This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
News
Dr Richard Smart slams organics
Australian viticulturalist and leading global consultant on viticultural methods Dr Richard Smart has spoken out against organics and biodynamics, dubbing them “a nonsense”.
Speaking at the Wineries for Climate Protection conference in Barcelona last week, Smart (left) slammed the theory that organic and biodynamic wines are better for the environment.
“Many of the concepts behind organics and biodynamics are nonsense. They’re not good for the environment,” he said.
“When people buy food they don’t mind choosing products that have been grown on land treated with chemicals, so why should they care about how a wine has been treated?”
Smart spoke passionately about the need for winemakers to wake up to the fact that CO2 is a pollutant. “Oenologists are environmental vandals of the worst type. CO2 is the greatest pollutant and winemakers are releasing it back into the atmosphere, undoing all the good work in the vineyard.
“We need to figure out how to capture CO2 from fermenters, recover the volatiles, and put them back into the wine.”
On the subject of climate change, Smart called for forward thinking: “We need to be thinking about our grandchildren and those who aren’t even born yet. It’s our duty to do all that we can to avoid what would be a very serious situation.”
Speaking on the consequences of global warming, Smart warned that hot regions were the most at risk. “In 1989, I suggested to the OIV that Grenache may be planted in Bordeaux. They laughed. I’m not so sure they’d be laughing now – I may live to see it happen.
“Hot regions are in danger of becoming unsuited to wine production. I think the OIV should set up an international research effort to look into producing varieties for hot regions, using indigenous varieties from Greece, Spain and Southern Italy as breeding stock.”
Lucy Shaw, 16.06.2011
Not So Smart!
What a well-reasoned case Richard Smart makes against organic wines (I am a specialist importer of these, just to be clear!).
I love the ‘logic’ behind “When people buy food they don’t mind choosing products that have been grown on land treated with chemicals, so why should they care about how a wine has been treated?†Er..what about the people who DO mind choosing food grown on land treated with chemicals? And in any case is it about what people ‘mind’ or about what is agriculturally sustainable?
Dr. Smart’s basic message is clear. The problem is with the CO2, or more to the point, practises that produce this. His point being that organic and biodynamic viticulture do not address this.
Whereas, the public undoubtedly appreciate the efforts made in not applying questionable treatments, it will not lead us anywhere in the event of the environment leading to the serious situation he highlights.
I would be very sympathetic to the position adopted here.
James Swann @
Ditton Wine Traders
I’m fully in favour of sustainability. But there are ways of achieving this with chemicals that are less harmful than, for example, ladling on copper for downy mildew (both in terms of poisoning the soil and quantities needed). And sulphur – another “organic” option – destroys plenty of other lifeforms in the vineyard as well as its target mildew. I don’t call either of those sustainable or planet friendly options, do you?
Many of the concepts behind biodynamics ARE nonsense. Nicolas Joly claims that you can “create” energy & bases some of his scientific arguments on Aristotle. Not exactly proven stuff. I’m waiting to be convinced that there’s anything more to biodynamics other than just being out with the vines frequently enough & the quality that results from the attention to detail necessary for the teas, timings, etc..
Richard,
Good on ya, ya old cobber!
His point, Mr Swann, is nonsense, because just as much CO2 is released in “conventional” cellars — it’s a red herring. Cellar CO2 management has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens in the vineyard. It’s a separate issue.
Not that I agree with all practices of organic or biodynamic producers, but that does not negate the idea that putting less harmful chemicals into the soil and the air (when sprayed) is better for the environment and most likely better for me. At any rate much more sustainable from a long-term agricultural perspective.
Richard Smart is right about one thing. Most people do not mind eating food grown with chemicals because they simply desire cheap food in large quantity, and give little to no thought about the chemical residues that may be left behind or the effects they may have on their long term health. Plenty of pesticides and herbicides have been taken off the market years after they are first used when they figure out the side effects. Organic is simply a concious choice for those that dislike adding more chemical load to their body beyond what they cannot control from the environment. Richard Smart should not bash those that desire organic. Let him eat all the contaminated food he desires. To each his own.
