“Biodynamic grape growing develops the vineyard’s greatest potential—allowing the vineyard to be the best it can be—and then captures that distinctiveness in the bottle.” Such is the claim of the US arm of biodynamic certifying body Demeter International, which also describes the biodynamic method as “the paragon of sustainability.” The supposed benefits of biodynamic winegrowing are impressive. Practitioners point to protection of ecosystems, rejuvenation of the land, a strengthening of their vines’ natural resistance to pests and diseases, and a more lucid translation of the ever-elusive terroir into wine. Fans of biodynamic wines suggest they show better balance, more aromas, greater depth of flavor, more minerality, more precision. It is no secret that many of the world’s leading wineries have embraced biodynamic methods. Domaines de la Romanée-Conti, Leflaive, and Leroy as well as Châteaux Latour, Palmer, and Climens lead the roll-call of elite estates lending credibility to ideas that critics argue are based more on faith than science. Is biodynamics cool, controversial, or just plain crazy? This essay looks at the ideas behind biodynamics and addresses whether these marginal practices have any real relevance in the wine world today. Is there evidence that biodynamics can influence soil, vines, or wines? And does the consumer even care? These are challenging questions but, through a gradually increasing body of knowledge, some answers are beginning to emerge.
The principles of biodynamics were laid down in the 1920s by Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) and constitute the earliest organized organic agriculture movement. Steiner, an Austrian educator and philosopher, founded his own “spiritual science” called anthroposophy, describing it as an extension of the scientific method. He felt science was limited in scope by only focusing on what was physically visible; his aim was to develop humans’ abilities to access and understand the spiritual world, and to bridge the gap between the spiritual and material worlds. The holistic approach of biodynamics is very much in line with these principles. Even though there is no requirement for winegrowers to adhere to any set belief system, the mindset of the grower is a critical factor in the decision to implement biodynamic practices. Californian winemaker Randall Grahm has said that the most potent tool in the biodynamic arsenal is “the effect that it can produce in the practitioner—the ability to see the natural world with more sensitive eyes and the gradual cultivation of powerful intuition.”
The biodynamic method derives from a series of eight lectures Steiner gave in 1924 at the request of a group of farmers in Koberwitz (in current-day Poland). Even in the 1920s, there was a recognition of the growing harm to the soils resulting from modern farming methods. In his lectures, Steiner explained that a farm should be a self-sustaining, closed organism, producing all of its own inputs, and with all things within it connected. These ideas were shared by the original pioneers of the organic movement in the 1940s and have been gaining traction again recently with regenerative farming, which focuses on biodiversity and soil health. Steiner also emphasized planetary influences on the growth and health of plants and set out ways to harness these natural forces for the benefit of crops: he highlighted composting as one of the most important ways to do this. Steiner recommended the addition to the compost pile of a range of preparations made from common plants. The preparation processes involve stuffing the plants into animal parts and often burying them for months in order to imbue them with “astral forces.” While acknowledging that his ideas sounded “insane,” Steiner explained in Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture, “We must approach everything in farming with the conviction that in order for the whole thing to work, we need to pour life and also astrality into everything around us.”
Organic and biodynamic agriculture both reject synthetic inputs, and organic certification is the minimum requirement for biodynamic certification. The major difference between the two approaches is that biodynamics requires application of special preparations (500 to 508), either sprayed on the vines in homeopathic quantities or as additions to the soil via compost. Preparations 502 to 507 are added to the compost pile; chamomile, valerian, yarrow, nettle, oak bark, and dandelion aid the creation of “active” compost. These can also be used individually as “teas,” sprayed on the vines to promote various aspects of vine health. A further preparation, horsetail (508), is used as a complementary prophylactic spray against fungal diseases in the vineyard. Growers are also expected to incorporate animals and biodiversity into the farm and to minimize external inputs. Preparations 500 and 501 are applied to the vines and soil. Also known as horn manure, preparation 500 is made by packing cow manure into a cow horn and burying it in a pit over the winter. During this time, it transforms into a hummus-rich, friable substance, rich in bacteria and active microorganisms. The farmer mixes this with water and stirs, repeatedly changing direction, for an hour. This key “dynamizing” step is purported to make the preparation more active before spraying onto the soil at least once during the growing season. The second obligatory vineyard preparation is 501, horn silica. Here, finely ground quartz is packed into a cow horn and buried over the summer months to absorb heat and light energy. After dilution and dynamization, 501 is sprayed onto the vine leaves, from spring onward. Preparations 500 and 501 are believed to have complementary effects. Horn manure is associated with moisture and drought resistance, soil fertility and microorganisms, nutrient uptake, and all below-ground aspects of vine growth. Horn silica is associated with all of the above-ground processes: balanced and upright growth, chlorophyll formation, photosynthesis, and fruit formation and ripening.
