# Biodynamic Viticulture Representations in the French Wine Industry: A Textual Analysis

Manuela Brando de Lachapelle, Frédéric Brochet, Laurence Geny-Denis

► To cite this version:

Manuela Brando de Lachapelle, Frédéric Brochet, Laurence Geny-Denis. Biodynamic Viticulture Representations in the French Wine Industry: A Textual Analysis. Horticulturae, 2025, 11 (9), pp.1114. 10.3390/horticulturae11091114. hal-05300974

HAL Id: hal-05300974

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05300974v1

Submitted on 7 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Article

# Biodynamic Viticulture Representations in the French Wine Industry: A Textual Analysis

Manuela Brando de Lachapelle <fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,* , Frédéric Brochet <fnref n="3" />,† and Laurence Geny-Denis <fnref n="1" />

## Abstract

At a time marked by a transition in winegrowing methods, the decision to employ biodynamic viticulture, and its holistic approach, is a choice made by many technicians in the French wine industry. Nevertheless, this practice is perceived very differently among industry members. Some frequently debate its foundations and tangible benefits, while others question the value of scientific research conducted on its methods. The representations motivating the decision to pursue biodynamic practices remain unclear. Thirty members of the industry were interviewed about their opinions and knowledge on biodynamics through semi-structured interviews. A textual analysis of their responses, using Alceste software (Image Ltd., Toulouse, France, version 2018), revealed four key representations of this growing method within the industry. Some practitioners believe that biodynamic preparations may have a material effect on plant behaviour and that the effects of biodynamic viticulture on the final quality of wine should be studied more closely. Others suggest that the anthroposophical foundations of the method should be set aside to allow for its reinvention in a forward-looking manner. Lastly, experimental methods and peer-exchanges are considered essential to understanding the effects of this cultivation method in specific contexts and terroirs. These different viewpoints should be integrated to develop innovative and interesting applications for biodynamic farming methods.

**Keywords:** Alceste; biodynamics; co-occurrences; co-exclusions; oenology; representations; textual analysis; viticulture

## 1. Introduction

The foundations of biodynamic agriculture can be attributed to Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925), an Austrian philosopher and the father of anthroposophy. In 1924, Steiner delivered a series of eight lectures to a group of farmers, aimed at addressing the challenges of yield loss, crop diseases, and other issues that had emerged in inter-war agriculture, which was increasingly influenced by the use of chemical fertilisers and synthetic pesticides [1]. Although agriculture comprised only a minor part of Steiner's work, these lectures were pivotal in fostering a new perspective on farming. Steiner introduced a vision in which the health of soil, plants, and animals is intertwined with the cosmic forces that impart rhythm and structure to their existence. He compared the farm to a living organism, where all components must interact and be set in motion by an impetus, the conscious will of the

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

check for
updates

Academic Editors: Xiangyu Sun,

Yu Wang and Xiangyi Li

Received: 28 August 2025

Revised: 10 September 2025

Accepted: 11 September 2025

Published: 14 September 2025

**Citation:** Brando de Lachapelle, M.;

Brochet, F.; Geny-Denis, L.

Biodynamic Viticulture

Representations in the French Wine

Industry: A Textual Analysis.

Horticulturae **2025**, *11*, 1114.

https://doi.org/10.3390/

horticulturae11091114

**Copyright:** © 2025 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license

(https://creativecommons.org/

/licenses/by/4.0/).

<footnote n="1">¹ Unité de Recherche Œnologie, EA 4577, USC 1366 INRAE, ISVV, Bordeaux Université, 33882 Villenave d'Ornon, France; laurence.geny-denis@u-bordeaux.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Domaines Barons de Rothschild, Lafite, 40-50, Cours du Médoc, 33300 Bordeaux, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Lavauguyot, Manoir de Lavauguyot Marigny-Brizay, 86380 Jaunay-Marigny, France; drbrochet72@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: mdelachapelle@lafite.com; Tel.: +33-(0)-607489992</footnote>

<footnote>† Leader in Technological Innovations of the Vitirev program within the framework of environmentally friendly alternative practices.</footnote>
farmer. He emphasised the significance of practical field trials. Steiner's lectures had a considerable impact on the emergence of organic farming, and its vision aligned with the principles of agroecology.

Following Steiner's lectures, farmers and practitioners gathered to exchange their experiences and promote the methods they had learned. They established common standards and practices, fostering a community dedicated to biodynamic agriculture. Consequently, a cooperative named Demeter was established in Germany to process and market products from biodynamic farms. It was not until 1932 that the Demeter Association (Demeter Wirtschaftsverband) was formed to certify biodynamic products. Although the Demeter Association was dissolved during the Second World War but was revived in 1946 by the Anthroposophical Farmers' Research Circle [2], which subsequently created a brand that was trademarked in Europe, securing its intellectual property rights in 1954. In 1997, Demeter International was established and merged with the International Biodynamic Association in 2020 to create the Biodynamic Federation Demeter International (FBDI). This federation defines the international standards for the Demeter label, a certification mark for products that are produced according to biodynamic farming principles [3].

In France, the Demeter label was recognised by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1982, preceding the Organic Farming label, which was introduced in 1981 and officially recognised in 1991. Originally created for food products, cosmetics, and textiles, the Demeter label quickly expanded to include regulations for viticulture and oenology [2]. In 1995, a separate label specifically for viticultural and oenological practices was established by a group of winegrowers practising biodynamic methods, known as the Biodyvin label [4].

Regarding viticulture, both labels require organic practices in the vineyard (prohibiting synthetic pesticides and fertilisers); however, the Demeter label is stricter than the Biodyvin label concerning the permissible amount of copper used in the vineyard to protect crops, with limits set at 3 kg/ha/year for Demeter and 4 kg/ha/year for Biodyvin. Both labels require the use of biodynamic preparations 500 and 501, and compost preparations derived from seven plants (nettles, horsetail, dandelion, chamomile, valerian, yarrow, and oak bark), either in compost form, as Maria Thun compost, or 500P [5]. Concerning wine production, both labels stipulate that alcoholic fermentation must occur using the yeasts naturally present on the grapes and in the cellar. The total sulphur content in the finished wine is also regulated: for a dry red wine aged for over nine months, Demeter permits a maximum of 70 mg/L of total SO₂, while Biodyvin allows 110 mg/L [6,7]. The requirements of both labels may seem restrictive in relation to Steiner's original vision. They can be challenging to adhere to under conditions of significant mildew pressure in vineyards or in estates producing barrel-aged wines.

Rudolf Steiner intended for the method he described to be widely adopted, "for everybody, for all farmers" [1]. For nearly a century, Steiner's philosophy has been largely overlooked. It was only in the early 2000s that a handful of farmers "rediscovered" biodynamics. According to Paull and Hennig, biodynamic practices were present in only 55 of the 183 countries practising organic farming in 2020, representing approximately 30% of these nations [8]. In 2020, Europe remained the continent with the highest prevalence of biodynamic farming, with a significant presence in Germany (34% of global biodynamic practices) and France (6%). Australia ranked second, accounting for 20% of the total biodynamic surface area. These figures only represent certified biodynamic practices, but many farmers employ biodynamic methods without seeking official recognition [8].
In terms of scientific research, there are currently few scientific, peer-reviewed articles focusing on biodynamic practices. Taking biodynamic viticulture as an example, approximately fifty articles investigated biodynamics and its effects on soil, plants, and wine quality. A dozen of these articles were published in the 1990s, with the majority emerging during the 2010–2020 decade. Research in this area is gradually expanding.

