The advent of biodynamic wine making has brought the sun, the moon and the manure into the vineyard, with even those traditionalists in Burgundy trying their luck.  So, is it all merely a hippy indulgence or a holisitc advance in wine making?  MARGARET RAND reports

There is a problem with biodynamic viticulture: its efficacy can't be proved.  It involves the use of herbal preparations – in homeopathic quantities – on vines and soil, but demands using them according to a special calendar of planetary cycles.  It means sprinkling infusions at dawn or dusk, having stirred them in a particular way; it seems to operate outside the realm of science, and sits beside crystals and dolphins as symptoms of a credulous age.

And yet, it seems to work: vines are healthier, wines better balanced.  That makes it not just dotty, but threatening.  "I'm amazed by the strength of feeling against biodynamic viticulture in many parts of the world," says one shipper.  No wonder some producers use biodynamic methods without publicising the fact – they don't want to be classed as sandal-wearing eco-warriors; they just want to make better wines.

Let's go back a few years.  In the '60s and '70s, a new breed of salesman started knocking on wine makers' doors.  They were selling chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides: everything you needed for a squeaky-clean vineyards.  "Think of the labour you'd save," they said.  "Think of the crops you could produce by killing those tiresome vineyard pests.  Think of how many vintages you've seen ruined by mildew and rot.  Our sprays will deal with everything at the flick of a switch.  Manure?  Forget it.  Our fertilisers will give you bigger crops, and they're simpler and quicker."

Yes, these concoctions were expensive: but this was the modern world.  Burgundy, like every other wine region, went over to chemicals on a massive scale and by the mid-80s the results were becoming clear: dead soil.  Those rumbling tractors, going backwards and forwards, had compacted the earth, and the pesticides and herbicides had produced soils in parts of the Côte d'Or which, according to Claude Bourguignon of Laboratoire d'Analyse Microbiologique des Sols, had less microbial life than the Sahara.  If that wasn't bad enough, the repeated applications of potassium were producing wines with acidity so low that they were way off balance.

"I observed that the vines were never in good health," says Anne-Claude Leflaive, who is the manager and part-owner of Domaine Leflaive at Puligny-Montrachet.  "In 1990, when I took over part-management of the domaine, I experimented with biodynamic methods on one hectare.  Then I did three hectares; last October I turned the whole domaine over to biodynamism.  I tried organic methods as well: with biodynamism the resistance of the vines to disease is better."  At the moment [late June] there is a big problem in Burgundy with mildew, from all the rain, but I have no mildew.  The improvement is more obvious in the vines than in the wines, but nevertheless in all the blind tastings we've done over the last eight years the biodynamic wines have been better than the organic wines."

The primary focus of biodynamic viticulture is the soil.  Out go the chemicals; in comes the manure, preferably buried in a cow's horn at the autumn equinox, dug up at the spring equinox, and mixed with 40 or 50 hectolitres (hl) of water.  When you mix the manure with the water you must stir it first one way, and then the other, and you must apply it at dusk, when the temperature is not lower than 8° Celsius.  This quantity will treat one hectare.

According to Nicolas Joly of Domaine de la Coulée de Serrant in the Loire (I translate from his book Le Vin du Ciel à la Terre, Editions Sang de la Terre, 1997) the increase in microbial life found in the soil is 80 times greater if you use manure that has been buried in a cow's horn than if you use other manure.  This sounds reasonable, but he also says, "By the choice of a cow's horn (and not that of a bull, with which the results are negligible), we are accentuating the primordial feminine aspect.'

Joly, admittedly, is widely seen as being the wackier end of biodynamism.  "I'm not sure that he's the best ambassador for it," sighs one source.  Anne-Claude Leflaive is more pragmatic, more empirical.  On the question of cows' horns rather than bulls' horns, she says, "Experiments at Chernobyl have shown that vegetables grown with cows' horns manure have less radioactivity than others, and cows' horns are better than bulls' horns.  I don't know why.  These things will be  explained in the future."

"I'm not convinced that biodynamism gives me the elegance and finesse I want in my wines.  The wine is more authentic, perhaps, with biodynamism, but also perhaps more rustic.  We'll see in 20 years.  And it needs a lot of people: perhaps ten times as many."  At the 27ha biodynamic Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, for example, co-owner Aubert de Villaine employs a total of 25 people in vineyards and cellars.  Anne-Claude reckons that the preparations account for about one-third of the cost of chemicals, but overall, biodynamism is undoubtedly more expensive, because of the extra workforce needed to pay such minute attention to the soil and the vines.

This raises the question of whether the difference in quality comes from herbal preparations and phases of the moon, or from serious producers giving fanatical care to their vines.  Shipper Roy Richards of Richards Walford asks, "If you're diligent and disciplined, do you need this extraneous discipline imposed on you?  Does it make a good wine maker better?  I'm not sure."

It also can't make a poor wine maker better and there is a danger of biodynamism being used solely as a marketing tool.  Nevertheless, Claude Bourguignon's research into soils has been vital.  He is consultant to many leading domaines, including the DRC – helping tailor treatment to the individual terroir.  About another 100 domaines belong to Groupement d'Etude et de Suivi des Terroirs (GEST), promoting the production and use of compost.  Some, but not all, of these, are fully biodynamic.

Terroir is a key word here.  Burgundy is all about terroir – it's what makes Volnay different from Pommard, and La Tâche different from Romanée-Conti.  Serious producers also know that terroir makes Burgundy different from New Zealand or Carneros Pinot Noir.  If you really want your wines to reflect the characteristics of the site, it's no use suffocating the terroir with chemicals.

The benefits of greater soil life show remarkably quickly in the wines: you being to see results in about three years, says Dominique Lafon of Domaine des Comtes Lafon, and a member of GEST.  "The first thing you notice in the wines is the acid balance; it comes back very quickly.  You can feel in the wine that the vineyard is going well."  So, great wine is made in the vineyard; isn't that what we've always been told?

MARGARET RAND:
-  is a freelance wine writer and frequent contributor to WINE.