As a permaculturist and beekeeper seeing in real time how climate change and massive agricultural spraying is impacting my local ecosystem, I am embarrassed for Jaime Goode. I personally do not think how the global agricultural system is going to be how we generate food (and wine) in the next decade or so, because if you have dead soil, you won't have food, if you don't have pollinators, you won't have food. All linked back to petrochemicals. Farmers working within a regenerative model or a biodynamic model are the ones pushing the conventional farmers to embrace organic farming. They see that it works. I have seen organic wineries explode in Lazio along with the growth of the natural winemakers. I think organic should be the baseline.
Another observation I have is I have beehives on some vineyards around my area. They aren't my vineyards, I just asked if I could put them there. Anyway, every winemaker has said they have been able to reduce their spraying since they had the bees. They have better/stronger yeast strains and in 2023 when most of Lazio suffered from mildew, those vineyards did ok. Bee propolis is also a very interesting ingredient they are using in sprays in vineyards.
Thanks for chasing this one, Simon. I'd read the earlier pieces and was likewise surprised by the bold claim that regenerative is sunk if it requires organics first. OTOH I once heard Jamie say, on The Four Top podcast, that he would be willing to drink glyphosate because it's not toxic to humans. So, bold claims are perhaps part of the identity.
It's often been observed, as Jason has here, that organics is about what you can't do and biodynamics is about what you must do. Perhaps regenerative can stake a middle ground, reclaiming some of the tenets of biodynamics that foster health within a closed system while acknowledging certain gestures—chemical, mechanical, and otherwise—must be avoided in pursuit of that goal.
This was very much Jason's point. I have lots of material from the interview that I didn't use, basically he was saying that the regenerative framework allows you to follow many of the biodynamic principles without having to confront the more esoteric or philosophical elements that some find troublesome.
"the regenerative framework allows you to follow many of the biodynamic principles without having to confront the more esoteric or philosophical elements that some find troublesome."
As someone who has been involved with BD farming for a while, that makes no sense to me. Many eco-farming principles can be combined with BD without losing its essence - in fact, they make it better. And you can be Demeter certified without getting too into the weeds with Anthroposophy or any of Steiner's other writings. I wonder if Jason explained what he meant by "confront"?
This topic is going to become more and more relevant and divisive as time passes. This discussion goes beyond mere stewardship and hits at the very core of the economics behind wine production, distribution and sales.
To me, Jaime Goode represents the status quo and Jason Haas the emerging conscience behind a new (reemerging) paradigm of stewardship that reveres the source of our very survival, which is living soil, as Sarah points out. My research shows that Tablas Creek produces 72% less wine per hectare than Domaine Lafage (calculation available on request). Does Domaine Lafage need to produce 2,000,000 bottles per year, if the result is dead soil that continually needs to be drenched with "synthetics"? The bottom line to me (pun intended) is that ROC is the future, not only for wine growing, but all food production. This will require a massive shift to treat food less as a commodity and more as the necessity it is. I laud the efforts of people who are willing to go up against the heavyweights. It is going to take time, and I think that may be partly what Jaime Goode is talking about with his bullshit comment. He is also looking at the economic impact and implications, which he is separating from the moral implications of dead soil, or glass bottles for that matter.
In the spirit of ROC, and sustainability in general, I want to recommend my book club's current read, "Ministry For The Future", by Kim Stanley Robinson. It's a brilliant synthesis of science, philosophy, politics and economics rolled into a story of the fight for human survival in the face of the oncoming climate crisis. It's a roadmap and a clarion call for action.
Thanks, Simon, for broaching this topic yet again. I hope my comments aren't too obtuse. If so, please let me know and I can try to explain further.
I agree with you 100%. Wine is complicated enough for consumers without different certifications for this, that and other. I'm surprised at Dr. Goode's statement, I usually agree with him on most wine topics and have just started reading his book on the subject. It just makes sense to tie regenerative and organic. One certifying body with maybe different levels would make more sense but being able to pick and choose makes the labels worthless, a bit like sticking 'Haute Valeur Environmentale' labels on your bottle!
"The idea that ‘organic’ is good and ‘conventional’ is bad is overly simplistic." Yes, perhaps, but it should not be discarded out of hand. For many consumers, it actually is a good rule of thumb, but large organic acreages (e.g., Earthbound Farm) using a conventional mindset and the absurd notion of hydroponic operations being able to certify organic (now thankfully countered by The Real Organic Project) do make the choices more complex.
Can "regen" be clawed back from agribusiness and pesticide mfrs once they have co-opted it? Might be impossible. Particularly now that massive Midwest acreages of no-till farms that terminate their cover crops with herbicides bandy about the regenerative label, though killing the soil microbiome isn't really a great idea.
And, yes, there are probably too many certifications, most of which consumers do not understand. And, alas, neither can retailers explain them to their customers. There is a lot more to say here.
I am curious, though, what Jamie Goode's objections really were? Thanks for the article.
I should apologise, I chased that question and didn't really answer it did I?
I know from previous conferences etc that Jamie feels the targeted use of systemic products is more sustainable than the organic stricture of only copper and sulphur - even if you need to do 12 or more passes in the vineyard.
In general he prefers a hybrid approach that doesn't exclude the use of synthetics.
In the article you linked to the grower says «Owner Jean-Marc Lafage told DB: “we can’t be organic everywhere.” He says that he lost two vintages in a Grenache vineyard close to the sea that is prone to mildew while trying to convert it to organic production.». I assume because of maritime influence they had problems.
