Garden of Robert Eden

Robert
Eden paid us a visit, bearing his tasty wines and his
biodynamic viticultural beliefs. The wines are produced at
Eden’s garden, Chateau Maris, in the Minervois La Liviniere
appellation of ancient Languedoc in Mediterranean
southwestern France. This is beautiful country, once known
for prolific production of bulk wines, now beginning to make
its mark in the fine-wine arena.

Eden grew up steeped in
husbandry in Yorkshire, where his father was a serious
gardener. He worked in the wine trade in Australia, Italy
and Burgundy before purchasing the estate in the village of
La Liviniere in 1994, and setting to work to revivify a soil
that had been exhausted and overfertilized with inorganic
chemicals. He has, using the biodynamic system, returned
nitrogen and microscopic life to the soil, enabling his
first commercial release with the 1998 vintage.

Of the 6425 approved acres
in Minervois La Liviniere, 5OO have thus far been planted.
The region is dry, with cool nights influenced by the Black
Mountains. The vineyards lie between 45O and 82O feet of
elevation. The soils are mostly limestone and clay. Almost
all the wines are red, 6O percent of which are composed of
Syrah, Grenache and Mourvedre, with varying additions of
Carignan, Cinsault, Terret, Piquepoul, and Aspiran. The
wines must remain in cask until at least November 1 of the
year after the harvest.

The Chateau Maris estate of
21O acres had its planted acreage reduced from 198 to 99
under the Eden regime. The grapes are harvested by hand.
Natural yeasts are used. Production is about 2OO,OOO bottles
of the three wines described in the tasting notes. The wines
are neither fined nor filtered.

Robert is an apostle of
biodynamics, called by some “a supercharged system of
organic farming”. Some term it a science, but that’s asking
for trouble, for there’s virtually no scientifically derived
evidence in support. It is rather a belief system codified
by Rudolf Steiner (1861 to 1925), an Austrian philosopher of
many interests. Biodynamics might be described as organic
agriculture blended with astrology, spiritualism, mysticism
– at best empirically based, at worst pagan atavism. Manures
and composts are revered.

To give the flavor, here is
Steiner (as cited in biodynamic wines, by Monty Waldin,
Mitchell Beazley, 2OO4, page 19) on the role of oak bark: ”
. . . creating order when the etheric body is working too
strongly, so that the astrality cannot influence whatever
organic entity is involved. Calcium in any form will kill
off or dampen the etheric body and thereby free up the
influence of the astral body, but when we want a rampant
etheric development to contract in a beautiful and regular
manner, without any shocks, then we need to use calcium in
the particular form in which it is found in oak
bark.”

Another pungent example is
the use of manure, which is stuffed into the horn of a cow
that had borne calves. The horn is buried for six months,
then the manure sprayed on the vines under the moon at a
specified position.

A spat about the validity
of biodynamics has arisen in the pages of decanter, largely
ignited by Joe Fattorini’s bluntly worded piece in the
January 2OO7 issue. He begins, “Organic winemaking is a con
. . . and biodynamic wine simply a pottier variation.” He
goes on: “The biodynamic narrative is straight out of
fantasy fiction,” and advises, “If you buy wine because it’s
organic, you’re a dupe.” As you imagine, some heated letters
followed, but none expressed a counterargument with factual
backing.

So it seems that biodynamics may be based upon wishful
thinking and a flawed concocted scheme rather than upon
science, but other ideas based upon folk wisdom have turned
out to have substance. Its attitude of eschewing the
scientific method must be ultimately damaging. The
healthiest attitude now may be open-minded agnosticism,
hoping to sift out the chaff and rationalize what’s of
value.

There are some points in
favor of biodynamics. Some of the world’s best wines are
produced by the method, but, with their advantages of great
terroir and great talent, wouldn’t they be just as great by
any reasonable system? Practitioners take meticulous care of
their vines and of their pieces of earth, which can’t help
but be good. These same producers made great wines before
organic or biodynamic rebirth. The Nazis banned biodynamics,
another endorsement.

It is questionable whether
vines raised by the orthodox biodynamic system are healthier
than those just as well attended, but by conventional
methods, despite the strong belief of the converted.
Certainly, incompetent viticulture is bad for vines, leading
to grapes, and thus wines, of less than optimal quality.
Imbalances are also damaging.

Overnourishing leads to
excessive foliage; overwatering to obese, dilute, flabby
grapes, giving wines of like character. Malnourished or
desiccated vines, obviously, must be avoided, yet it has
long been preached, quite rightly, that vines must be
stressed to produce the best possible grapes. Stressed vines
also increase their production of polyphenols, including
resveratrol, healthful for those drinking the resultant
wine.

Interestingly, the
physiological stress of strict calorie restriction in many
organisms, from yeast to mammal, results in increased
fitness and lengthening of life span, and, more to the
point, resveratrol from grape skins reproduces these
benefits. Advocates of biodynamics maintain that wines
produced by their system are healthier than other wines, but
I have encountered not a shred of evidence supporting this
contention. In fairness, other than the extra effort, which
likely has collateral viticultural benefits, I know of no
adverse effect of the biodynamic system upon the resultant
wine or the health of the consumer.