Today, many wine specialists claim to perceive a distinct difference between biodynamic and other wines, even organic wines. There are, of course, biodynamic growers whose opinion might well be rather subjective, but who, after all, know their wines best and have had the experience of vinifying the same parcel before and after biodynamics. There are also journalists, sommeliers, wine merchants and, of course, amateur tasters.
Tasting notes converge to say that wines produced biodynamically have more minerality and better acidity. This has also been my experience. For me, ‘better acidity’ refers to the quantity and also the quality of acidity, that is, riper and less green. As surprising as it may seem to you, there is acidity, and there is acidity … And it is not chemical analysis (total acidity or pH) that allows one to differentiate between the two. For white wines as well as for red, the biggest problem a winegrower faces during harvest in warm years (or even in warm climates where the grape variety is not well adapted), is obtaining full maturity of fruit, aromas and tannins, without an overly high degree of alcohol, and especially, without losing that which provides the tension: acidity and minerality. For top white wines, there is nothing worse than having to harvest before full maturity out of fear of a substantial drop in acidity. This can happen when temperatures are very high during the days preceding harvest. This was precisely the case in Burgundy in 1997, when September was very hot. Pierre Morey and Anne-Claude Leflaive explained to me that at that moment, they realised for the first time the impact that biodynamic viticulture has on a grape’s balance. The consulting oenologist who carried out analyses for Domaine Leflaive and a number of other estates in the Côte d’Or, was very surprised indeed because acidity ‘had fallen flat on its face’ at nearly all of his client’s estates, except Domaine Leflaive! A valuable asset for producing balanced wines in a warm vintage …
Along with the minerality drawn from the soil by the roots, tasters also describe biodynamic wines with the following expressions: depth, verticality, anchorage. And possibly: length, complexity, purity. I must admit that even if one feels the difference, the vocabulary used to describe it is not very rich, and actually quite limited. I have already explained to you the importance of feelings in tasting wines produced biodynamically (see question 20: How should a biodynamic wine be tasted?). Typically, the terms depth, anchorage, and verticality are more like attempts at expressing a feeling than precise, analytical descriptions. When there is a lack of words or descriptive language, perhaps you need to consider using other forms of expression such as poems, design or painting! Why not?
At Domaine Leflaive, biodynamics was progressively developed over an eight-year period. From 1991 to 1997, Anne-Claude Leflaive was able to carry out separate bottlings in order to compare the influence of a specific form of viticulture within the same parcel (Bâtard-Montrachet and Puligny-Montrachet 1er cru le Clavoillon). Tasting notes from this experiment were published in the Revue du Vin de France (in the 1990s, and then more recently in number 530 in April, 2009). Yet, the most important aspect for me is that every time I tasted these bottles blindly and without knowing which ones were biodynamic, I became aware of the importance of the global images that sprang into my mind from the first moment of contact with the wine. They allowed me to recognise the form of viticulture with near certainty. Thereafter, once I used my intellect to try to justify my choice with a rigorous analytical tasting of the different aromas and the palate, I started to get lost and was wrong approximately fifty percent of the time.
In conclusion, wines produced biodynamically generally have organoleptic qualities that distinguish them from wines conventionally produced. But even more importantly, they offer us new dimensions in wine tasting, and that excites me.