POSTMODERNISM, RATIONALISM AND BIODYNAMICS

 Biodynamics and the Limits of Rationalism, Clark Smith, Wines & Vines January 2011.

 Clark and I have had some lively exchanges about Biodynamics and it’s clear that neither of us is convincing the other to change our views. 

Clark is a “postmodernist” who seems to believe, like Steiner, that science is limiting and that there is more to this world than science can answer: At best, truth is soft and ephemeral and truth is what we wish it to be or what we can get away with — in fact, there may be no truths!  This “beyond science” postmodernist approach also seems to accept that our current language is limiting and the new era should utilize a new language – something Clark clearly embraces with his writing style. 

 Herein lays the very essence of the Biodynamic debate.  I reject virtually everything written in this article as utter nonsense because I reject the notion that science is limiting.  We should not abandon our search for the truth because it is difficult.  Clark’s article is an apologist’s love letter to Biodynamic farming.  He believes that Biodynamics should be held to a different standard because we now live in a postmodern world where truth is not out there.  

Specifically:

I seriously doubt Red Mountain, Hearty Burgundy and White Zinfandel consumers care one whit whether their wine is “soulful” or “transformative.”    Many, maybe most of us in the premium wine side of our industry, forget that we are not the center of the universe.  Let’s keep this subject in perspective – Sutter Home makes more White Zinfandel than the entire Napa Valley produces and their sales are up a whopping 25% or so. 

Should Biodynamics, which requires a leap of faith, be acceptable to us?   Should we also accept the idea that science can’t model complex systems, farming or not, or accept the “intractability (of B-d) to conventional scientific practices” (Clark’s term)?  I answer with a resounding NO!   Just because it may be difficult doesn’t mean it can’t be done.   Start with definitions, develop theories, test those theories and repeat the process.  Do Biodynamic wines taste better?  Do buried cow horns work?  Do tea sprays stop mildew?  Is the carbon footprint larger, the same or smaller than organic or sustainable farming?  What is the social cost-benefit from the various farming systems?  I know that experiments can be designed to test these types of hypotheses – saying it can’t be done is just a cop-out.

 Clark’s passage on Adam Smith gets it completely wrong.  Adam Smith’s theories on Capitalism were not from “imagination” and “science fiction” (as were Steiner’s) but from careful study, travel and observation of world economies.  Modern economics is based on formalizing the idea of the invisible hand.  Game Theory and Neuro Economics  are just two examples of scientific research bringing the light of day to Clark’s “fundamental mysteries.”  

The brain and mind are no longer forbidden topics of research as  Clark would have us believe.  For research  being done to unravel the mysteries of music appreciation – see Blood and Zatorre, 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 I could hardly believe my eyes when I read “All Biodynamics needs to do in order to be valid is to survive and thrive.”  Does this mean that fascism, communism, racism, homeopathic medicine, tarot card/palm reading and astrology are all now “valid?”

 I don’t understand why Clark believes that Acupuncture can’t or shouldn’t be critically evaluated?  Again, it may be messy and take effort and time to sort out the various studies and the cultural biases, but it is not impossible.  In a recent article by Jonah Lehrer in The New Yorker (more on this in the next post) Lehrer points out that when the studies were conducted in Asia all 47 studies showed efficacy for Acupuncture, yet when studied in the West only 56 showed efficacy out of the 94 studies.  Time will sort out what and who is correct – which is exactly what science is all about.  Again, science is messy and slow and we should remain skeptics.

 Clark goes on with Philip Armenier’s “poetic language” regarding preparations and energy forces and then drops the bomb “Word confusion is the common stamp of paradigm shifts.”  A paradigm shift?  It certainly appears that Clark is heralding that Biodynamics will triumph and be the new farming standard!  I’ve re-read this section a dozen times and if Biodynamics sounds “nuts” to Clark, as he claims, then why would he write this? 

The part on Alan York is typical of what I call “Biodynamic speak.”  What’s not to like about what Alan says?  A closed system, biodiversity, funny little preparations and a holistic approach: Clark left out motherhood and apple pie.   It sounds lovely and says absolutely nothing!  The devil is in the details and Clark and Alan York never address the details.  If it’s a closed system then why is it OK to truck compost from up to 250 miles away from the farm?  If Biodynamics employs a holistic approach than why is it OK to use the very nasty pesticide PyGanic which contains Prethrins?  Why is it OK to use a nasty pesticide made from chrysanthemums than a more environmentally friendly one made from the petrochemical industry?

