By Charles Olken
I keep finding myself in the middle of controversies about biodynamics. I am skeptic at heart. I should
have been born in Missouri. I don’t believe in theories. I believe in results. “Show me” could be my
battle cry whenever I hear someone make a claim that they have found the cure for the common cold
or tells me that we can all stop using best medical practices because they are convinced that drinking
carrot juice is the answer to good health and long life. Or, in this case, that sprinkling a bunch of unusual
herbal and mineral blends on a vineyard, planting cowhorns filled with manure and picking by the
phases of the moon produce better wine. It all boils down to this. I have no argument that doing the
right things in vineyards is better for the planet. I have no axe to grind, no dog in this fight, no dogma to
defend. I simply want to be shown.
I have read the reports, talked to the vineyardists who love what they believe are more “alive soils”,
listened to lectures, attended seminars, read the books. The arguments are compelling—all the way
to the end when someone or other asks to see the results. And that is where it breaks down. There
have been no convincing results one way or the other that I have seen—until now. And, absent those
results, I had no conclusion save this. True believers are true believers. They take their beliefs in
biodynamics seriously just as very large numbers of people take their beliefs in God very seriously. True
believers believe. I know this is so because I recently asked Randall Grahm how he came by his belief in
biodynamics. His honest answer, “I don’t know Charlie, I just believe that doing things without chemicals
has got to be better”. So, I asked, “Isn’t this a little like religion”? His response, “I guess it is”. Now,
don’t get me wrong because I have never argued that religion is the opiate of the masses. I am neither
religious nor a-religious. I am neither for religion nor against it. I am for whatever it is the people choose
as their way of life as long as they don’t impose it on me or anyone else. So, what harm biodynamics?
Probably none whatsoever. So, what good biodynamics? Ah, that is the question.
Welcome to THE REPORT CARD where science talks and bullpuckey walks. I have just read a most
fascinating piece on the website, New York Cork Report, http://www.lenndevours.com/2010/09/
science-of-biodynamics-part-4-preparations.html. It is the fourth part in a long series of articles about
biodynamics, the part where author Tom Mansell finally gets around to talking about results. In the
earlier parts, also available by following the website to the other contributions by Mr. Mansell, there is a
fairly readable discussion about how biodynamics came into being, about the unrepentant skeptics who
refuse to believe and about what it means to follow the principles of biodynamics. Mansell lays all this
out in thousands of words, and I have barely scratched the surface in my comments above. I don’t even
know if I believe all I have read from Mansell, and I certainly think that one needs to see results from
more than one source before reaching any final and irreversible conclusion on the topic. Too many very
smart, reliable, solid people take issue with Mansell.
Still, the end of Part 4 is about results. It is about showing the world what one set of seemingly unbiased
scientists has found. If you want to know what all the fuss is about, you can and should read all four
reports to date. If you already know a bit about the concepts of sustainable farming, organic farming
and biodynamic farming, and you want the results, please go read Part 4. Chances are that the results
will not change your mind. It certainly has not changed mine irreversibly. But, there, in clear black and
white are the results as Mansell sees them through scientific studies published in reliable journals.
Is the concept of biodynamics filet mignon or bullpuckey? It is still up for grabs in some quarters because
biodynamics is not science. It is a belief system, and belief systems are often stronger than science.
I give this report my highest grade: A+.
WINE OF THE DAY
Earlier this week, on his eponymous blog (www.steveheimoff.com), Steve Heimoff wrote an entry
called “Sayonara Chardonnay?” in which he reflects on the fall off in Chardonnay popularity in Australia
and the reduction in Chardonnay plantings in this country. I thought about using that blog entry for
today’s report card, but the Chardonnay picture is more confused than the biodynamics debate. For our
part, we see the slight reduction in Chardonnay as part of a greater overall reduction in white grapes
here in California—all of which has left Chardonnay with more of the total white grape plantings than
ten years ago. But, Steve hits upon the truth when he comments that the biggest change is in the nature
of Chardonnay—change that is producing brighter, fruitier, more crisply balanced wines like our Wine
of The Day. It is a Good Value and well worth the price asked. Here is our tasting note as it appears in a
recent Connoisseurs’ Guide to California Wine.
88 BUENA VISTA Chardonnay Carneros 2007 $19.00 GOOD VALUE


Clean, fresh, bright and citrusy, this attractive wine is endowed with plenty of energy from
first sniff to lasting aftertaste. It is on the medium-weighted, balanced side in construction and
comes with a fair bit of easy-to-taste, nicely rounded, lively flavor. Alive and zesty at the end,
this well-crafted offering provides a lighter alternative to the ripe wine style and does so at a
great price.
Comments