The world is full of anecdotal accounts, offered up as proof, for what people think they know to be true. For most, there is no real knowing if these beliefs are causal or incidental. A very simple for instance–while it’s true that every person who eats carrots today will die, eating carrots will not be the reason that those folks die. Hopefully most of these carrot eaters will live long into the future, but the causation of death will likely be the normal ones, such as cancer, heart failure, accident, etc.
With this in mind, there are many wonderful wines from world famous estates which are biodynamically farmed, but so what! It means absolutely nothing to this discussion unless you can prove a causal relationship between Biodynamic farming and wine quality. I believe that any relationship between biodynamic practices and wine quality is incidental at best, anecdotal claims by their followers to the contrary.
There are wineries that make great wines that are Biodynamically farmed and there are wineries that make great wines that non-Biodynamically farmed. Great wines have been around for hundreds of years, whereas biodynamically farmed vineyards are relatively recent. It’s not only possible, but likely, that vineyards producing great wines in the past will continue to produce great wines into the future whether they are biodynamically farmed or not. The defining element (causation) is not whether the vineyard is biodynamically farmed or not, but whether the vineyard is located on the right soils, has the right exposure, the right micro-climate and is grown by a competent and caring farmer.
As we’ve seen with the recent political campaigns, people make all sorts of assertions with little or no connection to the truth and Biodynamics is no different. Where are the controlled studies that limit soil, vine health and wine analysis to only the biodynamic paradigm? Are there good isolating controls established, are variables accounted for, is organic, sustainable and traditional also being tested under the exact same controls and are the trials results replicable in other regions and climates and are the results the same or do they differ? Lastly, will the experiments and test results stand up to peer review?
I have seen nothing from the biodynamic community offering any proof for their outlandish claims of superiority. Until such rigorous studies are completed and I am proven wrong, I will continue in my belief that Rudolf Steiner was a fraud and Biodynamics is a hoax.