 I take offense at Clark’s claim that I and/or others delighted in our Biodynamic neighbors getting Powdery Mildew.  Once again Clark is wrong, because that is not true.  It was my understanding that many growers got mildew this year and if we were to single out one group that got hurt the most it would be the organic growers, not the Biodynamic farmers.  I don’t understand why that would be, but I’ve heard that from many of my associates who are vineyard managers.  IMO, there is no excuse for getting mildew.  It is absolutely preventable if you pay attention to your farming practices.  I had mildew in the past and it was my fault – period.  I swore I’d never get again and I haven’t.

 Science, with all its faults, searching for the truth or Biodynamics supported by a postmodern view that goes “beyond science” and says truth is relative – your choice.

Stuart Smith

About these ads

28 Responses to POSTMODERNISM, RATIONALISM AND BIODYNAMICS

  1. Bill Crowley says:

    Ken Payton has posted his “Reflections on Biodynamics” presented at the Unified Wine and Grape Symposium at: http://reignofterroir.com/2011/02/09/reflections-on-biodynamics/

    I enjoyed reading it, but I found it a bit unrealistic and offered the following comment to him:

    A nicely written piece, but I would argue, full of romance more than reality (in places). A parallel sort of proposition (glorifying the “old”) was put forth by Lewis Mumford in “The City in History” in which he relished the attractions of medieval cities versus modern urban settings. Alas, he conveniently forgot about lack of garbage service (smells), inside water availability, lack of open space, etc. offered by the cities of his era vs. what most of us would find to be ghastly conditions in the medieval equivalent.

    You appear to feel that (and I may be reading you wrongly here) old-timey farming was better because it was less machine dependent, not scientifically based, and less environmentally intrusive. I’m guessing most of those folks working countless hours behind a horse or oxen-pulled plow (if they even had those) would relish the ease of tractor-pulled implements. Labor was hardly dehumanized with the advent of machinery! It was, I would suggest, greatly humanized because physical exertion was eased.

    A couple of other problems I see with your position. It seems to presume all farmers were free and were practicing farming as it always was. You may know that throughout Mediterranean Europe in Steiner’s time the countryside was full of feudal holdovers, peasants working on landed estates, sharecropping, etc. France may have been the exception in places because of the late 18th Century revolution, but these were not generally labor positions many of us would aspire to today.

    I believe the other “error” one can read into your piece is that agriculture in the pre-industrial age was in some sort of steady-state that was in balance with the environment. What this view misses is the great agricultural revolutions that came before. What do you suppose persons occupying your argumental position were saying when the wooden plow was introduced to replace the hoe and digging stick? They may have been apoplectic that such an earth-bashing implement came along. And then, what about the iron, then steel plow replacing the wooden plow? What about ever-more clever irrigation methods that allowed farming lands previously exempt from man’s messing? Those who loved the old would have been distraught.

    The point is, farming has had many revolutions and changes in human-land relations since we began to domesticate plants some 15,000 years ago (and what were the hunter-gatherers-fishers saying about those farming folk?).

    Now as an Iowa-raised boy I can tell you there is a lot of modern farming that is ghastly. Corporate farming is not my cup of tea, nor contract hog-farming that puts 15,000 peeing and pooping hogs in one spot. Any chemicals we can get rid of so much the better. But thinking that some non-farmer writing in the 1920s about how to farm today is the way to go? I don’t think so. But, again, thanks for a nicely written essay.

    • biodynamicshoax says:

      Bill,
      What a wonderful, calm and reasoned response that you sent to Ken Payton. Hopefully, he will post it.

      I couldn’t help but notice Ken’s gratuitous comments about me. There must be a back story on how or why Ken ended up on that panel. Ginny and Evo were clearly the Biodynamic supporters, I was the counter-point and Ken was … well, being Ken and off-topic as usual. Earlier this week Ken went way off the reservation and savagely attacked me on Tom Wark’s Facebook page. Oh, well.
      Stu

  2. Greg says:

    BD people like to point that science can’t explain everything. True, but scientific TESTING can tell you if something works… by simply comparing one thing to another.

    That testing, last time I looked, has shown that biodynamics produces results no better than organic methods do. Meaning, it is useless. A miscue. That tells us that you’d get the best results by paying attention to the microbes in your soil (thank you science) rathern than pondering what ascension Saturn is in.