I’m disappointed that a man of science like Smart has bought into the manmade climate-change hoax. BTW, is the climate changing or is the globe warming? When there’s a warm spell, it’s global warming. When there’s a natural disaster, it’s climate change. Despite unrelenting propaganda, there is no scientific “consensus”. The so-called consensus exists among the scoundrels who benefit by pimping the hoax, e.g. the now-disgraced “experts†Phil Jones of East Anglia University and Charles Mann at Penn State. When you look up junk science in the dictionary, there should be a picture of these two frauds. Smart is correct that organic viticulture – at least the certified version – is rife with inconsistencies vis-à -vis worker safety and environmental protection. But he couldn’t be more wrong that consumers don’t care about how a wine has been treated and he’s in full pimp mode with his hysterical Phil Jones-like rant that enologists are “environmental vandals of the worst type†(due to their lack of concern about CO2 emissions).
I don’t think many people care whether the nitrogen in fertilizer was fixed using natural gas or composting manure. Actually if they thought about it they and would be alarmed by the damage done to the environment by livestock and feedlots. Take a drive down Hiway 5 on a hot day. A thoughtful person would consider the most efficient method with the fewest green house gas emissions, particularly methane.
Most people that I know that buy organic products are worried about pesticides more than anything. The dirty little secret is the amount of pesticides used in organic farming. Yes, they are certified “organic” pesticides, but being less effective; they are applied more frequently and in greater concentration, and they indiscriminately kill beneficial insects along with the bad…just like inorganic pesticides.
And biodynamics? No way am I putting anything in my body that has been sprayed with composted feces. I don’t care if it was packed in a cow horn and buried before being diluted and sprayed. I don’t care if magical words were spoken. Feces are feces, e. coli is e. coli. Not in my body!
Organic food is one of the fastest growing segments of the grocery business- so yes, many people do mind food grown on land treated with chemicals. People are now starting to look to wine made from organically grown grapes as a good thing too.
With his concern for the environment and the land, one would think he’d also be in favor of using fewer pesticides and herbicides, which eventually find their way into our groundwater supplies.
CO2- that’s another question, and should be treated on it’s own, rather than confusing it with organic farming.
I have always enjoyed Dr Smart’s provocative nature – but to say that winemakers are destroying all the good work of the vineyard by fermenting grapes is crazy.
If those grapes were not taken into wineries by the environmental vandals (I’ve always preferred Yeast Technicians as the most derogatory term for my ilk) what would happen to them – yes that’s right they would rot on the vine and create the same amount of CO2 as winemaking (and consumption) from their decomposition.
CO2 from fermentation is part a short-term, closed loop, balanced carbon process – taken out and put back into the atmosphere in the same year. These natural processes are not what is causing carbon emissions to rise in the atmosphere. That said if there is a viable carbon capture and storage (or reuse, say for tomato growing) for fermentation CO2 emissions then it should definitely be examined.
I believe that Dr Smart makes some very salient points about the need to harness the byproduct of fermentation. However, I firmly believe in the value of Bio-grow and also organics as a method of viticulture.
There is a need for a holistic approach and the production of wine, and this involves organic viticulture and Oenology working together.
Dr Richard Smart is a world renowned authority on vineyard canopy management and chemical viticulture. Even though I have the greatest respect for his knowledge and experience, he is getting on a bit now and it is hardly surprising that he is scared by the new wave of cutting edge technology represented by modern organics. Organics is certainly not for the dinosaurs of the industry.
Dr Smart clearly has not moved with the times and has long held prejudice views against organic production. The facts speak for themselves as organic sales continue to boom. While people of his vintage thought drinking agent orange would not harm them, others like us prefer not to drink chemicals in our wine nor kill waterways with water soluble nitrogen.