As a permaculturist and beekeeper seeing in real time how climate change and massive agricultural spraying is impacting my local ecosystem, I am embarrassed for Jaime Goode. I personally do not think how the global agricultural system is going to be how we generate food (and wine) in the next decade or so, because if you have dead soil, you won't have food, if you don't have pollinators, you won't have food. All linked back to petrochemicals. Farmers working within a regenerative model or a biodynamic model are the ones pushing the conventional farmers to embrace organic farming. They see that it works. I have seen organic wineries explode in Lazio along with the growth of the natural winemakers. I think organic should be the baseline.
Another observation I have is I have beehives on some vineyards around my area. They aren't my vineyards, I just asked if I could put them there. Anyway, every winemaker has said they have been able to reduce their spraying since they had the bees. They have better/stronger yeast strains and in 2023 when most of Lazio suffered from mildew, those vineyards did ok. Bee propolis is also a very interesting ingredient they are using in sprays in vineyards.
Thanks for chasing this one, Simon. I'd read the earlier pieces and was likewise surprised by the bold claim that regenerative is sunk if it requires organics first. OTOH I once heard Jamie say, on The Four Top podcast, that he would be willing to drink glyphosate because it's not toxic to humans. So, bold claims are perhaps part of the identity.
It's often been observed, as Jason has here, that organics is about what you can't do and biodynamics is about what you must do. Perhaps regenerative can stake a middle ground, reclaiming some of the tenets of biodynamics that foster health within a closed system while acknowledging certain gestures—chemical, mechanical, and otherwise—must be avoided in pursuit of that goal.
This was very much Jason's point. I have lots of material from the interview that I didn't use, basically he was saying that the regenerative framework allows you to follow many of the biodynamic principles without having to confront the more esoteric or philosophical elements that some find troublesome.
"the regenerative framework allows you to follow many of the biodynamic principles without having to confront the more esoteric or philosophical elements that some find troublesome."
As someone who has been involved with BD farming for a while, that makes no sense to me. Many eco-farming principles can be combined with BD without losing its essence - in fact, they make it better. And you can be Demeter certified without getting too into the weeds with Anthroposophy or any of Steiner's other writings. I wonder if Jason explained what he meant by "confront"?
This topic is going to become more and more relevant and divisive as time passes. This discussion goes beyond mere stewardship and hits at the very core of the economics behind wine production, distribution and sales.
To me, Jaime Goode represents the status quo and Jason Haas the emerging conscience behind a new (reemerging) paradigm of stewardship that reveres the source of our very survival, which is living soil, as Sarah points out. My research shows that Tablas Creek produces 72% less wine per hectare than Domaine Lafage (calculation available on request). Does Domaine Lafage need to produce 2,000,000 bottles per year, if the result is dead soil that continually needs to be drenched with "synthetics"? The bottom line to me (pun intended) is that ROC is the future, not only for wine growing, but all food production. This will require a massive shift to treat food less as a commodity and more as the necessity it is. I laud the efforts of people who are willing to go up against the heavyweights. It is going to take time, and I think that may be partly what Jaime Goode is talking about with his bullshit comment. He is also looking at the economic impact and implications, which he is separating from the moral implications of dead soil, or glass bottles for that matter.
In the spirit of ROC, and sustainability in general, I want to recommend my book club's current read, "Ministry For The Future", by Kim Stanley Robinson. It's a brilliant synthesis of science, philosophy, politics and economics rolled into a story of the fight for human survival in the face of the oncoming climate crisis. It's a roadmap and a clarion call for action.
Thanks, Simon, for broaching this topic yet again. I hope my comments aren't too obtuse. If so, please let me know and I can try to explain further.
I agree with you 100%. Wine is complicated enough for consumers without different certifications for this, that and other. I'm surprised at Dr. Goode's statement, I usually agree with him on most wine topics and have just started reading his book on the subject. It just makes sense to tie regenerative and organic. One certifying body with maybe different levels would make more sense but being able to pick and choose makes the labels worthless, a bit like sticking 'Haute Valeur Environmentale' labels on your bottle!
You weren’t the only one to be surprised.
I felt his comments were unduly savage. That said, I didn’t attend the conference personally. Maybe I’m missing some context.
"The idea that ‘organic’ is good and ‘conventional’ is bad is overly simplistic." Yes, perhaps, but it should not be discarded out of hand. For many consumers, it actually is a good rule of thumb, but large organic acreages (e.g., Earthbound Farm) using a conventional mindset and the absurd notion of hydroponic operations being able to certify organic (now thankfully countered by The Real Organic Project) do make the choices more complex.
Can "regen" be clawed back from agribusiness and pesticide mfrs once they have co-opted it? Might be impossible. Particularly now that massive Midwest acreages of no-till farms that terminate their cover crops with herbicides bandy about the regenerative label, though killing the soil microbiome isn't really a great idea.
And, yes, there are probably too many certifications, most of which consumers do not understand. And, alas, neither can retailers explain them to their customers. There is a lot more to say here.
I am curious, though, what Jamie Goode's objections really were? Thanks for the article.
I should apologise, I chased that question and didn't really answer it did I?
I know from previous conferences etc that Jamie feels the targeted use of systemic products is more sustainable than the organic stricture of only copper and sulphur - even if you need to do 12 or more passes in the vineyard.
In general he prefers a hybrid approach that doesn't exclude the use of synthetics.
Wonder if he suggested to Domaine Lafage that the solution to growing in a damp climate is hybrids, not synthetics?
I would hardly call Roussillon a damp climate.....
In the article you linked to the grower says «Owner Jean-Marc Lafage told DB: “we can’t be organic everywhere.” He says that he lost two vintages in a Grenache vineyard close to the sea that is prone to mildew while trying to convert it to organic production.». I assume because of maritime influence they had problems.
It sounds like it. But it’s still Roussillon… I mean we’re hardly talking Vinho Verde or Wales here?