    It’s not that that science can’t explain BD, its that’s BD doesn’t work!

  3. Travis Proctor says:

    I find Clark’s article and posts to be some of the most meaty material on this site, in contrast to Stu’s strident point of view.
    The quote “We must be able to perceive without understanding,” strikes me as the core of the debate.
    I think the indictment of Steiner particularly is a side argument to the case against the viability of BD. If the system is bogus, I don’t think it necessary to blame the failure on the perceived lunacy of the originator. This angle has been sufficiently discussed in other posts.
    I do not have direct experience with grape-growing or BD grape-growing sufficient to support or oppose BD practices.
    However, Clark’s comment about tasting as paramount in context with scientific data is well taken. We may consider the contrast of the concept of creating synthetic wine from assembling the identified components with the concept that legendary wines were made without a lab to identify any of the numbers that so many winemakers rely on today.
    I defer in many ways to my elders who have posted here, but for those who I have had the pleasure of working with, who may or may not buy into BD (neither so far), I find a complexity of thought that relies on input untamed by science.
    That being said, I agree that we are far better off with science working so hard to color our practice. On the other hand, I imagine catastrophe if we did not practice without the perceptions that science cannot quantify.
    I envision a so-called eccentric working on a mag-lev train while the steam engineers sneer past about their business.
    Science is not the sole generator of progress. Neither should we soak ourselves in the dogma of… well, anything.
    I am 100% in favor of scientific analysis of BD, but if Stu was in charge of funding same, how vigorous would this be? We can approach this with skepticism, or with derision.
    Back to the key quote: we must hold that science does not explain every aspect of quality in winemaking and it is the “unscientific” approach that provides the “other” side of this endeavor.
    I am writing this on my IPhone, so I can’t review the flow of my comment. I feel firmly ensconced in the netherlands between the extremes of this debate. Like great wine, I crave mostly balance and complexity.

    • biodynamicshoax says:

      Travis,
      Not to worry about the IPhone, I’m on an IPad and only see about four sentences at a time. I have little issue with anyone holding beliefs that can’t be proved, unless, they claim that those beliefs are superior to the known facts – as Biodynamics does. It seems to me that Biodynamics wants to have it both ways 1) claim superiority in the material world and 2) not have to compete and put-up proof in the material world, because Biodynamics is bases on faith.

      I attack Steiner because Steiner’s writings are all we have as a body of work that is the foundation of Biodynamics. Steiner was not a farmer, had never been a farmer and conducted no studies, no experiments to validate or prove his ideas. In fact, it was through perception, intuition and meditation that Steiner telepathically gained access to the cosmic “Akasha Records” and learned the truth about farming that became Biodynamics. Science leaves a trail of experiments -both of successes and failures – to be reviewed by others. Biodynamics leaves us only the gibberish of Rudolf Steiner so it is completely appropriate to attack him because Steiner is Biodynamics.

      You are right, with limited resources in this world, I would not fund any moneys into Biodynamic research. Let the Demeter people fund an independent university study – they’re the ones making the claims.
      stu

    • Travis Proctor says:

      All cogent points, Stu. I have been exposed to the tenets of BD and other esoteric, irrational systems of approaching the world. It has struck me over the course of reading this discussion that if and when I do have the opportunity to manage the viticultural side of a winery, that if I chose to test BD, I might not advertise it. There are a number of reasons for this.
      The first is that if a person’s religion makes them a more whole person, that is not a reason to proselytize. The second is that the quality of the wine should speak for itself, and not be biased by a romance that may not directly affect quality. Thirdly, if one embraces a sense of sacredness through exploring magical practices, it is best to honor that sacredness by not sharing the details with the profane.
      I don’t agree completely with the idea that Steiner is BD; however, I find it unfortunate that it appears BD practice is very dogmatic. What I mean is that there are traditional farming methods that are not scientific, that go beyond the dogma. In other words, Maybe BD should go crazy and try some more broad approaches. How about chamomile in a sheep’s stomach? I mean these ideas are ultimately as much about anecdotal trial and error, or should be, as they are about Akashic communication.
      I think an important part of this discussion is that although farming and winemaking can be measured by science, progress is not always furthered by science.
      I watched a Sonoma winemaker say that the quartz had “fermented” in the horn. Is that tested? It could be, unless fermentation is being used in an etheric sense, which has no meaning.
      I am all for irrational practices, but I agree that they are not superior empirically. Just as in the winery, we must do as little as we have to, but do what we must. Who wants to drink spoiled organic wine?

  4. Greg says:

    Hi Stu,

    Sorry, off topic, but I can’t let this one go:

    “IMO, there is no excuse for getting mildew. It is absolutely preventable if you pay attention to your farming practices. I had mildew in the past and it was my fault – period. I swore I’d never get again and I haven’t.”

    Please share your methods! I’m a home vegie gardener and my cucurbits and grape vines always get it.

    • biodynamicshoax says:

      Greg,
      Growing grapes is a business and there shouldn’t be issues that get in the way of taking care of them. On the other hand, Gardening is recreational; you do it when you can – big difference. Without getting into too much detail, in spring I dust with sulfur every other row every week. Once we get into late May (depending on the weather) I start using a systemic with has a 19 day efficacy, but at 14 days I dust with sulfur and then repeat the process on a more or less 21 day schedule and alternate the systemic based on their chemistry. Because of equipment issues this past year we didn’t use a systemic and just dusted every seven days. No mildew. Sounds easy, and it is, if you pay attention – if not you get mildew. If it’s windy you have to stop and wait and then restart. There’s always wind that kicks up just before sunrise and if you ignore it then there’s an increase chance that the part of the vineyard that was dusted in higher wind will get mildew.
      Hope this helps.
      Stu

  5. Jim Lapsley says:

    Stu,

    A beautifully written response to Clark’s romantic poetry. Thanks for taking the time to do it. And Oded, great to hear from you and your thoughts on the tools that UCD provided you.

    Jim

  6. David Hance says:

    I read and understood Clark Smith’s piece. At least, I thought I understood it. Because what I read was not an apology for (or a love letter to) Biodynamics. Therefore this boisterous response makes no sense to me. I’d keep things pretty simple: There are limits to what we currently know, and when we find something we do not understand, we should use the best tools at hand to understand that thing better. We may not have the tools, techniques and time to understand that thing fully. But that doesn’t mean we should dismiss its existence because we can’t immediately understand it.

  7. Andy says:

    As a (home) winemaker and a physician, I think it is important to stress the differences between biodynamics and acupuncture. BD is for all intents and purposes, a made up religion, like scientology without a shred of science behinds many of the assertions. Acupuncture, on the other hand, is based upon 5000+ years of systematic observation. and while not all modern, controlled studies have shown benefit, many have for a number of indications (at kaiser, we use traditional acupuncture to treat back and pelvic pain and to manage post chemotherapy nausea and vomiting). In addition, we use modified acupuncture to treat urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction (it’s amazing that they figured out that if you put a needle into the superior medial spect of the ankle….that the bladder would work better ….it’s actually the site of the terminal branch of the s4 plexus…one of the nerves that also supplies the bladder). I think it is important to differentiate this form of therapy from other aspects of “homeopathy” and certainly from the rationale (or lack thereof) of BD

    • biodynamicshoax says:

      Andy,

      Thanks for your thoughts and pointing out the differences between Biodynamics and Acupunture. I’ve had Acupuncture once and it did nothing for me, which I know means little to nothing. As I’m sure you can tell, I’m a bit of a skeptic: Are there some good research articles you could point to point supporting the efficacy of Acupunture?
      Thanks,
      Stu

    • Andy says:

      BJU Int. 2010 Dec;106(11):1673-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09461 (one of many for the modified acupuncture used to treat bladder dysfunction)

      Pain. 2010 Oct;151(1):146-54. Epub 2010 Jul 23 (one of over 1800 RCTs looking a acupuncture and pain — in this case, shoulder pain. In this study, it showed benefit)

      I am not saying that it cures everything; I acknowledge that not all studies demonstrate a benefit and many studies show a high placebo response (esp with “sham acupuncture), I do not think Qi will be scientifically characterized and certainly, on the surface, acupuncture and BD have a lot in common. But, there is data to support its use and I think that the more we understand how it works, the better we will be able to use it as a treatment. On a personal note, I have used acupuncture to treat 3 things – bicipital tendonitis (it was curative), focal peripheral neuropathy (also curative) and post ACL repair knee pain (didn’t help very much

    • Isotope says:

      Andy,

      I must comment on something that I’ve noticed with almost all forms of alternative therapy. Virtually every malaise that is somehow solved by acupuncture, EFT, or naso-cranio-sacral therapy is that the people that it benefits, seem to be all psychologically, physically needy people. I wish there was a better way to word that, but hypochondriac isn’t quite accurate.