One of the most common criticisms of biodynamic methods is that such tiny quantities of the preparations (a single horn is used per hectare) cannot possibly have any of the suggested beneficial effects. There is also the legitimate argument that any perceived benefits of biodynamics are most likely attributable to the fact that the winegrower is spending more time and attention on his or her land so is naturally in a better position to respond quickly and effectively to changes in growing conditions.
Scientific research into the effects of biodynamics is sparse. Many studies look solely at organic versus conventional viticulture. Alternatively, they group organic and biodynamic vineyards together, so it is impossible to draw conclusions about points of difference that may exist between the two similar systems of management. A 2019 systematic review by Döring et al. looked at 24 studies comparing the effects of conventional, organic, and biodynamic viticulture on soil, vine growth, disease incidence, grape composition, and wine quality. The authors found that there was increased biodiversity in organic and biodynamic viticulture compared to conventional. They also found lower reported yields and lower-vigor vines in the organic systems and suggested future research might find a link between lower vigor and higher levels of flavonoids and anthocyanins in the grapes—but there was no suggestion that there would likely be any difference between organic and biodynamic viticulture. A German study based in the Rheingau did conduct direct comparisons of bacterial and fungal communities in a vineyard where plots had been isolated and managed under biodynamic, organic, and conventional regimes for the last 10 years (Hendgen, M. et al. 2018). The authors found that bacterial richness was highest for the organic regime, followed by the biodynamic. They concluded that the biodynamic preparations had affected neither fungal composition nor richness when compared to the organic regime.
The above results would suggest that biodynamic preparations have no effect. But could it be that the effects are not measurable? How does one measure “life force,” after all? Or perhaps the effects are so subtle that more sophisticated tools of analysis are required to measure them. This was the assertion put forward in a 2020 investigation by Fritz et al., studying five organic vineyards in Burgundy across different soil types, with and without biodynamic preparations added, with the aim of establishing changes in functional microbial diversity. The authors observed “strong effects” from the application of the biodynamic preparations but noted that the effects were variable from site to site. They wrote that this suggested biodynamic preparations have balancing contrary effects in different soil conditions—which, they added, might explain equivocal results from other studies.
While there are few studies focusing specifically on biodynamics, there are nevertheless some interesting results to note. A three-year field trial in Italy on a mature vineyard planted to Sangiovese measured the effects of organic versus biodynamic practices on grape physiology. The researchers (Botelho et al. 2015) discovered that the grapes under biodynamic management showed greater leaf activity of enzymes associated with plant resistance. The authors concluded this was strongly suggestive of natural defense compounds in the vines being stimulated by biodynamic cultivation. Furthermore, they observed that in the biodynamic plot, there was a consistent and significant reduction in stomatal conductance (the rate of passage of carbon dioxide [in] and water [out] through the leaves of the vines), with no corresponding change in photosynthetic activity. The conclusion here is that that the biodynamic vines were using water more efficiently, which ties in with the claimed benefits of using preparations 500 and 501. Reduced stomatal conductance is also associated with enhanced plant tolerance to various stressors such as pests and diseases, which perhaps goes some way to explaining the idea that the biodynamic preparations help the vines’ natural resistance.
