BadRabbit

It has "foetid" in the middle of the name. What would you expect?

Then follows a description of his "epiphany" of wines with greater "energy" and a brief overview of Steiner's biodynamic principles. Those looking for science aren't going to find it; "energy" is a metaphor. I think. I don't doubt that there are many biodynamic wines that are world class wines. I just deny that planetary alignment and burying "preparations" have anything to do with that. I'm a scientific skeptic and understand that the end product does not necessarily prove efficacy of individual practices. I would suggest anyone interested in the practice to read about Steiner. He described his own philosophy as a synthesis between science and mysticism. I have no problem with his scientific practices just the mystic ones.

Somewhat apropos of this, my mother in law recently was at my house and brought over some blueberries. I went to wash them and she said "They're organic, no need to wash them." To which I responded "You do realize that means they were likely grown in shit." She allowed me to wash them. Edit: Typo

I'd say this really isn't eLaw either. I guess I just think that the idea that legal definition changes both language and reality is a little Orwellian. It seems to me the only thing a legal definition is evidence of is which ag lobbyist was the loudest (read: most generous ) to the authors of the bill. I was never disagreeing that there was/was not a legal definition. I am just disagreeing that whoever happens to be in power can change what words like "sustainable" or "organic" mean (words that have been around a lot longer than a 10 year old bill) regardless of their context.

The use of "sustainable" is a well known marketing ploy of impyling a negative of your competition by making use of a positive word to describe your own product. The marketers are implying that their competition is somehow producing "unsustainable" goods without actually saying so.

In a similar manner, I hate the use of "all natural." Nightshade and toadstools are "all natural." I certainly don't think they are good for me because of it.

My point is that all food other than salt is organic material. Application of something inorganic does not remove the carbon atoms from food. The food itself is still organic.

I'm guessing the same way you could have inorganic food (other than salt)?

Though you don't often see holistic used in purely scientific circles, I don't think mysticism is inherent. However, I think that there are very few if any complex systems (like a farm) that can be treated as a whole. Paying attention to all parts of a system is not the same as treating it as a whole. The BDA prescriptions I have mentioned (buried cow horns and deer bladders) are generally the ones noted by proponents as treating the whole. In this case, I'd say that much of the scientific regimen treats components (e.g. irragation, crop rotation, fertilization). It may be inherent in complex systems that something would have to be supernatural to treat the whole system.

BDA like many other pseudosciences blends scientifically valid techniques with new age mysticism. However, all BDA literature that I have seen makes a point that all of the practices must be followed because of the "holistic" nature of the regimen. I therefore can't see how someone who just follows the scientifically valid parts is really "Biodynamic" by anyone's definition.

What you wrote was anecdotal "evidence" that was presented like a refutation including thinly veiled shots about armchair expertise (which requires a bit of mind reading of your own as you know nothing of my expertise). In addition, if the people you are referring to are ONLY following the scientifically based parts of the regimen, then they are engaging in organic farming not BDA. As I said in my earlier, BDA is separated by the addition of a bunch of non-scientific practices.

I'm glad the situation is so clear to you. I've spent time with some leading Burgundian winemakers who (though they don't use it for marketing purposes) employ techniques they call biodynamic, and swear by them. That's one of the places that helped popularize the idea years ago. As these people make, by international expert consensus, among the very best and most sought-after wines on the planet, few can doubt that ultimately they know what they're doing. Also, these vignerons are often very humble, and from families who have made wine there literally for many centuries -- they tend to decribe their role as midwives, saying repeatedly that nature makes the wines and the "winemakers" just do their best not to screw it up. I know that at least some of the practices they describe (and that others pooh-pooh from the expert viewpoint of the armchair) have abundant scientific basis. For example, taking steps to sustain certain synergistic micro-organisms. These organisms, and I believe this wasn't understood until relatively recently, act as intermediaries for the vine roots -- which can penetrate 50 or 100 feet down through rock fissures -- converting some of the minerals from the rocks to forms the vine roots then assimilate, and convey to the aboveground fruit, affecting the wine's exquisite flavor. Absolutely there are scientifically based parts of the Biodynamic regimen but the thing that separates BDA (Biodynamic Agriculture) from just excellent organic farming is the nonsense (i.e. planetary alignment prescriptions, preparations, etc…). There is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting these practices or even a hypothesized mechanism by which they might be able to work. Burying a deer bladder filled with plants or a cow horn filled with manure somewhere on a farm or vineyard can not affect the entire crop. There isn’t even evidence that it would work if you planted it directly under each plant. If you have evidence that the practice of preparations has been scientifically proven to have measurable benefits, by all means produce it. It doesn't exist though so you can save your time. Note: By scentifically proven I mean a blinded and controlled peer-reveiwed study not some group of pseudoscientists declaring it proven. You are engaging in logical fallacies ("post hoc ergo propter hoc" and "argument from authority") by insinuating that excellent wines made by makers practicing BDA is evidence of BDA’s efficacy. I have a good friend who is a chef and everyday he comes into his kitchen and burns sage because he believes it will get rid of any bad feeling from the previous night’s service. He honestly believes that this is responsible for his kitchen running smoothly and his food being delicious. I believe the reason these things happen are because he’s been in the restaurant business since he was 15 and that he graduated from CIA (Napa). It's an easy application of Occam's razor just as it is with the winemakers you reference. Their crops are most likely excellent because of good land, good weather, and excellent organic farming technique passed down for generations(most of which far predate BDA which only showed up in 1830). Their excellent wines are not evidence that their belief in supernatural forces are correct.

