The concept of biodynamic agriculture, despite this farming practice having existed for a hundred years, remains in many respects still poorly understood outside specialist circles. The contours of its dynamics — how it works in practice to provide healthy food — remain elusive. Moreover, we don't know how much weight to give to that segment of science, and of the press, that periodically opposes it — sometimes vehemently — seeking to demolish its credibility and sow mistrust.

To get to the essence of biodynamics and develop a genuine understanding of what it is, we listened to one of the most interesting and knowledgeable voices on the subject in Italy. Adriano Zago is an agronomist and oenologist with deep field experience, a consultant for many biodynamic estates and a wine producer at his own podere Mastrilli in Tuscany, as well as a trainer and communicator. Over an hour and a half of enjoyable conversation, he guided us by the hand through the richness and nuanced complexity of this agricultural method — one that regenerates, nourishes and activates the vitality of the soil by entering into dialogue with nature. And that sets in motion a virtuous cycle whose ultimate aim is to enrich the health of the environment and of people. Through foods that express their territory, grown on thriving farms — economically thriving, too.

Let's start from the basics: what is biodynamic agriculture?
Biodynamics is an agricultural method applicable to all crops and all livestock farming. It is essential to define its priorities, with health coming first: the health of the soil, of the crops, and the health of the food that is eaten. In biodynamics, the entire system the farm deals with is considered alive — the land, the plants, the animals and the people. It is a vision that inspires, but one that also demands a great deal of practice. In short, the purpose of biodynamics is to produce healthy, vital food.

One often hears talk of regenerative agriculture. How regenerative is biodynamic farming?
Born in 1924, biodynamics is documentably the first agriculture in the world to have taken to heart the issues of biodiversity, ecology and health, decades before the agroecology movements appeared in the 1960s. In practice, until then only biodynamic agriculture was talking about and practising agroecology. It was the first to codify and bring into focus the shadows of the industrial approach that was taking hold and was already beginning to damage soils at that time. Rudolf Steiner was the first to raise the alarm about how various problems were emerging from this new industrial agriculture — and bear in mind that the problems we face today were nowhere near as severe back then. So yes, biodynamics is, to all intents and purposes, regenerative agriculture.

The ecosystem is an integral part of biodynamics. Speaking of biodiversity, how does biodynamics take care of it?
Let's take viticulture as an example. How do you tell that a vineyard is biodynamic? By a soil that works well. Biodiversity is linked to the soil's microbiology, because a richer microbiology means more organic matter. In the vineyard, you work with many species to get the soil functioning — to make it complex, stable and resilient — and you can tell because that vineyard may contain elements of biodiversity, such as certain trees, animals like sheep or chickens; you might see hedgerows around it, you might notice the proximity and dialogue between a hedgerow and a forest. A dialogue that is highly functional in the vineyard, because within it there are many useful things: beneficial insects for the crop, a balanced microclimate, controlled temperature and humidity. You might also find that on the same estate there are crops other than vines — vegetable gardens, for instance — which make the vineyard work better and make it stronger. It is well known that wine tells the story of a territory, so the coexistence in the vineyard of animals, garden produce and trees enriches the story that wine tells about that territory. You might say that a biodynamic one is a farm organism — a vineyard you can both drink and eat.

Can you explain more clearly what is meant by a farm organism?
It is the technical term for the biodynamic farm — the specific language used to describe and understand what biodynamics is. In 1924, Steiner was the first to assert that a farm functions only if it is an organism, because within it lie the elements and the solutions to its own problems. He was referring to the first weak link in the agriculture of his time, which was beginning to adopt an industrial approach: monoculture.

When an agricultural system becomes simple, it becomes fragile. One way to make an agricultural system simple and fragile is precisely to practise extreme monoculture, because within it there are few solutions to problems — and therefore few resources, few options.

Keeping a vineyard and a farm complex, on the other hand, is certainly more complicated to manage, but over the long term — because agricultural accounts are always drawn up over the long term and not on a single season — it makes that farm sustainable both economically and ecologically.

This is clearly visible in the vineyards of estates that chose biodynamics several years ago: these are now highly reputed, well-known operations whose wines are objectively excellent. On these estates, the coexistence of crops other than the vine makes it possible to develop a more complex vision of the vineyard. And it is the quality of the wine that benefits.

What is the relationship between biodynamics and science?
I would say it is an essential one, given that even back then Steiner's eight lectures were titled "Scientific and spiritual impulses for the evolution of agriculture". There are a great many studies that validate biodynamic agriculture, including a very important study from some years ago by Inra, the Institut national de la recherche agronomique — a kind of French Cnr — which examined 120 studies of conventional, organic and biodynamic agriculture and validated that biodynamic agriculture is the one that best ensures greater ecological stability in soils.

A critical view of biodynamics has spread because there are also studies that aim to demonstrate the opposite. That is perfectly fine — science has never had as its goal the aim of agreeing with itself. Science is dialogue, it is discussion, not ideology. There is a vast body of scientific work on biodynamics; many of these studies show that it works, others do not.

The difficulty for science — and this is not unique to biodynamics — is having to measure complex systems by dismantling the various parts to assess whether those parts, once removed and replaced, work or not. It is very difficult, given how science is structured, to demonstrate the validity of a system as a whole.

It is certainly interesting to observe how the recent journalistic controversies have not distracted from their work the farms — including large ones — that practise biodynamics, nor have they discouraged those who do not yet practise it from starting to do so.

What would you say to those who accuse biodynamics of being unscientific and of witchcraft — for instance because of the use of horn manure?
My answer is a warm invitation to come and see in person the wonderful biodynamic estates that are thriving, with healthy balance sheets and wines that have achieved a hundred points on the Parker scale — the maximum score on the quality scale devised by Robert Parker. We have quite a few we can show, just as there are valuable scientific studies in which the word witchcraft is nowhere to be found. I invite people to look deeper and move beyond prejudice. There have never been as many certified and uncertified biodynamic farms — large and small, across the continents, in wine and in other sectors — as there are now. In light of this growth, I find myself thinking: if it doesn't work, how come so many farms are doing it profitably?

From your vantage point, what do you see?
There is growth — meaning there are the numbers, the farms, including some very important and beautiful ones. Demeter is in increasingly good shape in terms of certification, and there is recognition of biodynamic agriculture as a tool for quality. Not the only one, but it certainly works very well. Among the approaches I have tried, it continues to convince me.

Going back to your work, what are the advantages of biodynamics applied to the vineyard and to wine? What does a biodynamic wine tell us?
It tells us about a territory in an even more compelling way, because it is a method that contains no systems of interference with the free expression of the plant. If I use herbicides, if I fertilise, if I do everything that is standard practice in an industrial system, I make my vineyard less unique because my soil is no longer able to express its full potential. The same goes for the vine, and for the wine. But if instead — in a rigorously technical and professional manner, with agronomists, oenologists and highly professional producers — I create a biodynamic estate where agronomy, oenology, business, company organisation and human resources are all in balance, I will find that, thanks to biodynamics, that wine will be authentic, unique and good. Because there can be no true expression of terroir if that soil is not free to express itself, if I standardise my wine in the cellar, if in the field I make excessive use of fertiliser that brings into the plant what is not present in the soil.

Is biodynamic viticulture applicable to a business of any size?
Absolutely, it is also suited to very large estates: I oversaw the conversion of Avignonesi, for example — 200 hectares of solidly biodynamic viticulture for several years now. An experience that has also been brought to other estates where I have collaborated, such as Ceretto, to name one. Further estates of great prestige include Foradori, Ampeleia, Emidio Pepe, Arianna Occhipinti and many others. If a large operation wants to work well in biodynamics, it can actually do so even better than a small one, because it has greater financial resources, economies of scale, organisational structure and a different kind of responsiveness. We have thoroughly debunked the myth that biodynamics cannot be scaled up to large numbers. For decades in Australia there have been biodynamic estates of thousands of hectares, so it has now been proven in practice that there is no limit to the surface area of biodynamic viticulture.

