conventionally farmed land. But when compared to organic agriculture, and there are no differences reported in proper peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to journals that are clearly promoting the use of BD). In other words, not one has demonstrated that the astrology and homeopathic preparations make any difference. That is all as far as I know. Tell me if you know otherwise - I might have missed something.


Could part of the perceived...and I emphasize that word...difference be related to more hand labor, more field work, simply walking the fields and observing close at hand the vines and the development of the fruit?


Brian,

The word "conventional" has been co-opted by what amounts to industrial farming. If you routinely dump petro-chemicals on schedule, hedge vines by formula, create stronger weeds through chemistry, etc. you may not be stewarding the land.
Thomas
Senior Flamethrower
 
Posts: 3574
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:23 pm

Re: BioDynamic & Religion....(long/pedantic/boring)

Postby Joy Lindholm » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:59 pm

TomHill wrote:I guess this is a big part of my problem w/ biodynamics in this country. Why do the Demeter folks have the power (because of their trademark rights) to tell you exactly what you can & can't do if you want to farm
biodynamically...as you see fit??


Tom, you hit the nail on the head. Very similar to the organic farming movement certification wise - if you want to put "Certified Biodynamic" or "Certified Organic" on the label, then you have to play by all the rules that Demeter or the USDA set forth. This is why many people choose to skip the red tape (especially due to the huge expense for small producers) and just state that the vineyards were farmed organically or biodynamically. You see this a lot in Italy, where there is a backlash toward certification - they have been doing it this way for hundreds of years already - why do they need to pay the government or some other organization to just keep doing what they are doing? I feel their frustration - the same goes for small produce farmers. For some, the certification fees would put them out of business. That is why it is so important to know your producers - those who are transparent with their practices usually get my dollar.

This is a bit of a side note, but along the topic of all the certification/labeling, I was once at a tasting where a well known Willamette Valley winemaker was explaining all their certifications (at the time I worked for a "green" restaurant and had to quiz everyone on this stuff). Their wines were labeled "Salmon Safe" and "Oregon Certified Sustainable", and he explained that for the next vintage they would not be labeled that way because he said (while smacking his inner arm at the elbow) "I just can't lay off the Roundup". While he may have gotten a laugh out of his joke, I found it in poor taste. There are many studies coming out about the dangers to humans and bees about the chemicals in Roundup and other commercial pesticides. It is a bit scary when you think about all the crap that can be going in wines (or food for that matter), when there is no way of knowing how they have been made.
User avatar
Joy Lindholm
Ultra geek
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:41 am
Location: Omaha, NE

Next

Return to The Wine Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tim York, Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests