[question] Question submitted by David Cain, Australia. While realising that the practicioners of “orgainc” or “biodynamic” vineyards are passionate about how they make wine and that they are seeking a special niche in the industry by promoting their practices, I wonder if you would like to offer an opinion on whether wines do offer something to the consumer that other vineyards and wineries – which I believe are increasingly envitonmentally conscious, do not? [/question] [answer] It’s still very early days to be able to answer this question with absolute certainty. In my view there are not enough vineyards of top potential being managed with biodynamic principles for anyone to be able to correlate improvement of wine quality with this viticultural approach. It would be intriguing, for instance, to taste several vintages of wine made in exactly the same way from parcels of fruit taken from virtually identical sections of a vineyard, but managed with traditional horticultural priciples, organic and biodynamic ones respectively. Having said that, I have seen myself the differences in soil health and texture that repeat themselves time and again when people have changed from an old-fashioned and relatively thoughtless approach to viticulture to biodynamics. But would the same have occured without going the whole hog, by just taking a more fastidious approach to viticulture with modern technical means? Maybe yes, may be no. Impossible, in many cases, to say. I strongly believe that just because a vigneron has adopted a biodynamic or organic philosophy in the vineyard, there is no necessary reason for them to make better wine than their neighbour who might not. There are simply too many other variables involved. This country’s highest-profile wine that is made with a biodynamic approach is Cullen’s Diana Madeline Cabernet Sauvignon Merlot. The estate vineyard has an “A” grade Biodynamic Certification. The Mangan vineyard, which also contributes to this wine, does not have this certification. The company’s red vineyards have recently been converted to the Scott Henry trellis, with a view to increasing the presence of ripe flavours and to develop higher quality tannins. So, even with this world-class wine it is still to early to say with absolute certainty what precise effect biodyamics have had on its taste, texture, complexity and longevity. I might personally believe that the biodynamic approach has contributed something to these aspects, but I can not yet confidently precisely itemise and quantify these changes, whatever they may be. So, as we constantly find with innovations in wine, much of the early work behind major developments is done through gut feel and good intent. It takes time, especially in such a complex process as viticulture and winemaking, to be able to pinpoint precisely what effect results from what innovation. I believe that in a decade’s time we will all be much better placed to understand the effects of organic and biodynamic philosophies in vineyards good, bad and ordinary. Regardless of that, much of what is being carried out under these banners are done in the name of less chemicals, a genuine love and respect for land, a sense of guardianship for future generations, and a conviction that quality will ultimately come from a process that cares for the soil and nurtures the vine. In itself, that is a very good thing. Only the crass and the incompetent will sieze upon these philosophies to gain a marketing advantage. Many already have. [/answer]