Some research associations conduct trials and compile results on biodynamic agriculture, but very few implement controls, resulting in their findings being largely disregarded by the scientific community. For instance, the DOK trial, initiated in Switzerland in 1978 by the FIBL (research institute of organic Agriculture), compared biodynamic, organobiological, and integrated farming systems by reproducing these methods in a microplot setup [9]. In France, notable research associations include Biodynamie Recherche [10] and Soin de la Terre [11], among others.

Biodynamic agriculture suffers from its anthroposophical heritage. According to Alexandre Grandjean, 39 out of 40 Swiss practitioners do not claim to belong to the biodynamic movement, which is often perceived as spiritual or religious. They are familiar with Steiner's lectures and principles in a fragmented manner, utilising the biodynamic pharmacopoeia primarily as a foundation for holistic farming practices centred on plant and soil health. These practices are believed to yield more natural crops that reflect their terroir [12].

The French wine industry is currently undergoing a transition marked by significant commitments to environmental sustainability and social acceptance, which involve reducing the use of the most toxic pesticides and replacing them with natural alternatives in the context of high sanitary pressure [13], enhancing biodiversity in vineyards where monoculture has become prevalent [14], lowering the carbon footprint by 2050 [15], and exploring methods for adapting to climate change [16]. Consequently, winegrowers must identify innovative technical pathways to address these requirements.

In this context, a variety of tools are available to farmers, ranging from precision farming to regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, or permaculture; however, choosing among these options is not easy. These decisions will depend on the farmer's perspective, culture, and history. Rigolot draws a parallel between the worldviews articulated in the literature and the visions of farmers. He argues that it is crucial to understand one's own worldview, as well as that of others, in order to integrate diverse perspectives and facilitate a shared transformation [17].

Initiated by Durkheim, the concept of individual representations has been extensively employed by Foucault to describe the tools through which we “perceive and understand” the world. Shared individual representations give rise to social representations, which form the foundational basis of cultures. Studying these representations aids in understanding human behaviour [18].

What are the different representations of biodynamics within the wine industry? Are these representations influenced by the wine-growing region or the profiles of the practitioners? How might they affect the industry and the decisions of growers to adopt or reject the biodynamic method? These are the questions addressed in this paper.

## 2. Materials and Methods

Biodynamics has two distinctive characteristics. Firstly, it is often a broad and empirical practice, making it difficult to establish a specific protocol, identify the effects to observe, and find elements that can be reliably replicated across different contexts. Secondly, it is a topic that provokes considerable discussion and debate within the industry.

We believed that engaging in a dialogue with a panel of viticulturists could provide valuable insights into the biological effects that researchers need to explore. Furthermore,
this dialogue would enhance the understanding of the diverse perspectives on the method,
fostering more constructive discussions among winegrowers.

## 2.1. *Number of Interviewees*

Determining the appropriate number of interviewees for statistical robustness in a qualitative study is challenging. Numerous methods exist for estimating the minimum sample size which depend on the type of study, the nature of the and the dynamics of the anticipated dataset.

For example, scholars such as Janice M. Morse have advocated for selecting a suitable number of participants to reach saturation—the point at which no new information or themes emerge from the data [19]. According to Morse, this number depends on various factors: the study's objectives, the nature of the subject, the study design, and the quality of the data collected. If the objectives are narrow, the subject is clear to the interviewees, and the panel is successfully selected to yield quality data, the number of participants can be reduced to between 6 and 10 interviewees. If these conditions are not met, it is advisable to increase the number of participants to between 20 and 30. When the amount of information obtained per participant is minimal, interviewing 30 to 60 participants is preferable [20]. Other authors, like Greg Guest suggested that in a relatively homogeneous group, important themes and insights can emerge early in the data collection process and 12 interviews can suffice to “understand common perceptions and experiences among a group of relatively homogeneous individuals” [21].

In our case, we interviewed 30 individuals. Given that our questions are structured, our objectives are clearly defined, and our interviewees possess relevant experience, we consider this number sufficient to provide statistical robustness while remaining manageable for completion within a year.

## 2.2. *Recruitment of Participants and Informed Consent*

Participants were recruited through announcements sent via email to professionals across several wine-growing regions. No compensation was provided for their participation. The information collected respects participant privacy; names and surnames were not recorded, and participants were identified by a numerical code ranging from 1 to 30, with no correlation to their identities. Consequently, the texts obtained from the interviews are anonymous and will not be disseminated. Informed consent was obtained from participants to ensure they fully understand the implications of the research.

## 2.3. *Typology of Interviewees*

The thirty interviewees are wine professionals working across four different regions of France: Bordeaux (65%), Burgundy (23%), Loire (6%), and Languedoc-Roussillon (6%). They hold various positions within the wine industry, operating as owners (42%), directors (32%), technicians (13%), and advisors (13%). The study panel is predominantly male (83%) and comprises individuals with diverse educational backgrounds, with agronomists (42%) and oenologists (39%) being the largest groups. While 84% of the panel interviewed practise biodynamics, only 22% are certified (Figure 1).
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

**Figure 1.** Characterisation of the panel interviewed with regard to (A)—region; (B)—job position; (C)—biodynamic practices and certification. (D)—educational background; NA: Not applicable; interviewees do not work in a winery. The coloured points on the map show the interviewees location.

## 2.4. Semi-Directive Interviews

During the semi-directive interviews, eleven questions (Supplementary Material, Figure S1) were asked regarding the participants’ definitions of biodynamic agriculture, their practices, and their understanding of the effects of biodynamic preparations on plants, grapes, and wines. The responses were recorded and transcribed in French.

## 2.5. Textual Analysis

Textual analysis relies on a statistical examination of the words within a text. The development of this tool has been facilitated by the advent of computers. Michel Benzecri is considered the father of textual analysis in France, having been the first to apply multi-dimensional statistics to textual data [22]. One of his students, Max Reinert, developed a dedicated tool for analysing a set of texts based on a chi-squared matrix [23].

The corpus obtained from the interviews was analysed using Alceste software (Analyse de Lexèmes Co-occurents dans un Ensemble de Segments de Textes; Reinert, 1986, Image Ltd., Toulouse, France, version 2018). In textual analysis, the corpus is divided by the author into initial context units (UCIs). When preparing the corpus, UCIs are associated with characteristics such as the job position or the educational background of the interviewees. A selection of these characteristics is attached to the relevant UCI and marked with “stars” in the corpus, hence the term “starred words” [24].

A bound morpheme corresponds to a group of text units sharing the same root. For instance, the words “levure,” “levuré,” and “levurage” are replaced by the lexeme “levur.” The reduced terms fall into two categories: analysable terms (nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) and illustrative terms (prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions, auxiliaries, and starred words) [24].
Next, a hierarchical ascending classification (HAC) is performed using only the analysable terms, dividing the corpus into classes. Alceste employs $\chi^2$ calculations to measure the probability of a lexeme being used in a particular class. The higher the $\chi^2$ value between a lexeme and a class, the stronger the contribution of that term to defining the class. Conversely, a lower $\chi^2$ indicates a weaker association. The terms within each class are presented in descending order of $\chi^2$ [23,24].

The software does not provide interpretations of the classes; instead, the researcher interprets the classes based on their contents, including the presence or absence of terms (negative $\chi^2$), while the starred words contribute equally and solely to the interpretation [24]. A thorough understanding of a class's content is best achieved by examining the complete lexical field all at once.