Carbon is another issue and a serious one. One that organic / biodynamic wine production has done far more to address than any others by building soil/humus ie a real carbon sink!
Environmentally aware organic producers like ourselves also do far more to reduce waste and their carbon footprint by using lightweight bottles.
Lars Jensen, Richmond Plains Wines , Nelson, New Zealand
www.richmondplains.co.nz
I am no great proponent of organics and biodynamics, but this theory that CO2 from fermenters is polluting the atmosphere is absolute bollocks of the highest order. People have such a small understanding of the Carbon cycle. Grapes are part of the biosphere, whether they are fermented, left to rot on the vine, or eaten by birds, they will break down to eventually form carbon dioxide. The issue with sustainability is the introduction of carbon dioxide from sources outside the biosphere (fuels locked in the ground). Please people, look at a high school carbon cycle diagram.
So……… where exactly was the CO2 captured from in the first place? From the atmosphere. Releasing it again and comparing that to emissions from hydocarbon fuels, let alone other natural sources (seen the crap coming outta that volcano??) is just barmy. Go do your maths before blurting out this rubbish!
And as to organics being bad for the environment- petrochemical pesticides and fungicides, and inorganic fertilisers contribute to sustainable agriculture and respect the needs of future generations how exactly??
Nutty stuff..
More grape varieties suited to hot climates could be planted, but water usage in these regions sometimes a problem. Wow, my phone App “Grapes 101” now details 171 unique varieties planted for wine in Australia – will I soon need to re-brand it “Grapes 201”?
Dr. Smart sounds like he has gone off his meds.
Sequestering CO2 from wine production is a great idea, but it will only carbonate wine. The wine industry needs to think seriously about this, so he is spot on.
Ditto for his criticism of biodynamics, but if you separate out the nonsense, what is left is simply organic farming practices.
But Dr. Smart sounds like an idiot when he says, “When people buy food they don’t mind choosing products that have been grown on land treated with chemicals, so why should they care about how a wine has been treated?â€
Many people do mind chemically treated food and the numbers are
growing.
Perhaps he needs to choose his words more carefully, or just get his head out of the pesticide bin and take a break. All those years of chemicals may be getting to him.
I always thought of the winemaking process as being basically CO2 neutral, because surely if we left the grapes on the vine or the ground they would rot, releasing similar amounts of CO2 and probably some nasty methane.
We don’t need to figure out how to capture CO2 and volatiles – that could be done already. It’s more a question of economics and what to do with the CO2 that is captured.
Does the carbon dioxide used by the vine in order to produce ripe grapes not largely if not completely off-set the carbon dioxide released during fermentation? I’m not a scientist, so I may be misguided in this…
..it does not read so much as a slamming of anything at all. however, the strongest point for me here is:”We need to be thinking about our grandchildren and those who aren’t even born yet. It’s our duty to do all that we can to avoid what would be a very serious situation.”(he says) I do not agree!!..he should start thinking about today (start NOT avoiding today Ricardo) & if you are lucky a bit of tomorrow aswell…but as for generations ahead, forget it smarty-pantz. keep your duty to yourself & start praying for what you may or may not get right or wrong today and please DO NOT speculate on anybody´s grandchildren or unborns…that is all NONSENSE.
One cannot question the value of doing things the natural way as in organic. My experience is that scientists of the inorganic mind set tragically fail to understand the nuances of Organic produce which many consumers appreciate with relish.
I am rather disappointed with some of Dr Smart’s comments which, as others pointed out, lack a certain logic. A lot of people – even mainstream consumers – are very worried about the amount of chemicals getting into vegetables etc. Some of Nicolas Joly’s beliefs are indeed bizarre (we refer to his tomes as “books of b******ks” but some biodynamic practices make perfectly good sense being equivalent to innoculation in humans.
Point needs to be made that the CO2 released by fermentation is simply being put back where the vines found it in the first place, and even at that, part of the CO2 captured by the vine goes into alcohol and structural parts of the vine. To say that wineries are contributing to global warming by generating CO2 is idiocy. Wineries are net CO2 reducers by the very act of growing grapes and making wine.
His efforts would be better spent working on ways to turn nematodes into a protein source for the third world.
Dr. “Smart’s” view is myopic, which is surprising coming from a man of science.
Capturing CO2 from fermentation is an interesting thought. Now when I eat organic beef, I’ll be thinking about what we should do about all that methane gas!
Can you believe this guy?
I would wager that the glyphosate herbicides that most “Smart” viticulturists consider benign and consider to be a more environmentally sound approach to weed control than mechanical means, require a great deal more fossil energy to produce than is used to make multiple tractor passes, weeding mechanically. Conventional agriculture is quickly destroying our most precious viticultural and agricultural resource–our soil. How are we going to produce wine or feed the world when the very earth in which we raise our crops is sterilized.
Smart’s comments typically make me angry, but this one practically makes me foam at the mouth! In his quest to keep himself in the press by means of controversy, he is rapidly making himself irrelevant.
Re: Mr. Paul’s organic beef comment. Try grass-fed beef. Ruminants such as cows are designed to eat green grasses and not sugars-rich corn (which technically [u]is[/u] a grass) and other grains. These fattening agents aren’t easily digested by these animals, hence the excess methane they excrete via bleching & farting. Grass-fed ruminants do far less of this–better for the environment, and put on less fat–better for your health.
The number of comments this article has generated surely indicates the value of polemics. It has made people think and respond. Yes, some of Smart’s argument is flawed but also remember that the quotes are taken out of context.
On the question of biodynamics, so frequently a subject of ridicule, I am as big a sceptic as anyone but having visited dozens of biodynamic vineyards throughout the world I can only say that the vines and soil are always in a healthier state than non-biodynamic vineyards close by. Spend some time in Burgundy and it’s difficult not to be convinced.
To be clear, there are two separate points being made. The first regards organic or biodynamic farming, the second recovery of CO2 during fermentation. As far as organic farming goes, it seems like a no brainer to not introduce chemicals into the environment if there are reasonable alternatives. The ecosystems are complex and all of the consequences of the introduction of synthetic materials is not well understood and could be (and often is) negative.The major issue for global climate change is the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere, so Richard’s second point deserves somes consideration. No harm in thinking about methods to capture the CO2. Problem is there is no current solution of what to do with it afterwards. As far as recyling some of the volatiles, that’s also an interesting idea.
There are other very interesting points that no one is addressing. Collecting volatiles from fermentation CO2 could lead to aromatically much more complex wines. Further, planning ahead for warmer temps, whether man-made or not, would be wise for many a grape grower. If we want to utilize technology to its best we should be working on breeding grape vines that are less efficient at converting sunlight to sugars in grapes.
Finally, as published in Decanter magazine online:
“One of the most compelling addresses came from viticulturalist Richard Smart, who eschewed graphs and tables to show a slide of his 9-year-old granddaughter.
‘She will be alive at the end of the century. A temperature rise of between 2 and 5 degrees will mean unprecedented social and political turmoil.
‘How good the wines will be at that point will be in some respects irrelevant.’”
I suspect Dr. Smart had more to say than what was quoted here. Organic has the right goal, but that doesn’t automatically make it better. Just because people want healthier food, that doesn’t make Organic healthier. The argument that man made is worse is problematic. Man made can be better, especially if created with the intent to create healthier foods. Organic wouldn’t exist if corporate man hadn’t lost our trust a long time ago.
Quercitin repeats canards without understanding much if anything of the basic science; there is no substance to the “Climategate” accusation and he or she cannot even parrot correctly the nonsense he or she has swallowed–it’s Michael Mann at Penn State, not Charles, you are trying to slander.
Look at a wine label- it says 14.5% or so alcohol. Alcohol is a Group 1 Known Carcinogen. It is also known to cause birth defects. Both of these at low doses. This is an 800 lbs monster in the room when we discuss organic farming. Is anybody paying attention? Organic vineyards and wine is a laughable concept for this reason.
I can sympathize with skeptics of biodynamic agriculture, and, to some degree, of organics. Many biodynamic principles are hard to prove or even investigate scientifically.
However, for Smart to say that organic agriculture is “.. not good for the environment†is pretty hard to swallow. Just look at the toxic plume of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that’s currently being washed out the Gulf of Mexico by the flooding. That’s better for the environment?
Organic agriculture has as one of its top principles the stewardship of the soil. Ultimately, we need to stop depleting the fertility and health of our agricultural lands, reversing this trend, and to build these essential characteristics back up. Synthetic fertilizers will generally take organic matter content down, whereas use of organic composts will always bring them back up.
Not everything is perfect with organics, to be sure. Use of copper compounds to control some mildews in certain areas is problematic, and alternatives are needed. This does not negate the positive effect of organics overall, though.
It is very odd that someone would feel the need to put down a branch of agriculture that is trying to address some very grave environmental problems with modern farming techniques. It seems to me to be a straw man argument.
Our real common concern should be to reverse the environmental degradation we are seeing in agriculture (and, indeed, in many other parts of our environment), and to pull together to address big issues like climate change, and irresponsible use of resources.
Let’s not divide a community whose best interest is to work together,
Capturing CO2 from ferments is an interesting concept to improving sustainability…
Yes CO2 emission is a global issue, but is wine production one of the main causes? most likely not, its more likely to be the use of fossil fuels for production and application of synthetic chemicals…
If you say “Organic” to most conventional farmers their reaction is likely to be something along the lines of “tree hugging hippies” etc and slam it in the blink of an eye. The majority don’t know anything about the actual science behind organic production.
A lot of it is common sense, organic farmers seem to be knowledgeable farmers and understand the interactions with in there specific ecological system. It largely is based around soil health and improvement.
I don’t think solely organics is a solution but a combination of both organic and conventional practices to create the best possible sustainable system.
Consumers are concerned about chemicals in their food, but largely make rational purchasing decisions based on price because of the economy.
What do you expect from an expert who until last year worked for one of the biggest and most destructive logging companies in Australia, Gunns Ltd. He gave a compelling positive report as to why this company should build one of the world’s biggest pulp mills in our beautiful cool climate wine growing region of the Tamar Valley. He’s now left the area and moved to Cornwall,UK! He was was said to be an independent consultant even though he was known to be on the Gunns payroll since 2003 as consultant viticulturalist to their Tamar Ridge vineyards. I’m happy to report that the pulp mill he ferventley supported has not been built and the company share price has dropped so low that they are in danger of becoming insolvent!
how can you not snicker at the cow horn and new moon? but then when you look at the state of californian and especially australian wine then perhaps biodynamics begins to look more reasonable
Does this guy actually believe that people don’t care where their food comes from? Maybe he couldn’t care less about his own health, but some people actually care about poisonous residues and carcinogens in their food. Besides the fact that organic and Biodynamic foods actually taste better. And make better tasting wine. Imagine that, better tasting wine and not being part of Monsanto’s world vision. As for global warming, winemaking contributes a drop in the bucket of greenhouse gases. Take some cars off of the road. We’ll all breathe a lot easier.
;)AND!! Indeed!Indeed…Our Tasmania’s Doctor Smart is full-on
in his 23 page support of a 1.1 million annual tonne South American modelled chlorine pulp mill in tassie’s Tamar Valley.
To be powered by a huge wood fired electric 100mgw furnace,using and selling excess green ? power to the grid.