      I’ve noticed a correlation, with people who subscribe to such “treatments” with a lack of parental affection in childhood. Of course western medicine is looking for rational disease states, but when the disease state is psycho-somatic it tends to fail. I’ve known many people who have a severe desire to be touched, and in the US touch is somewhat taboo, even just a dad hugging his son, and is relegated to a sexual sin in some families.

      Is it possible that the urinary control problem, semi-common with younger-side adolescent males (bedwetting guilt), could be a psychological issue with a lack of being given physical affection? Then the needle arrives to give a “shot” of affection?

      If biodynamics is being practiced in a thousand years, it doesn’t make it any less ridiculous than acupuncture.

    • Zeke says:

      Not to get too far off subject, and not that there aren’t other scientific studies out there, but as a skeptic the only study I remember is one where “sham” acupuncture was found to be as effective as “real” accupuncture.
      http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/17/1892?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=acupuncture&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

  8. Arthur says:

    “All Biodynamics needs to do in order to be valid is to survive and thrive.”

    That is another way of saying: “A lie repeated loud enough and frequently enough becomes the truth.”

    I don’t know if there is any demonstrable foundation for any claim of BD’s effectiveness, but I am on your side when you propose that these assertions be put to rigorous testing, re-testing and the scrutiny of peer review.

  9. Nick Nakorn says:

    Stu,
    an excellent post. I agree whole-heartedly with you (though Smith would be turning in his grave to witness how unethical capitalism has become; his invisible hand being tempered by ethics sadly lacking today). I always think of science as an iterative process in which models of reality become ever more accurate; some being so accurate that they are ‘true’ as far as practical. Some post-modernists stretch this idea into a ghastly unethical pick-and-mix in which any old snake-oil will do. Smith would not approve even if we all bought it.
    Best wishes
    Nick

  10. Zeke says:

    Stu,
    Congratulations getting through that article. I would hate to have to debate Mr. Smith because his arguments (here and elsewhere) are so graniloquent that it takes me about 10 minutes to figure out why his analogies are wrong.

  11. Oded Shakked says:

    Stu,

    Thanks again for a well written response. I tried, I mean I REALLY tried to understand what Clark was trying to get at but all I could come up with (after pasting it into WORD and commenting on each sentence) was: “My God! He writes like Steiner!”.

    Clark, if you are reading this: You know I like you and respect you but that article is off the mark. If all you were trying to say is that winemakers should be open to aspects of winemaking that are not measurable (which I agree to wholeheartedly) you did not do a good job. You failed to also put the BD folk to the test and present the beauty and passion that drive the logic behind the scientific method.

    Frankly, I am getting tired of people dissing UC Davis. UCD is an academic institution. As any winemaker knows, no school can teach you how to be a grape grower or winemaker. A good school, will give you all the tools you need to go and learn how to become one. To say that Davis is responsible for “industrial” wines is not only elitist, it is akin to saying that The Architecture school in San Louis Obispo is responsible for the boring suburbs of anytown USA. As far as that is concerned, UCD gave me nothing but the best tools available at the time so I could learn to back up artistic hunches with solid science. When hiring an intern for harvest, I can teach them in 5 minutes how to hook up a pump but I don’t have the time to teach them how laccase kills precursors for fruity aromas.

    On the same note, I wonder what an African farmer that can finally feed his family thanks to modern agriculture feels about Monsanto. The generalizations made by Smith and some of the BD followers are absolutely elitist in that context.

    As this debate goes on, I am inclined to step away and just continue evolving, farming and making wines the best way I know. I have a feeling the BDBS thrives on having curious folk questioning the BD practices. When we do so, we get labeled as “scientists”, “big ag”, “soulless” etc, which just makes it easier for them to avoid giving simple answers to simple questions, from simple farmers. If someone wants to demonize me for asking how cow horns imported from Mexico and processed in Virginia, then shipped to Dry Creek Valley are going to “heal the planet” (Don’t laugh… that is the mission statement of the Josephine Porter Institute), let it be.

    Over and Out

  12. Doug Smith says:

    For a raft of very good articles about the inefficacy of acupuncture, I highly recommend the Science Based Medicine blog. Their section on acupuncture is here:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=8

    Quackwatch has a good rundown as well:

    http://quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html

  13. Roger says:

    Could not slog through the article but sure enjoyed the rebuttal as a great read. I am very biased never believed arguements that want to explain away and always want to find relevance without credible support. Keep the hammer out.