The Alceste method is widely used in various contexts; for example, it can be used to analyse collections of scientific reports or evaluations of research topics. Yvette Vaquet and Philippe Jeanne employed Alceste to analyse reports from the International Congress of Arctic Social Sciences (ICASS), assessing continuity and evolution in high-latitude research [25]. Frédéric Brochet analysed expert tasting notes using Alceste in his studies on wine perception, revealing different strategies in expert discourse [26]. Alceste can also be used to analyse patient discourse to understand psychological and emotional functioning. For instance, Villatte and de Léonardis studied the discourse of young adolescents with high intellectual potential to assess their perspectives on the question "Who am I?" They found that gender, age, and socio-cultural background are more significant than intellectual ability in shaping categories of existential reflection [27].

Other studies have analysed patient discourse before and after specific treatments, such as Devienne's analysis of speech following photo-expression therapy for diabetic patients [28].

All these authors agree that computer analysis using Alceste reveals representations that would otherwise remain concealed. However, these representations may be reduc-tive, as they take into account only semantics, while discourse encompasses other crucial elements—what Kalampalikis refers to as the pragmatic requirements of language. We must not underestimate the influence of relational modes, social conditions, and expressive possibilities in the formation of representations [29].

## 2.6. Corpus

A single corpus comprising 84,408 characters was created by compiling the thirty interviews in text format. Each of the eleven questions posed to the thirty interviewees was tagged with eight attributes or starred words: job position, educational background, age, gender, region of work, size of property (if applicable), biodynamic practices, and potential biodynamic certification.

Figure 2 provides an example of a response from one interviewee: a young female manager in Bordeaux, practising non-certified biodynamics, qualified in business and viticulture. She is responding to the second question regarding the advantages and disadvantages of biodynamical practices.
***** *sexe_f *age_30 *poste_gerant *taille_>100 *region_bdx*dbr_oui *biodyn_oui *certif_non *etud_commerce *etud_vignevin *q_pratiques2

Alors, les avantages et les inconvenients, donc j en ai un petit peu parle. Donc l avantage, je pense que c est deja une focalisation sur la plante, sa vie, son œuvre, son expression qui, qui est extremement positif, parce qu on retourne dans la vigne, on considere que c est la d ou tout part. Les avantages, les inconvenients. De ce que j ai vu par nos analyses, c est, surtout dans les jeunes annees, c etait des equilibres qui permettaient d aller un peu plus loin dans les maturites, des expressions de mineraux un peu plus fortes dans les parcelles en Biodynamie que celles qui ne l etaient pas. C est des resultats qui ont pas ete repetes d annee en annee mais, en tout cas, ca a pas fait de mal sur ce point-la. Mais, en tout cas, c est les deux points sur lesquels on a reellement vu des differences.

**Figure 2.** An example of one of the questions and answers in the corpus. The words preceded by a star are the tags that were used to interpret the results. Each question of each interview was associated with its specific labels. Accents and punctuation marks were excluded from the corpus. ****: initial context unit (UCI); *: starred-words defining the interviewees characteristics and question type.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Statistical Results of the Text Analysis Using Alceste Software

Table 1 presents the characteristics of the corpus and the initial divisions of the text made by the Alceste software prior to analysis and hierarchical classification. The analysis was conducted on 51% of the text units within the corpus, which is considered a typical score according to the software's documentation, as the remaining 49% of units are the most infrequent, appearing only a handful of times in the corpus.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Preliminary results of the corpus analysis using Alceste software.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Analysis Results</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total number of lexemes in the corpus</td><td>84,408</td></tr><tr><td>Total number of distinct lexemes in the corpus</td><td>6385</td></tr><tr><td>Number of lexemes used for the analysis</td><td>1259</td></tr><tr><td>Average number of occurrences of a lexeme</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum number of occurrences of a lexeme</td><td>2727</td></tr><tr><td>Number of starred words</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Initial Context Units (ICU)</td><td>339</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Elementary Context Units (ECU)</td><td>1963</td></tr><tr><td>Number of classes obtained by HAC</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>

Four classes have been defined, using a hierarchical ascending classification (HAC), as illustrated in Figure 3. Each class comprises lexemes that are significantly associated and significantly excluded, with significance determined by the value of $\chi^2$. A positive chi-square indicates co-occurrence, while a negative chi-square indicates co-exclusion. This allows for the identification of lexemes commonly used within a class and those that are rarely mentioned.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Classes defined according to the corpus by hierarchical ascendant classification using Alceste software. In each class, lexemes are displayed along with χ² values.</figcaption></figure>

Figure 3 presents the dendrogram obtained by HAC distances between these classes in the form of a dendrogram. In this type of diagram, the groups are connected by branches, and the way these branches join indicates the proximity or distance between the groups. The closer the branches are to the root, the more similar the groups are. In our case, Class 1 appears to stand out from Classes 2, 3, and 4, which form a subgroup. Within this subgroup, Class 2 is distanced from Classes 3 and 4.

## 3.2. Biodynamic Representations

### 3.2.1. Biodynamics of Certainty vs. Biodynamics of Questioning

In the French wine industry, two states of mind regarding biodynamics exist. One group (Class 1) expresses certainty about the actions and effects of biodynamics, while another group (Classes 2, 3, and 4) exhibits doubt.

The certainties relate specifically to the effects of biodynamic preparations, particularly silica and horn manure, on plants and soil, respectively. Doubts can stem from various origins and perspectives; for example, some winegrowers (Class 2) question the fundamental principles of biodynamics, leading to scepticism about the potential benefits of this cultivation method. Others (Classes 3 and 4) may lack direct evidence of the effects on the vine or wine yet remain curious and seek convincing facts from practical experience in the field or sensory evaluation in the glass.

### 3.2.2. Agronomists, Practitioners and Advisors, Convinced of the Material Effects of Biodynamic Preparations

Table 2 shows the co-occurrences and co-exclusions in class 1.

The words found in this class are "silica", "soil", "horn", "plant", "effect", "manure", "leaves", "message", "stimulate", "sun", "promote", "light", "structure", "photosynthesis", "matter", "organism", "physical", "growth", "action", "root system", "shape", and "micro", among others. Most of them are nouns and verbs indicating an action or an increase (Figure 4).
<table><caption>**Table 2.** The most common and meaningful co-occurrences and co-exclusions of words and starred words defining Class 1.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Co-Occurrences</th><th colspan="3">Co-Exclusions</th></tr><tr><th>Words</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>Number of times the word appears in the class</th><th>Words</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>silica</td><td>125</td><td>78</td><td>biodynam</td><td>-57</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>soil</td><td>112</td><td>101</td><td>wine</td><td>-54</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>horn</td><td>70</td><td>43</td><td>organic</td><td>-29</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>plant</td><td>69</td><td>79</td><td>do</td><td>-28</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>effect</td><td>65</td><td>68</td><td>disadvantage</td><td>-24</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>manure</td><td>53</td><td>34</td><td>find</td><td>-23</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>leaves</td><td>44</td><td>32</td><td>was</td><td>-21</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>message</td><td>41</td><td>23</td><td>us</td><td>-18</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>stimulate</td><td>35</td><td>26</td><td>test</td><td>-18</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>sun</td><td>34</td><td>19</td><td>advantage</td><td>-16</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>improve</td><td>34</td><td>27</td><td>agricult</td><td>-15</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>light</td><td>29</td><td>17</td><td>people</td><td>-14</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>structure</td><td>28</td><td>14</td><td>because</td><td>-14</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>photosynthesis</td><td>28</td><td>15</td><td>made</td><td>-13</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>matter</td><td>26</td><td>22</td><td>have</td><td>-12</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>organism</td><td>24</td><td>20</td><td>tank</td><td>-12</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>physics</td><td>22</td><td>11</td><td>practice</td><td>-11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>growth</td><td>22</td><td>12</td><td>not</td><td>-10</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>action</td><td>20</td><td>25</td><td>yeast</td><td>-10</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>root</td><td>20</td><td>10</td><td>Steiner</td><td>-10</td><td></td></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Starred words</th><th colspan="3">Starred words</th></tr><tr><td></td><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>Number of times the word appears in the class</th><td></td><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th></th></tr><tr><td>*q_actions</td><td>143</td><td>97</td><td>*q_wine-making</td><td>-51</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>*q Effects501</td><td>131</td><td>83</td><td>*q_proscons</td><td>-48</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>*q effects500</td><td>29</td><td>68</td><td>*q_winerysize_50-100</td><td>-27</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>*winerysize_NA<sup>1</sup></td><td>24</td><td>97</td><td>*q_definition</td><td>-20</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>*jobposition_advisor</td><td>23</td><td>91</td><td>*q_wine</td><td>-12</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NA¹: Not applicable; interviewees do not work in a winery. *: starred-words defining the interviewees characteristics and question type

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Word cloud showing which words are the most frequent in Class 1.</figcaption></figure>

This group makes very little use of the words “Biodynamics”, “Steiner”, “advantage”, “disadvantage”, or the lexical field of winemaking and tasting.