In another Italian study, Guzzon et al. observed a vineyard split between biodynamic and conventional approaches in a vintage (2014) where conditions were very unfavorable. Despite the poor climatic conditions, they found that the biodynamic grapes were as healthy as those from the conventional plot and more suitable for winemaking due to their higher nitrogen content, suggestive, the authors indicated, of a more balanced ecosystem in the vineyard. In South Africa, a study of neighboring vineyards growing Cabernet Sauvignon grapes under different farming regimes found that grapes from a biodynamic vineyard contained more distinct yeast species and a greater percentage of fermentative yeasts than the vineyards farmed either conventionally or using integrated pest management. The biodynamic fermentation proceeded more rapidly than the other two (all were spontaneous ferments), but it is hard to draw biodynamic-specific conclusions from this, since there was no organic comparison to be made (Bagheri et al. 2015).
As far as the quality of the wines is concerned, while results of the Döring review were inconsistent, there appeared to be more positive associations with the organic and biodynamic wines than with conventionally farmed wines. But again, direct comparisons of organic and biodynamic wines were scant.
From the consumer’s perspective, the market share of biodynamic wine is so small it is hard to argue that it has much relevance. Taken as part of the overall organic movement, however, the consumer trend is strongly upward and growing in importance. Organic viticulture may only account for around 5% of global vineyard acreage, but it has greater relative significance compared to a 1.5% figure for agricultural land as a whole. The world’s organic vineyard area grew 234% in the 10 years from 2007 to 2017, increasing to around one million acres (400,000 hectares). The number of Demeter-certified farms grew from approximately 3,000 to 5,000 from 2000 to 2017. In the last five years, the number of Demeter-registered vineyards has increased from 612 to 1,010, covering close to 43,000 acres (17,000 hectares). In the five years ending in 2019, the European certifying body SIVCBD (Syndicat international des vignerons en culture bio-dynamique, also known as Biodyvin) registered growth from 92 to 158 members, with a further 45 applying to join in 2020. Organic and biodynamic vineyards are far more relevant in Europe, where more than 90% of organic vineyards in the world are found (mostly in France, Italy, Spain, and Germany). Here, organic vines account for around 8% of the total. The global market share of organic wine is also significant. The IWSR (International Wines and Spirits Record) recently reported a 9% increase in organic wine’s world market share in the five years to 2019, predicting the organic market will continue to grow even if overall wine volumes remain relatively flat. It suggests that by 2023, 1 in every 5 bottles consumed in France, and 1 in 10 in the UK, will be organic. Commenting on the report, IWSR’s Daniel Mettyear described the trend as “massive” in key markets such as the US, UK, Germany, and France.
It is estimated that the cost of growing organic grapes is 10 to 15% higher than growing conventional grapes, and costs rise by a further 10 to 15% for biodynamic grapes (Castellini et al. 2017). In the biodynamic model, labor costs are typically higher, yields lower, and vineyards smaller than average. Biodynamic certification can be an expensive additional annual cost. Since biodynamic vineyards must be certified organic as a minimum, biodynamic producers have two rounds of certification hoops to jump through. Further, Demeter certification charges are calculated not on the area farmed, nor volume of wine produced, but as a percentage of the value of the wine, with no upper limit (the figure is 0.6% in the US). The SIVCBD is an attractive alternative to Demeter for winegrowers, because it calculates its fees based on acreage (around $20 per hectare), with an upper limit of 100 acres (40 hectares). And since its certifying body in France is Ecocert, which is the same certifying body for organic produce, there is only one set of charges, albeit higher ones, for the annual certification. Is there any evidence that the consumer will pay extra for a biodynamic wine? Castellini and her co-authors found none. But the IWSR report found that consumers will pay more for organic wine. Consumers in the UK pay on average 38% more for organic versus non-organic wine, so it is perhaps only a question of time (or measurement) before a similar uplift will be seen for biodynamic wines.
If one were to take a snapshot of the wine world today, the role of biodynamics seems far from significant. Numbers are tiny, benefits unproven. But global concerns about climate change, sustainability, “naturalness,” and authenticity combine to make the ideas behind biodynamics appear increasingly relevant in the minds of both consumers and producers. Rates of growth are impressive. With its focus on minimizing inputs and maximizing biodiversity, the biodynamic way is surely the most holistic approach to farming. The end goal of biodynamic wine, though, is much more than this. In the words of Alsace biodynamic winegrower André Ostertag, “Even if the wines are no better, it’s not a reason not to do it.” Demeter describes biodynamics as “a way to enrich the world and to celebrate the beauty of landscape and life”—a different kind of relevance, if you like.
Bagheri, Bahareh, et al. “The diversity and dynamics of indigenous yeast communities in grape must from vineyards employing different agronomic practices and their influence on wine fermentation.” South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 36, no. 2 (2015).
Balfour, Eve. “Towards a Sustainable Agriculture – The Living Soil.” 1977. IFOAM conference, Switzerland. Transcript. https://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/GoodBooks/Towards%20a%20Sustainable%20Agriculture--The%20Living%20Soil.pdf.
“The biodynamic Wine-FAQ.” Demeter International. Accessed January 13, 2021. https://www.demeter.de/verbraucher/landwirtschaft/weinbau/weltweit/faq.
Blanning, Beverley. Biodynamics in Wine. The International Wine & Food Society, 2010.
Botelho, Renato Vasconcelos, et al. “Physiological responses of grapevines to biodynamic management.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 31, no. 5 (2015).
Castellini, Alessandra, et al. “An overview of the biodynamic wine sector.” International Journal of Wine Research 9, no. 1 (2017).
Catchpole, Andrew. “Organic growth a ‘global phenomenon’, helping reboot depressed wine market.” Harpers. September 29, 2020. https://harpers.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/27822/Organic_growth_a__91global_phenomenon_92,_helping_reboot_depressed_wine_market_.html.
Fritz, Jürgen, et al. “Functional microbial diversity responses to biodynamic management in Burgundian vineyard soils.” Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 36, no. 3 (2020).
Guzzon, Raffaele, et al. “Evaluation of the oenological suitability of grapes grown using biodynamic agriculture: the case of a bad vintage.” Journal of Applied Microbiology 120, no. 2 (2015).
Hendgen, Maximilian, et al. “Effects of different management regimes on microbial diversity in vineyard soils.” Scientific Reports 8 (2018).
IWSR. “Organic Wine Forecasted to Reach 87.5m Cases Globally by 2022.” April 9, 2019. https://www.theiwsr.com/wp-content/uploads/Press-Release-IWSR-Sees-Growth-in-Global-Organic-Wine-Market_9Apr19.pdf.
Steiner, Rudolf. Agriculture: Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture. Translated by Catherine Creeger and Malcolm Gardner. Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association, 1993.
Waldin, Monty. Biodynamic Wine. Oxford: Infinite Ideas, 2016.
Waldin, Monty. “The price of organic conversion.” Meininger’s Wine Business International. June 15, 2017. https://www.wine-business-international.com/wine/marketing-wine-tourism/price-organic-conversion.
“The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics & Emerging Trends 2020.” FiBL & IFOAM – Organics International. 2020. https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/5011-organic-world-2020.pdf.
Hi Tomasz, there are a few reasons why biodynamic grapes would be more expensive, including the costs of certification, the additional time costs you mention, lower yields and so on. If you look at Monty Waldin's article (in the References section), he goes into this in some detail. As for your second question, I think you would have to follow this up with Biodyvin. Obviously the grapes would need to be certified to start with. It's not a situation I've come across. I think people who go to the trouble and expense of producing their grapes biodynamically would most likely be making the wine themselves.
Hey Beverley Blanning MW_ can you point out why biodynamic grapes are more expensive? just because winemaker must put more time and work into the vineyard?
And can your wine be certified by biodyvin if you just buying grapes?
Thank you! Fantastic read!
Excellent read, thanks!
Really enjoyed this, Beverley Blanning MW - thank you!