  14. Bill Crowley says:

    Thanks for taking on what I felt was a poorly organized, dizzy, almost stream-of-consciousness essay. You counter his arguments well. For me, the base line in biodynamics and much more wine belief that is accepted as fact, is that romance and lore often carry the day. Wine writers, winemakers, and many consumers want to believe this stuff because it makes for good talk. Check out how many times/week we see more written about how soil mineralization or a rock formation explains the organoleptic character of a given wine. I appreciate your efforts pointing out the religious nature of Biodynamics fraud

    • biodynamicshoax says:

      Bill,
      Thanks for the comment. I’ve never understood why people try to make wine complicated – it’s fabulous all by itself. Ah, but we do have to sell it, don’t we.
      Stu

    • Richard Sowalsky says:

      Bill,

      A great example of the phenomonon you’re describing can be found in the most recent edition of San Francisco magazine. In Jordan MacKay’s article “Bacchus on the half shell”, he posits, “That it’s easy to find the suggestion of oyster shells in the nose of many chablis and to see actual shell fossils in the soils of that region cannot be a coincidence.” Actually, it certainly CAN be a total coincidence, and probably is (seashells in Los Carneros soils do not impart the same characteristics, for example). However, until someone replaces some of the Kimmeridgian soils with soil of similar properties minus the seashells in a controlled trial in Chablis, no one will know if this coincidence of shell fossil and oyster shell essence is in fact causal or spurious. Sure makes a “good” albeit unsubstantiated story, though.

  15. Isotope says:

    Thanks again for the insightful post Stu, it’s one of my favorite inbox messages when I see a new whacko, at least one that is unknown to me, spout off on how biodynamics “works” or is above scientific rigor.

    http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/189/234

    So stu, if you check out the above article, it seems that there is evidence that acupuncture is also a hoax. At least it is a good start, needless to say I’m shocked, I buried a poop filled horn under my local acupuncturist’s mailbox and they closed up shop. I’m going to have to try that over at the Chiropractor’s.

    I do feel bad for someone like Clark Smith though, it must be overwhelming to have such a lack of understanding of the nuances of the organic chemistry and microbiology of a wine fermentation. I suppose that is why they believe their dogma more seriously than a religious fanatic.

    • biodynamicshoax says:

      Isotope,
      Always great to hear from you and thanks for the interesting link. I did acupuncuture once for my bad back and all I got out of it was a very nice 20 minutes of quiet time. Percocet is the preferred and pain tested treatment.

      The strange thing about Clark is that he is a very well trained and thought of scientist in the wine industry.
      Stu

    • Isotope says:

      Thanks Stu,

      Checking out his website is a bit of a strange experience. It looks like he once subscribed to science, possibly, but here it says:

      “If wine is a chemical solution, then filters can only harm wine by adsorbing dissolved flavors.”

      Wine is a chemical solution, and if you use a crossflow filter with PTFE membranes, I’d be quite curious what dissolved flavor is going to be removed, PTFE is quite inert. You’d think a guy who operates an RO service would know that, and I’m certain if he operates an RO service, he has a crossflow…

      “You cannot filter chocolate. What does this teach us about the making of serious wine?”

      I’m sure if Chocolate had lactobacillus higardii in it, it would be called spoilage, and would be recalled (if the FDA checks chocolate…) Milk/Wine spoilage organisms certainly don’t taste or smell very good…

      “give science a back seat when it’s time to blend up deliciousness, and
      C) taste, talk, tune, taste, and taste.”

      These are not the words of a scientist, they are the words of an individual who has decided that GC/MS, LC/MS and advanced molecular genetics are irrelevant to manufacturing a good wine, and note, not many people use those now unfortunately. I suppose that is why the predicament is in the wine industry, no one shares that information when they figure it out (not going to mention GALLO here, wait, whoops.)

      If he was once a scientist, I’d have to say that he isn’t now. I’m going to agree with House on this one, is that our patient needs an MRI, since those full body scans are useless.

    • biodynamicshoax says:

      Isotope,

      We use an old plate and frame filter w/o a cross-over plate. We do filter both the Chardonnay and Riesling and believe there is no sensory loss. We have no good reason that our Cabernets are not filtered except to say we too can get seduced by BS and marketing.
      Stu

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers

%d bloggers like this: