Biodynamic Farming — Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy & Demeter Certification

Biodynamics was conceived in 1924, when Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), an Austrian educator and philosopher, gave a series of eight lectures at the request of a group of farmers in Koberwitz, in current-day Poland. Steiner had founded his own "spiritual science", anthroposophy, describing it as an extension of the scientific method. The farmers were observing degraded soil and a deterioration in the health and quality of crops and livestock resulting, they believed, from the use of chemical fertilisers. In the lectures, Steiner explained that a farm should be a self-sustaining, closed organism, producing all of its own inputs, with all things within it connected. The principles of biodynamics constitute the earliest organized organic agriculture movement. The idea of a self-sustaining, closed farm organism was shared by the original pioneers of the organic movement in the 1940s.

• The lecture series is titled Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture
• Steiner did not single-handedly invent biodynamics: today's understanding evolved over several decades, shaped by followers such as Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, a biochemist essential in honing the nine biodynamic preparations
• Biodynamics rests on the belief that everything in the universe, celestial bodies included, is interconnected through shared energy forces; in that theory, vineyard and cellar tasks need to be timed by the biodynamic calendar to harness earthly and celestial cycles
• Steiner advocated biodynamism for agriculture in general, not for viticulture in particular, and vines pose a hurdle: they stay in place for decades, so they cannot be rotated and the fields cannot be left fallow at regular intervals
• Its symbolic meaning is sometimes criticised for compromising the scientific validity of biodynamics, and many producers adopt the farming practices while remaining critical of some of its philosophical aspects

Biodynamic certification is not government regulated: it is overseen and granted by private institutions, notably Demeter International and Biodyvin. Demeter, biodynamics' most visible certification body and the first biodynamic certification organisation to be created, was established as early as 1928 and certifies all practices and products, not just wine. Organic certification is the minimum requirement for biodynamic certification, so biodynamic producers have two rounds of certification to pass. Both Demeter and Biodyvin have rules on growing and vinification that can be stricter than organic alone, for example less use of copper sulphate per hectare and the use of natural yeasts for fermentation. Some wineries that use biodynamic methods in all or part of their vineyards are not certified at all, and only a very small proportion of certified organic producers can be considered fully biodynamic.

• Demeter requires members to apply preparations 500 and 501 annually and the compost preparations whenever compost is produced (the US branch requires this at least once every three years); genetically modified organisms and chemical inputs are prohibited, with the exception of copper and sulfur
• The entire property must be farmed biodynamically, with at least 10% of the land set aside for natural habitat; animals are encouraged but not required, as is adherence to the biodynamic calendar
• Demeter USA has trademarked the term "biodynamic", so only Demeter-certified products brought in or sold inside the US can market themselves as such
• Biodyvin, the SIVCBD (Syndicat international des vignerons en culture bio-dynamique), is a certification body for European wineries; it grew from 92 to 158 members in the five years ending in 2019, and its certifying body in France is Ecocert
• Biodyvin strongly recommends adherence to the Maria Thun calendar, growers must keep a farm diary of the timing of all treatments, and the wines must pass a panel

Biodynamics uses nine preparations, numbered 500 to 508. Three are used as sprays (horn manure, horn silica and common horsetail) and the other six are applied to the vineyard via solid compost. For preparation 500, cow manure is buried in cow horns in the soil over winter; the contents are then stirred in water and sprayed on the soil in the afternoon. For preparation 501, ground quartz is buried in cow horns in the soil over summer, then stirred in water and sprayed over the vines at daybreak. Preparation 508, horsetail made into a fresh tea or a fermented liquid manure, is used as a complementary prophylactic spray against fungal diseases. Spray preparations are "dynamized": the liquid is swirled in one direction until a vortex forms, then in the opposite direction, and so on, for up to an hour before use. This is thought to transmute the mixture and imbue it with a "living force".

• Under the Demeter Farm Standard as summarised by UC Cooperative Extension (which states that its description is not an endorsement), preparation 500 is a soil spray used to stimulate root growth, humus formation and microorganism development, and preparation 501 is a foliar spray applied to encourage photosynthesis
• Preparations 502 to 507 go into the compost: yarrow (502) sheathed in a stag's bladder, German chamomile (503) in a cow intestine, stinging nettles (504) buried with no animal sheath, oak bark (505) in the skull of a farm animal, dandelion (506) in a cow mesentery, and valerian (507) as a flower juice

Many proponents of biodynamics say the wines show clearer, brighter fruit and stronger terroir character. Decanter's assessment is that the vines may be healthier, but the final bottled wine still comes down to the skill of the winemaker and the vinification methods used. The GuildSomm essay summarises a 2019 systematic review of 24 studies by Döring and colleagues, whose authors found increased biodiversity in organic and biodynamic viticulture compared with conventional, and lower reported yields and lower-vigor vines in the organic systems, with no suggestion that organic and biodynamic viticulture would likely differ. In the review itself (listed in Sources), organic and biodynamic treatments together showed 21% lower growth and 18% lower yield than conventional viticulture, and no overall differences in berry composition, juice or wine quality among management systems could be observed. Growing organic grapes is estimated to cost 10 to 15% more than growing conventional grapes, with a further 10 to 15% for biodynamic grapes.

• In the biodynamic model, labor costs are typically higher, yields lower, and vineyards smaller than average
• Biodynamic certification can be an expensive additional annual cost
• Biodynamic viticulture permits vineyard applications of copper sulphate, the Bordeaux mixture, to ward off the fungal diseases to which vines are particularly prone

French producers that went over entirely to biodynamic viticulture include Domaine Leroy in Burgundy, Domaine Leflaive in Puligny-Montrachet, Domaine Comtes Lafon in Meursault, Zind-Humbrecht and Domaine Weinbach in Alsace, Jacques Selosse in Champagne, Chapoutier in the Rhône valley, Huet in Vouvray and La Coulée de Serrant in Savennières in the Loire. In Burgundy, many of the top domaines are certified biodynamic, including Domaine Leflaive (certified in 1997), Domaine Trapet Père et Fils (2009), Domaine du Comte Liger-Belair (2012) and Domaine de la Romanée-Conti (2016).

• Domaine Leroy: the estate's conversion to biodynamics in 1988 was among the first in Burgundy
• Domaine de la Romanée-Conti: the first trials began in the late 1990s, but it was not until 2007 that it was decided to go fully biodynamic
• Zind-Humbrecht: the estate set aside a portion of the family vineyards to experiment in 1996, after Leflaive, Leroy and Huet had started, and converted the remainder of the estate to biodynamics in 1998
• La Coulée de Serrant in Savennières: after trialling Steiner's methods on a small scale, the whole estate took the plunge and has been fully biodynamic since 1984

A GuildSomm Master of Wine essay notes that scientific research into the effects of biodynamics is sparse: many studies look solely at organic versus conventional viticulture, or group organic and biodynamic vineyards together, and in its conclusions on the role of biodynamics in the wine world today it says "Numbers are tiny, benefits unproven." Several peer-reviewed studies listed in Sources have tested biodynamic practices. One, a long-term trial begun in 1996 on a commercial Merlot vineyard near Ukiah, California, comparing biodynamic and organic treatments, notes that whether the preparations "actually augment soil or winegrape quality is unclear and controversial"; in that trial the preparations may affect winegrape canopy and chemistry but were not shown to affect the soil parameters or tissue nutrients measured. Another, a five-year trial set up in 2016 in a commercial vineyard in Switzerland comparing preparations 500 and 501 with an organic control, found no significant differences in any vine and berry physiology parameter except photosynthesis, which was higher with the preparations at one time point; soil physical properties were not influenced, and the preparations neither led to significant differences in soil fungal diversity nor seemed to impact the soil fungal communities. A third, a trial on Riesling in Geisenheim, Germany, found over its first four years that biodynamic management had more pronounced effects than organic management in terms of enhanced soil fertility and reduction of vegetative growth; the treatments also differed in fertilization, plant protection and cover crops, and the authors say the differences between grapes from the two systems emphasize the need for more research on the mode of action of biodynamic preparations.

• The same essay describes a German study in the Rheingau that compared bacterial and fungal communities in plots managed biodynamically, organically and conventionally for the last 10 years; the authors concluded that the biodynamic preparations had affected neither fungal composition nor richness when compared with the organic regime
• A GuildSomm article on contemporary biodynamics says that from a scientific perspective “we really don’t know” how biodynamics works, and that the majority of evidence “remains either anecdotal or too entangled in variables to be definitively interpreted”
• The GuildSomm essay calls it one of the most common criticisms of biodynamic methods that such tiny quantities of the preparations (a single horn is used per hectare) cannot possibly have any of the suggested beneficial effects
• A peer-reviewed study of Pinot Noir listed in Sources found that the amplitude of plant responses to climatic threats was higher under biodynamic than conventional management, as it was for seasonal trends and pathogen attacks (the conventional plots used synthetic fungicides), associated with higher expression of silencing and immunity genes; the authors write that this suggests the sustainability of biodynamic practices "probably relies on fine molecular regulations", and note that the study "lacked winegrowers in organic management", so they "cannot exclude that conclusions raised for biodynamic management would not apply to organic"
• A peer-reviewed tasting study listed in Sources had nineteen New Zealand wine professionals taste 12 Pinot Noir wines blind on days the biodynamic calendar for wine drinkers marks as favourable (Fruit days) and unfavourable (Root days); the type of day did not influence systematically any of the wine characteristics evaluated

Primary sources: https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cs_public/62/3a/623a8e4d-ba4c-4c7b-9f13-389e17fd1928/16winegrapebiodynamicmendocinofinaldraft61416-1.pdf. Peer-reviewed studies: Reeve et al. (2005), American Journal of Enology and Viticulture (Ukiah Merlot trial), https://www.ajevonline.org/content/56/4/367; Rienth et al. (2023), OENO One (Swiss trial of preparations 500 and 501), https://oeno-one.eu/article/view/7218; Meissner et al. (2019), OENO One (Geisenheim Riesling trial), https://oeno-one.eu/article/view/2470; Döring et al. (2019), American Journal of Enology and Viticulture (systematic review of 24 studies), https://www.ajevonline.org/content/early/2019/02/14/ajev.2019.18047; Soustre-Gacougnolle et al. (2018), Scientific Reports (Pinot Noir, biodynamic and conventional vines), https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35305-7; Parr et al. (2017), PLOS ONE (biodynamic calendar tasting), https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0169257. Secondary sources: https://www.guildsomm.com/research/mw-perspectives/b/mw-perspectives/posts/the-relevance-of-biodynamics, https://www.guildsomm.com/public_content/features/articles/b/kelli-white/posts/contemporary-biodynamics, https://www.guildsomm.com/public_content/features/articles/b/guest_blog/posts/organic-biodynamic-and-natural-wines-explained, https://www.decanter.com/learn/biodynamic-wines-explained-472503/, https://www.decanter.com/learn/sustainability-in-wine-explained-478803/, https://www.decanter.com/premium/nicolas-joly-decanter-hall-of-fame-2025-565729/, https://www.decanter.com/wine/lalou-bize-leroy-decanter-hall-of-fame-2026/, https://www.decanter.com/premium/domaine-de-la-romanee-conti-profile-wine-ratings-384876/, https://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/more-on-biodynamics. Last verified 2026-11-02