You created the Cambium project — what is it?
Cambium is a company founded with the aim of supporting the development of biodynamic activities through three different tools, linked to consultancy, training and actual business development. It is a platform of professionals — around fifteen of us — ready to resolve the complexity of companies' needs through a very broad pool of expertise. We work in a highly tailored way, intervening on an ad hoc basis according to each company's needs. Our guiding principle is that of the radical environment in nature. The radical environment is an environment made up of countless connections and exchanges of information: when the root environment functions well the plant is strong, and in the same way we seek to bring to the company what it needs to become strong. This allows us to work with very different kinds of businesses. I am an agronomist, an oenologist and an ICF coach (International Coaching Federation). This last skill, acquired over the years through post-graduate training, allows me and the fellow coaches who are part of Cambium to support companies in their internal organisation in terms of human resources, team dynamics, and everything that businesses now require. In biodynamic farming companies, once you have done good work across all the production areas, you need to work — as in any large company — on the retention of human capital, for instance. In the past there was no need for this, but now there is a need to work on recruiting and internal group communication, because today it is no longer enough to work solely towards creating a good wine: we must also create health within the company organisation.

To truly introduce biodynamics to the wider public, shouldn't the sector also step out of the shell it has always tended to retreat into?
I completely agree. You are speaking with someone who works consciously on communication, even though his background is in production. I have just come from days spent working with estates on exactly this — on the importance of making yourself known, because companies are starting to realise it.

Alongside the importance of doing, we must place the arguments for not-doing, among which communication.

We come from a sector where for too many years — because it worked, in practice — all that mattered was doing, and quality. Without explaining it. If thirty years ago we had also taken care to tell our story, we would now have a bit of groundwork already laid. So yes, I agree. There is a great deal to be done, because I think it has rarely been explained well. You need the maturity to know how to communicate your own value.

Is there innovation in biodynamics?
It is its very foundation. Let me explain: there was someone — Steiner — who, a hundred years ago, said things that looked to the future and are still entirely relevant today, starting from a series of visionary intuitions. When I carry out strategic consultancy, I often find myself saying "thank goodness the estate is healthy, visitable, has points of attraction, is set up for hospitality, has other crops in its portfolio". All "boxes" that have been left open because the estate has applied the principles of biodynamic agricultural development. A conventional estate with "x" hectares devoted exclusively to viticulture, which has not diversified and has no identity, is the perfect estate to find itself in crisis with no means of getting out of it. An estate with the same number of hectares that has instead developed other crops — perhaps secondary ones — in harmony with the environment and biodiversity, that offers hospitality and is open to visitors, is in a position to weather a potential crisis.

How do you see the future of biodynamics?
I see the possibility of a very great future, because it has demonstrated that it works and is capable of providing remarkable answers with simple, concrete tools. I do, however, see a complicated future, because there is a deliberate intent to discredit it — precisely because it works.

When you want to change something, the measure of change inevitably includes the disruption you cause; otherwise we are not making a revolution — you have to at least ruffle a few feathers, don't you?

So I am fine with there being a very strong negative reaction, because that is part of the game. What does concern me, however, is the fact that on the other side there is so much aggression and so much discrediting from a very, very powerful system that biodynamic agriculture unsettles. That is undeniable. It is a highly organised system, but one that today enjoys less institutional support than in the past. And there is one fact: organic farming has emerged in recent years thanks to the right, well-deserved support. Biodynamic agriculture, being something that is not officially recognised, has never received targeted assistance. It has developed and survived for a hundred years without ever having received a specific subsidy. Certainly, it has benefited from some of the subsidies for organic farming, because a biodynamic estate must first and foremost be organic, but the strength of biodynamic agriculture has been in getting this far on its own two feet — through private organisation, through Demeter as a privately run international certification body that is self-sustaining, and through a credibility built over time through results.