Using the lexemes that define this group, we could write the following sentence: “Silica has an effect on the leaves, bringing a message of light and sunlight that stimulates photosynthesis and plant growth, and structures the plant’s shape. Horn manure acts on
the root system and micro-organisms. The effect and action of these preparations are on the physical matter”.

We can therefore assert that a primary representation of biodynamics within the French wine industry is its material aspect: biodynamics has observable and measurable effects. These effects are achieved through biodynamic preparations, which would influence the soil and its microorganisms through horn manure, and affect plant structure via horn silica. This representation appears to diverge from Steiner's foundational principles, as it does not regard these practices as part of a spiritual philosophy. Such a concrete and materialistic discourse could be applied to any other products, such as foliar fertilisers or crop protection agents.

Table 3 indicates that in this category, 100% of biodynamic practitioners, whether certified or not, primarily comprise owners, directors, and biodynamic advisors, with a significant proportion being agronomists (60%).

<table><caption>**Table 3.** The main characteristics of Class 1 interviewees. The percentages represent the occurrence of each attribute among the interviewees of the class.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Class 1 Composition</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th colspan="2">Region</th><th colspan="2">Educational Background</th></tr><tr><td>Bordeaux</td><td>80%</td><td>Agronomist</td><td>20%</td></tr><tr><td>Bourgogne</td><td>10%</td><td>Agronomist-Oenologist</td><td>40%</td></tr><tr><td>Loire</td><td>0%</td><td>Oenologist</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>Languedoc-Roussillon</td><td>10%</td><td>Vine and Wine Diploma</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Job Position</th><th colspan="2">Practitioners—Certifications</th></tr><tr><td>Owner</td><td>30%</td><td>Practitioner—Biodyvin—Demeter</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>Director</td><td>30%</td><td>Practitioner—Biodyvin</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>10%</td><td>Practitioner—Demeter</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Advisor</td><td>30%</td><td>Practitioner—Not Certified</td><td>50%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Practitioner—NA¹</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Not a practitioner—Not Certified</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Not a practitioner—NA¹</td><td>0%</td></tr></tbody></table>

NA¹: Not applicable; interviewees do not work in a winery.

### 3.2.3. Non-Practitioners, or Uncertified Practitioners, Expressing Scepticism About Fundamentals of Biodynamics

If we apply the same analysis to Class 2, we can identify the most frequently used lexemes: “disadvantages”, “advantages”, “agriculture”, “biodynamics”, “Steiner”, “specifications”, “Agriculture Course”, “definition”, “approach”, “tools”, “risk”, “expensive”, among others. These are common nouns or adjectives that reflect a degree of questioning or judgement, with very few verbs being employed (Table 4, Figure 5).

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Word cloud showing which words are the most frequent in Class 2.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 4.** The most common and meaningful co-occurrences and co-exclusions of words and starred words defining Class 2.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Co-Occurrences</th><th colspan="2">Co-Exclusions</th></tr><tr><th>Words</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>Number of times the word appears in the class</th><th>Words</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>inconvenient</td><td>109</td><td>62</td><td>silica</td><td>-31</td></tr><tr><td>advantage</td><td>73</td><td>51</td><td>effect</td><td>-18</td></tr><tr><td>agricult</td><td>68</td><td>39</td><td>soil</td><td>-17</td></tr><tr><td>biodynam</td><td>51</td><td>148</td><td>on</td><td>-15</td></tr><tr><td>Steiner</td><td>47</td><td>21</td><td>horn</td><td>-15</td></tr><tr><td>definition</td><td>44</td><td>20</td><td>go</td><td>-14</td></tr><tr><td>specifications</td><td>42</td><td>20</td><td>small</td><td>-13</td></tr><tr><td>approach</td><td>40</td><td>22</td><td>an</td><td>-12</td></tr><tr><td>today</td><td>35</td><td>31</td><td>manure</td><td>-12</td></tr><tr><td>tools</td><td>25</td><td>19</td><td>leaves</td><td>-12</td></tr><tr><td>risk</td><td>25</td><td>18</td><td>tank</td><td>-10</td></tr><tr><td>organic</td><td>24</td><td>15</td><td>is-it</td><td>-9</td></tr><tr><td>view</td><td>23</td><td>12</td><td>material</td><td>-9</td></tr><tr><td>point</td><td>22</td><td>13</td><td>year</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr><td>expensive</td><td>19</td><td>9</td><td>trial</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr><td>copper</td><td>19</td><td>11</td><td>yeast</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr><td>question</td><td>19</td><td>21</td><td>pass</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr><td>course</td><td>18</td><td>10</td><td>message</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr><td>thing</td><td>17</td><td>41</td><td>stimulate</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr><td>ecosystem</td><td>17</td><td>9</td><td>improve</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Starred words</th><th colspan="2">Starred words</th></tr><tr><td>*q_definition</td><td>106</td><td>81</td><td>*biodyn_yes</td><td>-55</td></tr><tr><td>*q_procons</td><td>103</td><td>108</td><td>*q_actions</td><td>-38</td></tr><tr><td>*biodyn_no</td><td>55</td><td>68</td><td>*q Effects501</td><td>-30</td></tr><tr><td>*age_50</td><td>22</td><td>70</td><td>*q Effects500</td><td>-20</td></tr><tr><td>*certification_NA<sup>1</sup></td><td>9</td><td>91</td><td>*winerysize_&lt;20</td><td>-11</td></tr></tbody></table>

In this group, there is a noticeable absence of technical or operational terms related to biodynamics. Words like “silica”, “horn”, “soil”, “effects”, “sun”, “matter”, and “taste” are rarely mentioned.

If we attempt to construct a sentence using the identified lexemes, it could read as follows: “Biodynamics has both advantages and disadvantages. It is an approach linked to organic farming, defined by Steiner, whose ideas are compiled in the Agriculture Courses. Today, numerous questions and perspectives exist. It is an expensive and risky method, and the specifications are restrictive, limiting the use of copper, which heightens the risk of disease.”

This class illustrates a second representation of biodynamics: doubt about its effects and scepticism regarding the anthroposophical foundations of this method. This perspective raises concerns about the relevance of specifications and labels that render these practices restrictive and risky. Doubt and scepticism pose obstacles to the adoption of biodynamics, potentially deterring individuals from trying this production method.

In this group, 90% of the interviewees are either non-practitioners (45%) or non-certified practitioners (45%). The other characteristics follow the overall distribution of the entire panel (Table 5).