Much worse than that is the Tupperware container of food accidentally left in the trunk of the car for 2 weeks of July (in Alabama). I didn't even take it inside.

Isn't biodynamic food just food grown on a farm that had a magic spell placed on it? Anyone who looks for Biodynamic on a label is essentially just looking to pay for hocus pocus. The practitioners of biodynamic farming believe that putting various items in cow horns and burying them on the farm somehow "holistically" affects the farm and its products. It's amazing to me that in today's day and age people still believe in this ridiculousness. I think I'm going to start a new agriculture fad and call it something scientific sounding (like "ecobalanced bioionized agriculture") and its tenets will combine Native American rain dances and 2 oz homeopathic potions (read: water) to pour out in the center of each field during a thunderstorm. I will claim that this will bring a type of ionized rain that will more quickly be taken up by the plants and cause them to be disease resistant, bigger, sweeter, and full of antioxidants. Then, I'll start up an organization that will "certify" farms and make a mint. Even people who read this post will gladly pay 20% more for products certified by me. As for sustainability, you can make a good case that mass produced genetically modified foods are more sustainable. They use less land, they are engineered to deplete the soil of less nutrients and they travel better so less is lost to damage thereby reducing the amount needed to be grown to meet a certain demand. My point being that it's a useless term because nearly anything short of global thermal nuclear war is sustainable in one sense or another. Edit: Removed line that could be misconstrued.

I had a horrible smell in my pantry today that my wife was complaining about. As soon as I opened the door, I knew there was a rotting potato somewhere. Sure enough, a red potato had fallen behind the basket and rotted. It's amazing that a vegetable that has virtually no smell when it's fresh could smell so bad when it turns. I also had to deal with another smell this morning. Eggs put into a too hot pan (by my wife) had stunk up the whole house. There are also a few foods that I think smell bad even when being cooked properly. Broccoli and rutabegas both smell horrible when they are cooking even though they taste delicious. What smells do you hate? When you have a bad smell in the kitchen, where do you look first and what are the usual culprits?

On caveat from a chile head about developing really high tolerance for chile heat: I have developed such a high tolerance for heat that I can no longer feel any burn from jalapenos and other chiles low on the scoville scale. This makes it extremely difficult for me to judge heat when I am cooking for friends with more delicate palates (i.e. sissy mouths). I often have to have someone else taste and suggest adjustments.

I like potlatch seasoning on cedar planked salmon. My second favorite is brown sugar and mayonnaise.

I never scald milk except in breadmaking and ice cream. I never sift under any circumstances. I never pay attention to listed salt quantities except in baked preperations. I double the onion always. If a savory dish doesn't have onion (or shallots, leeks, etc...), I'm going to add some.

I have always loved caviar but I question why anyone would teach themselves to like it. It's ridiculously expensive and very seldomly used except in the highest priced restaurants. Even in the Michelin starred restaurants it is easily avoided (unless sitting at a chef's table or at a Prix Fixe dinner with no options). I wish I hated caviar.

This time of year I like silver queen. I cut the kernels off the cob and then "milk" the cobs with the spine of the knife. I put all that in a hot cast iron skillet with some butter (goat butter is delicious for this). Towards the end of the cooking I add a little water that mixes with the expelled starch and makes a little bit of sauce that adds moisture to the overall dish. We always called this "fried corn" and it is my favorite thing in the world to eat during the summer.

I agree. I love pears but a mealy one makes me want to hurl. Lately, it seems that 50% of the fresh I buy are mealy.

I think Lesueur early peas in the silver can are fantastic (though the texture is a little soft for some applications). They are much better than any of the frozen peas. Really fresh green peas are better but I think the Lesueur peas are delicious just the same.

In my experience, nearly all vegetable stocks have a slight bitter note (though not necessarily an unpleasant one) that is concentrated when you reduce it too far. I'm sure that by being extra careful with ingredients you can avoid this but most home cooks are just cooking scraps.

In America, "haricot vert" typically refers to a specific variety of french green bean. It is generally more flavorful as well as narrower and more cylindrical than the fresh beans available in most of the US.

I acually excluded haricot vert in my original post because I agree they taste great fresh. Unfortunately, I live in Alabama so HV are not always readily available.