Hey Doc…let’s smoke some vine leaf instead of making organic wine. mark semmens marions vineyard
When one buys conventional fruits or vegetables one has the opportunity to wash that food if desired. Not so for wine grapes which go into processing directly from the field. So it makes sense to grow wine grapes organically. I for one am interseted in drinking pure wine not wine seasoned with chemical pesticides.
As far as CO2 is concerned perhaps it would be smart for Mr. Smart to stop exhaling all together or at least exhale into a bottle.
But of course an obvious solution would be to plant more trees and let them do the work.
Just a thought.
Now hold on a minute, before all the organic jihadists get their pitchforks all sharpened up and paint this guy as some sort of agrichem puppet…. This is the same Richard Smart who authored the book “Sunlight Into Wine” in the early 90’s. THE seminal text on grapevine canopy management. The thrust of which is that by [i]mechanically[/i] manipulating the canopy to increase the amount of sun and wind on the grapes, you reduce the conditions that favour fungal growth, thereby reducing the need to spray anything at all. These techniques are now industry standard practice and are a cornerstone of all “sustainable” vineyard programmes. The ideas popularized in his book, have arguably done more to reduce chemical (synthetic [b]and[/b] organic) use in vineyards than any other in the past few decades.
Provocative…? Always.
But his heart is most assuredly in the right place.
Grapevines absorb carbon from the atmosphere over the growing season and part of this is released as CO2 from fermentation in the winery. However there is a net carbon sink (taking into account the whole system) as carbon that ends up as trunk and root growth is not re-released. The us and them mentality between vineyard and winery is ridiculous as one cannot function without the other and the system must be regarded as a whole.
Can anyone actually point me in the direction of a study that shows organic and or biodynamic practices are actually better for the environment? I think a lot of people assume they are, but like people have pointed out above, a number of practices employed by these regimes are in fact very harmful, but have been used for a long time; copper sulphate, elemental sulphur etc. I’m all for sustainable practices, but they should be based on reason and knowledge, not emotion and faith.
Both Copper and Sulphur are also used in (agro)chemical viticulture. Perhaps because the diseases they target have not built up resistance as they have with the many synthetic options. Organic practioners are also required to do Multi Residue testing of the soil which no other growing system requires…but they should as many of your “sustainable” products are often found.
The problem with the whole concept of CO2 being an issues is the physics of it all. CO2 only has absorbance at 2 very narrow bandwidths near 4 microns and 15 microns. The absorbance has a logarithmic increase such that maximum 99.9999% of the IR that it absorbs is maxed out at less than 100ppm in the atmosphere. We are at 350-400ppm in the atmosphere, so more CO2 in the environment has no warming effect at all. In fact, higher levels of CO2 actually lead to faster more efficient plant growth with less nutrients. It is all a bunch of political science not real science. As for organics, why would I want to build up copper toxicities in my soils? Sulfur is some nasty stuff too, even burns some of the varieties I have.
The facts are that CO2 has no real effect on global warming. CO2 has absorbance at 2 very narrow ranges in the IR spectrum. One is near 4 microns and the other around 15 microns. The absorbance is logarithmic in effect such that it is near 100% at less than 100 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are currently in the 350-400ppm range in the air we breathe. So, more CO2 has no effect at all except to help plants grow more efficiently and faster with less nutrients. The CO2 thing is pure political science with no basis in fact or real science. Why do otherwise intelligent people of science fall for this when the physics of the falsehood is so simple.
Mr. Graves:
So skepticism of the multi-billion dollar climate-change industry is to be dismissed as the parroting of canards? I suggest you read Dr. Harold Lewis’ eloquent letter of resignation from the American Physical Society. He resigned specifically in disgust over the cravenness of Jones, Mann et al. that was uncovered by Climategate. Dr. Lewis’ accusations should open your eyes just a tad. If not, well, I guess there’s still a sucker born every minute. BTW, you conveniently omitted any comment about Phil Jones who, as you well know, was forced to resign over Climategate.