<footnote>NA¹: Not applicable; interviewees do not work in a winery. *: starred-words defining the interviewees characteristics and question type</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 5.** The main characteristics of Class 2 interviewees. The percentages represent the occurrence of each attribute among the interviewees of the class.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Class 2 Composition</th></tr><tr><th>Region</th><th colspan="3">Educational Background</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bordeaux</td><td>64%</td><td>Agronomist</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>Bourgogne</td><td>9%</td><td>Agronomist-Oenologist</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>Loire</td><td>18%</td><td>Oenologist</td><td>25%</td></tr><tr><td>Languedoc-Roussillon</td><td>9%</td><td>Vine and Wine Diploma</td><td>20%</td></tr><tr><th>Job Position</th><th colspan="3">Practitioners and Certifications</th></tr><tr><td>Owner</td><td>36%</td><td>Practitioner—Biodyvin—<br>Demeter</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Director</td><td>36%</td><td>Practitioner—Biodyvin</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>18%</td><td>Practitioner—Demeter</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Advisor</td><td>9%</td><td>Practitioner—Not Certified<br>Practitioner—NA¹</td><td>45%<br>0%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Not a practitioner—Not Certified</td><td>36%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Not a practitioner—NA¹</td><td>9%</td></tr></tbody></table>

NA¹: Not applicable; interviewees do not work in a winery.

### 3.2.4. Non-Certified Practitioners Are Focused on the Experimental Method to Demonstrate the Effects of Biodynamics on Their Terroir Without Constraints

Class 3 incorporates the following words: “trial”, “research”, “year”, “estate”, “plot”, “service”, “negative”, “people”, “friend”, “discuss”, “organic”, and “biodynamics”. These are primarily common nouns that define specific places and times, along with some dialogue verbs (Table 6, Figure 6).

<table><caption>**Table 6.** The most common and meaningful co-occurrences and co-exclusions of words and starred words defining Class 3.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Co-Occurrences</th><th colspan="3">Co-Exclusions</th></tr><tr><th>Words</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>Number of times the word appears in the class</th><th>Words</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>test</td><td>64</td><td>28</td><td>silica</td><td>-19</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>year</td><td>45</td><td>30</td><td>plant</td><td>-18</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>organic</td><td>44</td><td>41</td><td>soil</td><td>-17</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>winery</td><td>37</td><td>19</td><td>effect</td><td>-11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>period</td><td>30</td><td>12</td><td>inconvenient</td><td>-11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>since</td><td>27</td><td>14</td><td>horn</td><td>-10</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>people</td><td>26</td><td>26</td><td>today</td><td>-10</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>major</td><td>25</td><td>7</td><td>advantage</td><td>-8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>service</td><td>25</td><td>8</td><td>power</td><td>-8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>biody</td><td>24</td><td>8</td><td>agricult</td><td>-8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>winegrower</td><td>23</td><td>16</td><td>enable</td><td>-8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>plot</td><td>22</td><td>21</td><td>manure</td><td>-6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>because</td><td>22</td><td>42</td><td>give</td><td>-6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>discuss</td><td>21</td><td>6</td><td>tools</td><td>-6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Burgundy</td><td>21</td><td>6</td><td>living</td><td>-6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>transition</td><td>20</td><td>18</td><td>matter</td><td>-6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>negative</td><td>20</td><td>9</td><td>plant</td><td>-6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>research</td><td>20</td><td>9</td><td>message</td><td>-6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>back</td><td>18</td><td>6</td><td>use</td><td>-6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>luck</td><td>18</td><td>5</td><td>organism</td><td>-6</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Starred words</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>Number of times the word appears in the class</th><th>Starred words</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th></th></tr><tr><td>*q_practices</td><td>89</td><td>64</td><td>*certification_NA<sup>1</sup></td><td>-27</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>*winerysize_50-100</td><td>38</td><td>54</td><td>*biodyn_no</td><td>-27</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>*biodyn_yes</td><td>27</td><td>213</td><td>*q Effects501</td><td>-23</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>*jobpositionibil</td><td>20</td><td>114</td><td>*qousions</td><td>-14</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>*region_burgundy</td><td>15</td><td>73</td><td>*jobpositionAdvisor</td><td>-13</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NA¹: Not applicable; interviewees do not work in a winery. *: starred-words defining the interviewees characteristics and question type
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Word cloud showing which words are the most frequent in Class 3.</figcaption></figure>

There is limited use of terms related to biodynamic preparations and their potential effects, such as “silica”, “plant”, “soil”, “effect”, “living”, and “matter”.

A sentence that could encompass all the lexemes used by this group might be as follows: “To decide to transition from organic to biodynamic viticulture, one needs to conduct trials over several years across various estates and plots. Engaging in discussions with winemakers and other people is essential. This process requires research and time spent with friends to understand the major benefits of biodynamic viticulture, as well as its negative aspects. We are lucky to have this kind of exchange in Burgundy.”

Class 3 presents a representation that contrasts sharply with that defined by Class 1. This perspective lacks certainty, as these winemakers cannot articulate the advantages or disadvantages of specific preparations without a reflective approach tailored to each context. They need to experiment on their own terroir, across different plots and vintages. Acceptance of these methods comes through empirical observation and exchanges with fellow winegrowers and neighbours. No references are made to Steiner or the foundational principles of biodynamics.

In this class, we find that 73% are non-certified biodynamic practitioners, primarily from Bordeaux and Burgundy. They are mostly managers or directors with diverse backgrounds, committed to the experimental method within a specific terroir (Table 7).

<table><caption>**Table 7.** The main characteristics of Class 3 interviewees. The percentages represent the occurrence of each attribute among the interviewees of the class.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Class 3 Composition</th></tr><tr><th>Region</th><th colspan="3">Educational Background</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bordeaux</td><td>64%</td><td>Agronomist</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>Bourgogne</td><td>27%</td><td>Agronomist-Oenologist</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td>Loire</td><td>0%</td><td>Oenologist</td><td>36%</td></tr><tr><td>Languedoc-Roussillon</td><td>9%</td><td>Vine and Wine Diploma</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><th>Job Position</th><th colspan="3">Practitioners and Certifications</th></tr><tr><td>Owner</td><td>36%</td><td>Practitioner—<br>Biodyvin—Demeter</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Director</td><td>45%</td><td>Practitioner—Biodyvin</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>9%</td><td>Practitioner—Demeter</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Advisor</td><td>9%</td><td>Practitioner—Not Certified</td><td>73%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Practitioner—NA<sup>1</sup></td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Not a practitioner—Not<br>Certified</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Not a practitioner—NA<sup>1</sup></td><td>0%</td></tr></tbody></table>

NA¹: Not applicable; interviewees do not work in a winery.
### 3.2.5. Hedonist Practitioners, Whether Certified or Not, Curious About the Effects That Biodynamics Can Have on Wine

Class 4 includes the following words: "grape", "harvest", "wine", "vat", "indigenous yeast", "extraction", "ageing", "taste", "savour", "prefer", and "smell". These terms reflect the semantic field of harvest and winemaking, along with verbs related to perception (Table 8, Figure 7).

<table><caption>**Table 8.** The most common and meaningful co-occurrences and co-exclusions of words and starred words defining Class 4.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Co-Occurrences</th><th colspan="2">Co-Exclusions</th></tr><tr><th>Words</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>Number of times the word appears in the class</th><th>Words</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>wine</td><td>130</td><td>88</td><td>soil</td><td>-16</td></tr><tr><td>tank</td><td>119</td><td>30</td><td>plant</td><td>-9</td></tr><tr><td>yeast</td><td>95</td><td>25</td><td>inconvenient</td><td>-9</td></tr><tr><td>ferment</td><td>74</td><td>17</td><td>life</td><td>-7</td></tr><tr><td>taste</td><td>66</td><td>18</td><td>part</td><td>-7</td></tr><tr><td>indigenous</td><td>51</td><td>9</td><td>silica</td><td>-7</td></tr><tr><td>ageing</td><td>50</td><td>10</td><td>then</td><td>-6</td></tr><tr><td>pied_de_cuve</td><td>46</td><td>15</td><td>horn</td><td>-6</td></tr><tr><td>bottle</td><td>45</td><td>9</td><td>advantage</td><td>-6</td></tr><tr><td>grapes</td><td>39</td><td>18</td><td>allow</td><td>-6</td></tr><tr><td>harvest</td><td>36</td><td>14</td><td>manure</td><td>-5</td></tr><tr><td>prefer</td><td>34</td><td>6</td><td>action</td><td>-5</td></tr><tr><td>smell</td><td>29</td><td>9</td><td>level</td><td>-5</td></tr><tr><td>wine-making</td><td>29</td><td>10</td><td>organic</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr><td>drink</td><td>28</td><td>7</td><td>talk</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr><td>extraction</td><td>28</td><td>6</td><td>simple</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr><td>vintage</td><td>24</td><td>12</td><td>plant</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr><td>Brettanomyces</td><td>22</td><td>4</td><td>message</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr><td>glass</td><td>22</td><td>7</td><td>stimulate</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr><td>analysis</td><td>22</td><td>6</td><td>vineyard</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Starred words</th><th colspan="2">Starred words</th></tr><tr><td>*q_wine-making</td><td>302</td><td>73</td><td>*q_proscons</td><td>-19</td></tr><tr><td>*q_wine</td><td>79</td><td>27</td><td>*q Effects500</td><td>-18</td></tr><tr><td>*certificationDemeter</td><td>20</td><td>37</td><td>*q_definition</td><td>-16</td></tr><tr><td>*jobposition_owned</td><td>9</td><td>75</td><td>*q_actions</td><td>-12</td></tr><tr><td>*biodyn_yes</td><td>7</td><td>141</td><td>*certification_NA<sup>1</sup></td><td>-10</td></tr></tbody></table>

NA¹: Not applicable; interviewees do not work in a winery. *: starred-words defining the interviewees characteristics and question type

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Word cloud showing which words are the most frequent in Class 4.</figcaption></figure>
There is also a limited use of terms associated with biodynamic preparations and their potential effects, such as “silica”, “plant”, “soil”, “effect”, “living”, and “matter”.

If we combine all these words into a single sentence, it could read as follows:

“The harvest and wine-making are tailored to optimise the quality of the grapes, with fermentations conducted in tanks using indigenous yeasts through pieds de cuve. The extractions are gentle and followed by tasting and smelling the wine. However, the risk of developing Brettanomyces during ageing or in the bottle can be higher, necessitating more thorough analysis of the wine.”

In this class, we find both certified (18%) and non-certified (82%) biodynamic practitioners, with most coming from Bordeaux. A significant portion are oenologists (63%) holding various positions in the industry, all curious about the effects that biodynamics can have on wine (Table 9).

<table><caption>**Table 9.** The main characteristics of Class 4 interviewees. The percentages represent the occurrence of each attribute among the interviewees of the class.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Class 3 Composition</th></tr><tr><th>Region</th><th colspan="3">Educational Background</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bordeaux</td><td>91%</td><td>Agronomist</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Bourgogne</td><td>9%</td><td>Agronomist-Oenologist</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>Loire</td><td>0%</td><td>Oenologist</td><td>36%</td></tr><tr><td>Languedoc-Roussillon</td><td>0%</td><td>Vine and Wine Diploma</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><th>Job Position</th><th colspan="3">Practitioners and Certifications</th></tr><tr><td>Owner</td><td>36%</td><td>Practitioner—Biodyvin—<br>Demeter</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Director</td><td>36%</td><td>Practitioner—Biodyvin</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>18%</td><td>Practitioner—Demeter</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Advisor</td><td>9%</td><td>Practitioner—Not Certified</td><td>73%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Practitioner—NA¹</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Not a practitioner—Not<br>Certified</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Not a practitioner—NA¹</td><td>0%</td></tr></tbody></table>

NA¹: Not applicable; interviewees do not work in a winery.

# 4. Discussion

Textual analysis using Alceste software has allowed us to describe four representations of biodynamics that currently exist within the French wine industry.

## 4.1. Semantic Analysis: One Understanding Among Many

Naturally, these representations are not exhaustive. This type of analysis has its limitations. First, it is challenging to assemble a panel that accurately represents such a multifaceted industry. In this case, only 30 individuals were interviewed, primarily from the Bordeaux region. This group of individuals does not encompass all regions, positions, or areas of expertise within the industry. Second, as noted by Kalampalikis and Fracchiolla, discourse is not merely semantic production; it encompasses a complete system of verbal devices, such as redundancy and metaphors, as well as non-verbal devices like body language and silences [18,29]. When viewed as a system, discourse is intrinsically linked to the character and socio-cultural context of each interviewee. Therefore, focusing solely on semantics is reductive [18].

## 4.2. Biodynamics as a Knowledge Dialogue

The classes identified in this study reveal different representations of biodynamics. Individual opinions and understandings of this method coexist within the French wine
industry. According to Jean Foyer, in representations of biodynamics, “we constantly find, but in variously balanced proportions, this tension between different epistemic registers—peasant, scientific and esoteric” [30].

According to Rosset & Martinez-Torres, agroecology is a collective construction built upon knowledge that originated from individual experiences [31]. Boujemaa examined the training and learning of agroecological methods among Bolivian farmers, which was facilitated by scientists, agronomists, and biologists. The learning process involves both assimilation (integrating new ideas into the learner's trajectory without deconstructing it) and accommodation (transforming the learner's perspective into a new structure, better suited to incorporate the new ideas presented). Assimilation is most effective when the learner's prior knowledge is acknowledged. Accommodation, on the other hand, necessitates a confrontation of ideas. Both processes are effective only if the system is willing to move beyond its established norms and accept the need for change. Systems with a strong identity tend to be less open to change through either assimilation or accommodation. Learning becomes richer when it involves structures of prior knowledge that are connected to culture, training, individual trajectories, and the confrontation of different opinions and perspectives [32].

The diverse representations of biodynamics and their coexistence can present an opportunity to foster a new understanding of agriculture during the transition we are currently experiencing. For example, Jean Foyer describes biodynamics as a form of “syncretism,” suggesting that different ways of thinking can lead to new representations and applications [30].

### 4.3. Biodynamics: Between Traditional and Integral Worldviews

The four classes identified in this study align with some of the agricultural worldviews developed by Cyril Rigolot [17].

The modern worldview corresponds to Class 1, representing a materialist perspective in which science serves as the primary source of knowledge and technology as the means of progress. As Rigolot explains, this rational and objective worldview can create a separation between humanity and nature, which is viewed merely as an instrument [17].

Classes 3 and 4 reflect the postmodern worldview, where contextualised experimentation is the only approach deemed valid. Social exchange among groups with differing visions or perceptions is considered essential for the construction of knowledge. Rigolot associates this worldview with diversity, creativity, authenticity, and imagination [17]. This perspective is often emphasised in the course for farmers, where Steiner referred to the “path of knowledge,” a reflective approach through which each individual constructs their own understanding, tailored to the uniqueness of their context and awareness [1].

Rigolot identifies two additional agricultural worldviews: the traditional and the integral worldview.

The traditional worldview places significant emphasis on religious metaphysics, scriptures, doctrines, and religious leaders [17]. Class 2 of our study critiques the esoteric foundations of biodynamics in their metaphysical aspect. Biodynamics is frequently associated with a religion in the industry, and biodynamic practitioners are often perceived as gurus. This perspective may alienate a considerable number of farmers, as it critiques a biodynamic worldview that closely resembles the traditional one. Alexandre Grandjean, in his study of biodynamic practices in Switzerland, demonstrates that most practitioners distance themselves from the anthroposophical roots of biodynamics [12].

The integral worldview adopts a more holistic approach, integrates systems that are frequently seen as contradictory: science and spirituality, humanity and nature [17]. Unfortunately, this worldview is not represented in our study. What if biodynamics were
not a religion, but rather a holistic and transdisciplinary approach that could restore the connection between nature, rhythms, and humanity?

Jean Foyer emphasises two crucial concepts in alternative agriculture such as biodynamics: care and companionship [33]. Practitioners of these methods cultivate bonds with their plants and environment, fostering relationships of reciprocity and affection. They closely observe ecological processes, plant movements, and the development of companion plants, as well as the roles of microorganisms, birds, and bats. They engage with the dynamics of the living world, are trained across a diverse range of disciplines, and remain open to various forms of knowledge. The principles of health, respect, transmission, and sustainability are central to these agricultural practices [33].

### 4.4. Biodynamic Preparations: The Most Concrete and Practical Application of Biodynamics

Biodynamics is a vast subject, and the scientific community is grappling with how to explore it effectively. One of the aims of this study was to identify the effects of biodynamic preparations based on the empirical perspectives of the sector. This approach could allow research to prioritise analyses and focus on the effects that are most relevant to production.

The findings indicate that, from the empirical viewpoint of winegrowers, the effects of horn silica (501) and horn manure should be assessed in terms of plant growth, canopy structure, photosynthesis, and soil microorganisms. Certain research institutes are beginning to investigate the impacts of biodynamic management, yielding interesting results that support the empirical perspectives of the sector.

Some studies analysing the effects on plants have shown that biodynamically managed vines exhibit shorter shoots, shorter internodes, fewer secondary shoots, and reduced vigour, while maintaining better water use efficiency [34] and lower stomatal conductance [35]. These plants appear to be less susceptible than untreated plants to cryptogamic diseases such as mildew, grey mould, and acid rot [34,35], likely linked to enhanced enzymatic activity on the leaves [36,37].

Regarding soil, some studies indicate that the composition and abundance of microorganisms in biodynamically managed soils are comparable to those in organically managed soils [38]. Others suggest that soils treated with biodynamic preparations host distinct microbial communities, with their microbial composition aligning closely with that of the preparations themselves [39]. These soils demonstrate the presence of growth-promoting microorganisms—those that can enhance plant growth and protect against diseases and abiotic stress by producing hormones [39,40]. Microbial networks appear to differ between biodynamic and organic vineyard management. Ortiz-Alvarez has shown that the microbial networks in soils treated with biodynamic preparations exhibit a high clustering coefficient and few niche specialisations. This characteristic may reinforce soil homeostasis, making it more resilient to the arrival or loss of certain species in response to biotic or abiotic stresses [41].

Current research topics align with the empirical observations of practitioners and could provide valuable insights for those seeking tangible answers regarding this type of viticulture. However, additional field and laboratory studies are needed to assess the effects of this cultural method and to reassure winegrowers who remain sceptical about the principles of biodynamics.

Currently, there are few studies investigating the effects on wine quality.

## 5. Conclusions

This study has provided an overview of the various representations of biodynamics within the French wine industry. Four perspectives have been described in this analysis,
yet many other viewpoints exist within the sector. These diverse perspectives represent a rich resource that can be leveraged and confronted to help agricultural systems evolve.

Steiner's fundamentals can pose obstacles to the practical application of biodynamics in viticulture. It is crucial to move beyond these foundational principles and develop one's own reasoning in order to embrace and reinvent these practices. Biodynamics fosters a relationship between the plant, the environment, and the farmer through a transdisciplinary and holistic approach. An increasing number of experimental studies demonstrate the effects of biodynamic preparations on soil microorganisms and plant resilience. To translate these findings into biodynamic practices, collaboration between scientists and practitioners is essential, taking into account the holistic vision of practitioners while defining effective and reproducible methods in the field.

To assist winemakers in developing their own methods based on solid evidence, it is necessary to define clear hypotheses regarding the effects of biodynamic practices by formulating specific, field-testable scenarios and standardising traits and measurement methods to allow for the comparison of datasets over time and across different terroirs. This involves designing controlled experiments; establishing protocols that include both control and biodynamically treated modalities for comparison; collecting quantitative and qualitative data; including biological measurements and practitioner observations; analysing the collected data using appropriate statistical techniques to determine the significance of the results; and publishing and sharing findings for validation and practical application.

A transdisciplinary approach that encompasses all existing representations within the wine industry—such as field experiments, fundamental biological research, participatory studies, and social and anthropological investigations—is essential for the understanding, acceptance, and evolution of biodynamics in viticulture.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/horticulturae11091114/s1; Figure S1: List of questions asked to interviewees during semi-structured interviews.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualisation, L.G.-D. and M.B.d.L.; methodology, F.B.; validation, L.G.-D.; investigation, M.B.d.L.; original draft preparation, M.B.d.L.; writing—review and editing, M.B.d.L., F.B. and L.G.-D.; supervision, L.G.-D.; project administration, L.G.-D. and M.B.d.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was supported by the "Fonds d'initiatives Lafite" (FIL).

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to ethical considerations and participant anonymity.

**Acknowledgments:** We hereby acknowledge the financial contribution from the "Fonds d'initiatives Lafite" (FIL) in support of this research. We extend our gratitude to all participants for their time and valuable insights.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.

## References

1. Steiner, R.; Bideau, M.; Durr, G.; Pfeiffer, E. *Agriculture: Fondements Spirituels de la Méthode Bio-Dynamique*; Koberwitz (Silésie): 8 conférences, allocution, réponses aux questions (7 au 16 juin 1924), Dornach: Conférence du 20 juin 1924 (5e éd); Editions, 11, rue Verdaine, 1204; Anthroposophiques Romandes: Genève, Switzerland, 2002; pp. 104–115.

2. Demeter. Available online: https://www.demeter.fr/notre-histoire/ (accessed on 10 February 2024).

3. Goetheanum, Agricultural Section. Available online: https://www.sektion-landwirtschaft.org/ (accessed on 8 February 2024).

4. Syndicat International des Vignerons en Culture Bio-Dynamique, SIVCBD «Biodyvin», Accueil, Le syndicat, Présentation. Available online: https://www.biodyvin.com/fr/le-syndicat/presentation.html (accessed on 10 February 2024).
5. Demeter, Biodynamic Federation. Biodynamic Preparations, Good Practice Manual. 2020. Available online: https://demeter.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Demeter-Biodynamic-Preparations-Manual_2020.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2024).

6. Syndicat international des Vignerons en Culture Bio-Dynamique, SIVCBD «Biodyvin», Cahier des Charges. 2020. Available online: https://www.biodyvin.com/medias/cVS61pAqjF7g/files/Cahier%20des%20charges%20Biodyvin%20-%20Viticulture%20&%20Vinification.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2024).

7. Demeter France. Viticulture et Vinification sur un Domaine Demeter, Fiche Technique. 2024. Available online: https://www.demeter.fr/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FT-2024-Viticulture.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2024).

8. Paull, J.; Hennig, B. A World Map of Biodynamic Agriculture. *Agric. Biol. Sci. J.* **2020**, *6*, 114–119.

9. Agroscope; FiBL; ETH (Eds.) *Comparing Organic and Conventional Agricultural Cropping Systems—What Can Be Learned from the DOK and Other Long-Term Trials?* Congressi Stefano Francini: Ascona, Switzerland, 2019.

10. Biodynamie Recherche. Available online: https://biodynamie-recherche.org/ (accessed on 8 February 2024).

11. Soin de la Terre. Available online: https://www.soin-de-la-terre.org/ (accessed on 10 February 2024).

12. Grandjean, A. Créativités agronomiques et rituelles dans les vignobles suisses. Une étude des engagements pluriels dans la viticulture biodynamique. *Ethnol. Française* **2021**, *51*, 502–512. [CrossRef]

13. Ministère de l'agriculture et de la souveraineté alimentaire. Le plan Ecophyto, Qu'est-ce que c'est? Le plan Ecophyto 2+, Disponible sur. Available online: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/le-plan-ecophyto-quest-ce-que-cest (accessed on 10 February 2024).

14. Gouvernement. La Stratégie Nationale Biodiversité 2030. Available online: https://biodiversite.gouv.fr/la-strategie-nationale-biodiversite-2030 (accessed on 10 February 2024).

15. Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et de la Cohésion des Territoires. Stratégie Nationale Bas Carbone (SNBC). Available online: https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/strategie-nationale-bas-carbone-snbc (accessed on 10 February 2024).

16. Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et de la Cohésion des Territoires. Adaptation de la France au Changement Climatique. Available online: https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/adaptation-france-au-changement-climatique (accessed on 10 February 2024).

17. Rigolot, C. Une approche évolutive des «visions du monde» pour penser les transformations de l'agriculture. *Cahiers Agric.* **2017**, *26*, 1–7. [CrossRef]

18. Fracchiolla, B. Albin Wagener, 2019. Discours et système. Théorie systémique du discours et Analyse des représentations (Bruxelles: P. Lang, coll. Gramm-R 46). *Argum. Anal. Du Discours* **2021**, *27*, 293. [CrossRef]

19. Morse, J.M. Strategies for sampling. In *Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue*; Morse, J.M., Ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1991; pp. 127–145.

20. Morse, J.M. Designing qualitative research. In *Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry*; Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., Eds.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994; pp. 220–235.

21. Guest, G.; Bunce, A.; Johnson, L. How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. *Field Methods* **2006**, *18*, 59–82. [CrossRef]

22. Benzécri, J.-P. *Pratique de L'analyse des Données, Linguistique et Lexicologie*; Dunod: Paris, France, 1981.

23. Reinert, M. Une méthode de classification descendante hiérarchique, application à l'analyse lexicale par contexte. *Les Cah. L'analyse Données* **1983**, *8*, 187–198.

24. Marpsat, M. La méthode Alceste. *Sociologie* **2010**, *1*, 1. Available online: http://journals.openedition.org/sociologie/312 (accessed on 15 February 2024).

25. Vaguet, Y.; Jeanne, P.; Le discours des Sciences Sociales sur l'Arctique. Analyse lexicale des résumés de l'ICASS. *Cybergeo Eur. J. Geogr.* **2022**. Available online: https://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/38293 (accessed on 15 February 2024).

26. Brochet, F.; Dubourdieu, D. Wine Descriptive Language Supports Cognitive Specificity of Chemical Senses. *Brain Lang.* **2001**, *77*, 187–196. [CrossRef]

27. Villatte, A.; de Léonardis, M. «Qui suis-je ?» Quelques spécificités du discours sur soi à l'adolescence chez les sujets à haut potentiel intellectuel. *Neuropsychiatr. L'enfance L'adolescence* **2012**, *60*, 101–107. [CrossRef]

28. Devienne, C.; Delpech, G.; Untas, A. La photo-expression: Un outil pour accompagner le patient en éducation thérapeutique et pour évaluer son évolution. *Prat. Psychol.* **2020**, *26*, 123–139. [CrossRef]

29. Kalampalikis, N.; Moscovici, S. Une approche pragmatique de l'analyse Alceste. *Les Cah. Int. Psychol. Soc. Numéro* **2005**, *66*, 15–24. [CrossRef]

30. Foyer, J. Syncrétisme des savoirs dans la viticulture biodynamique: Incorporation dans l'expérience et le sensible et trajectoire initiatique. *Rev. D'anthropologie Des Connaiss.* **2018**, *12*, 289–321. [CrossRef]

31. Rosset, P.M.; Martínez-Torres, M.E. Rural Social Movements and Agroecology: Context, Theory, and Process. *Ecol. Soc.* **2012**, *17*, 17. [CrossRef]

32. Boujemaa, A. Dialogue des savoirs et apprentissage en matière d'agroécologie. Le cas des paysans indigènes boliviens en formation. *Éducation Relat. à L'environnement* **2021**, *16*, 1. Available online: http://journals.openedition.org/ere/6439 (accessed on 15 February 2024).
33. Foyer, J.; Hermesse, J.; Hecquet, C. Quand les actes agricoles sont au care et au compagnonnage: L'exemple de la biodynamie. *Anthropologica* **2020**, *62*, 93-104. [CrossRef]

34. Meissner, G.; Athmann, M.E.; Fritz, J.; Kauer, R.; Stoll, M.; Schultz, H.R. Conversion to organic and biodynamic viticultural practices: Impact on soil, grapevine development and grape quality. *OENO One* **2019**, *53*, 639-659. [CrossRef]

35. Döring, J.; Frisch, M.; Tittmann, S.; Stoll, M.; Kauer, R. Growth, Yield and Fruit Quality of Grapevines under Organic and Biodynamic Management. *PLoS ONE* **2015**, *10*, e0138445. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

36. Botelho, R.V.; Roberti, R.; Tessarin, P.; Garcia-Mina, J.M.; Rombolà, A.D. Physiological responses of grapevines to biodynamic management. *Renew. Agric. Food Syst.* **2016**, *31*, 402-413. [CrossRef]

37. Soustre-Gacougnolle, I.; Lollier, M.; Schmitt, C.; Perrin, M.; Buvens, E.; Lallemand, J.-F.; Mermet, M.; Henaux, M.; Thibault-Carpentier, C.; Dembelé, D.; et al. Responses to climatic and pathogen threats differ in biodynamic and conventional vines. *Sci. Rep.* **2018**, *8*, 16857. [CrossRef]

38. Hendgen, M.; Hoppe, B.; Döring, J.; Friedel, M.; Kauer, R.; Frisch, M.; Dahl, A.; Kellner, H. Effects of different management regimes on microbial biodiversity in vineyard soils. *Sci. Rep.* **2018**, *8*, 9393. [CrossRef]

39. Milke, F.; Rodas-Gaitan, H.; Meissner, G.; Masson, V.; Oltmanns, M.; Möller, M.; Wohlfahrt, Y.; Kulig, B.; Acedo, A.; Athmann, M.; et al. Enrichment of putative plant growth promoting microorganisms in biodynamic compared with organic agriculture soils. *ISME Commun.* **2024**, *4*, ycae021. [CrossRef]

40. Radha, T.K.; Rao, D.L.N. Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria from Cow Dung Based Biodynamic Preparations. *Indian J. Microbiol.* **2014**, *54*, 413-418. [CrossRef]

41. Ortiz-Álvarez, R.; Ortega-Arranz, H.; Ontiveros, V.J.; de Celis, M.; Ravarani, C.; Acedo, A.; Belda, I. Network Properties of Local Fungal Communities Reveal the Anthropogenic Disturbance Consequences of Farming Practices in Vineyard Soils. *MSystems* **2021**, *6*, 10-1128. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.