Applied Biodynamics — Issue 038 (Fall 2002)
Issue 038 profiles seven vineyard programs, treats dramatic ripening and disease observations as hypotheses, and provides a framework for repeatable block trials and blind wine evaluation.
Share
Applied Biodynamics Issue 038 (Fall 2002) is devoted to vineyard practice. Patricia Smith interviews growers and winemakers at Harms Vineyards & Lavender Fields, Robert Sinskey Vineyards, Fragrant Farms, Everett Ridge Vineyards, Porter-Bass Vineyard, Sonoma-Cutrer, and Frey Vineyards. Together, the profiles show that “biodynamic wine” begins with soil, compost, canopy, disease pressure, labor, records, and wine-growing economics—not with a label.
A dramatic observation—and the question it raises
Patricia Damery recalls an October 1999 crisis at Harms: Syrah measured about 19 °Brix, leaves were yellowing, grapes were raisining, and a winemaker had rejected the crop. After a consultant directed a sequence of biodynamic sprays over ten days, she reports greener leaves, plumper berries without rain or irrigation, and a rise to 24 °Brix before harvest. It is a memorable practitioner observation, but it was not a controlled experiment: several treatments were applied, normal late-season change was still occurring, and no untreated block was tracked. Its scientific value is as a clear, testable hypothesis.
The broader Harms program combined compost, BD 500, BD 501, BD 505, BD 507, Barrel Compound, and fermented BD 508 horsetail tea with mowing, leaf removal, ground cover, mulching trials, and carefully limited sulfur or other allowed disease controls. Damery also reports that yields rose from less than one ton per acre to about three tons per acre over three years, while noting simultaneous changes in the whole management system.
What the vineyard profiles agree on
Across the interviews, soil restoration and vigilance matter more than a single input. Growers describe prepared compost, cover crops, mechanical weed control, airflow through the fruiting zone, teas, timely cultivation, disease scouting, and quick response. Approaches differ by site: some make preparations, others purchase them; some use consultants, others rely on study groups and accumulated observation; and some are certified while others are still transitioning or apply only part of a biodynamic program.
The profiles also preserve useful disagreements. Mildew and botrytis remain real risks; sulfur, potassium bicarbonate, cluster removal, and canopy management are sometimes used alongside biodynamic preparations. Several growers say that terroir, vine vigor, flavor, native fermentation, or land health improved, but most accounts are observational and involve many simultaneous changes. The way forward is not to dismiss that experience or inflate it: document it, repeat it, and test it with matched blocks.
A stronger vineyard trial design
Map comparable blocks by cultivar, rootstock, vine age, soil, slope, and irrigation. Randomize or alternate treatment strips, retain a clearly documented comparison, and keep ordinary management the same. Record preparation batch, rate, water volume, stirring, nozzle, date, time, weather, and—when relevant—the calendar or lunar timing being tested. Follow fixed vines for shoot growth, leaf color, canopy density, disease incidence and severity, berry mass, yield, °Brix, pH, titratable acidity, and harvest date. For wine comparisons, use the same cellar protocol and conduct coded blind sensory evaluation alongside chemistry.
Wine from Sky to Earth
Steve Melchiskey’s review of Nicolas Joly’s Wine from Sky to Earth values its seasonal treatment of vine growth, compost, preparations, and cellar practice, while criticizing the lack of a comprehensive troubleshooting guide. His account of one 25-year-old Coulée de Serrant is an expert tasting experience, not evidence by itself that biodynamics caused the wine’s character or longevity. The review is most useful as a prompt for disciplined vineyard and cellar comparison.
Key Topics Covered
Seven vineyard and winery approaches to soil, compost, preparations, canopy, disease, labor, records, certification, and economics.
Reported changes in Brix, berry condition, vine health, disease pressure, and wine character as hypotheses requiring controls.
Randomized vineyard blocks, standard-practice comparisons, repeated sampling, harvest rules, and full management records.
Yield, Brix, pH, titratable acidity, berry weight, disease, canopy, soil, wine chemistry, and blind sensory evaluation.
Nicolas Joly’s vineyard philosophy as a historical practitioner perspective rather than proof of specific mechanisms.
Repeatable Practice
- Stratify a vineyard by variety, rootstock, soil, slope, vine age, and vigor before randomly assigning replicated treatments.
- Retain untreated, water-only, or standard-practice controls and record every preparation, material, dose, spray volume, timing, weather, and co-intervention.
- Sample fixed vines on fixed dates for yield components, Brix, pH, acidity, berry weight, disease, canopy, soil moisture, and nutrients.
- Harvest by predeclared rules, vinify lots consistently, retain chemistry, and conduct coded blind sensory evaluation across vintages.
Explore Related Resources
- BD 500 Horn Manure and the BD 500 instructions
- BD 501 Horn Silica
- BD 505 Oak Bark and BD 507 Valerian
- BD 508 Horsetail and the BD 508 overview
- BD 502–507 Compost Preparation Set
- Barrel Compound and its application instructions
- Pfeiffer Compost Starter
- Agriculture: Spiritual-Scientific Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture
Articles
- Biodynamics Brought to the Vine (P. Smith)
- Finding Your Way to Biodynamic Wines (P. Smith)
- Book Review: Wine from Sky to Earth—Growing and Appreciating Biodynamic Wine (S. Melchiskey)
Citation
Source: Applied Biodynamics, Issue No. 38, Josephine Porter Institute for Applied Bio-Dynamics, Fall 2002.
