BD is BS but the Soil is Still the Soul – Mike De Iuliis

4 thoughts on “BD is BS but the Soil is Still the Soul – Mike De Iuliis”

  1. I’m glad someone is willing to call out biodynamics for the pseudoscience that it is. Cosmic forces, teaspoons of various preperations and the phases of the moon do not make a wine better than one made by someone that puts in the effort to look after their vineyard and vines with “conventional” methods.

    1. Thanks for the comments Steve! I agree that there is, unfortunately no solid scientific evidence to support Biodynamics, yet it remains clear to me, from first hand accounts of my interactions with BD vineyards/wines that they seem to produce better fruit, simply because the soil is in such great health and well being. This can only be a good thing – and as Mike and I agree… ‘there is more than one way to skin a cat’.

      1. Biodynamic vineyards may produce “better” fruit (compared to what?), but it doesn’t show that the specific biodynamic aspect is responsible for the better fruit (or even the health of the soil).

        You can look after a vineyard many ways including with organic methods, leaving the mystical aspect out of it, and still have healthy soil and great fruit.

        Biodynamics likely does no harm and I think the majority of producers go about it happily without pushing it on others but it’s the constant insinuation from some that it somehow produces a better product that many find grating.

      2. Indeed. I’m not a fan of division, in any forms – hence why I wanted to interview someone like Mike DeIuliis for The Wine Idealist – there needs to be a balance, and alternative opinions need to be heard. Those that do go about insinuating that they have better fruit because they practice biodynamics in their vineyard are no better than fundamentalists of any belief system.

Comments are closed.