Biodynamics in itself is a form of agriculture and therefore pertains to what happens in nature, or in this case in the vineyard. As with organic farming (in France labelled AB), its certification standards initially applied only to grape growing (see question 14: How does one know if a wine is biodynamic?). However, since 2009, the two certification bodies Demeter and Biodyvin have asked their members to adhere also to vinification standards that include wine-making tasks from harvesting to bottling. What can these standards consist of, given that neither Rudolf Steiner nor his successors in the anthroposophy movement provided systematic instructions concerning the transformation of food, in general, or wine, in particular?
Vinification standards seek to guarantee customers the preservation and enrichment of the qualitative value of a food, and more generally, respect for all the qualities of biodynamic agriculture over the course of the winemaking process. In theory, the standards aim for the following ideal: ‘a wine made from biodynamic grapes, with nothing added during winemaking, élevage or bottling’. In practice, as with organic wines, the standards only restrict the use of modern oenological techniques and additives: the limited addition of sulphur (a little …), the prohibition of industrial yeasts, the prohibition of acidification, chaptalisation limits, and guidelines for fining and filtration, to cite just a few. In short, this very much reminds me of the ‘negative’ definition of organic: prohibit the most aggressive, unbalancing and even harmful chemical and physical practices (see question 4: What is the difference between organic and biodynamic?). Obviously you would not want to destroy in the winery the work done in the vineyard.
Nevertheless, I would like to make three comments as I find these standards rather incomplete.
First, the debate concerning the authorisation or non-authorisation of certain practices continues to upset growers rather intensely. Let us take chaptalisation, for example (the adding of sugar to unfermented grapes), which some consider unnatural as its purpose is to alter the initial balance of the grapes and, as a result, it aims to standardise vintage characteristics, which would ultimately dismiss all respect for terroir. Others, however, believe that the moderate addition of organic cane sugar during fermentation entails an increase in the wine’s alcohol content, which would be positive. The alcohol would help to develop the natural forces present in the grape, and thereby even significantly improve a wine’s ageing potential, while being harmoniously integrated into its structure. This debate has not been resolved yet.
Second, exemptions are allowed for most of the outlined practices (acidification, chaptalisation, the addition of yeasts, and the addition of sulphur …). How can one maintain credibility under these conditions? Credibility is all the more tarnished as you can find examples such as Pierre Overnoy or Marcel Lapierre who make an ‘ideal wine’ (without any additives) generally without even referring to any standards.
Third, the current standards constitute a ‘negative’ definition of winemaking. In other words, it is a list of prohibited practices, which, in my opinion, can only be a first step, waiting for a second. A second step would involve the development of true biodynamic vinification operations including the observance of cosmic rhythms (Biodyvin briefly mentions this in its standards), the development of dynamisations for use during vinification, informed waters, and bioenergetic techniques. A small number of pioneers have already been experimenting with this for several years. Hopefully this know-how will spread sooner rather than later.
Keep in mind the anthroposophic conception of food which is to nourish the physical body, and also the life of the soul and the mind. Thus, it is natural that biodynamics must also concern itself with the transformation of harvested fruits. Nevertheless, this aspect is still relatively unexplored and we should be careful not to excessively or prematurely constrict individual initiatives.