You can watch the entire ARTE broadcast on Montsanto mentioned by Nicolas Joly here (in French): http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-7942619273555709195

M. Joly writes "How much too much of a good thing is a problem.
We need oxygen, but too much oxygen will burn your lungs very fast. Should you for that reason forbid oxygen?" Frankly, I'm baffled by his letter. The simple fact is that Demeter has played 'catch-up' with the wine industry. Rudolf Steiner made one passing reference to vines in his Agricultural talks of 1924. Indeed, he had virtually no experience with agriculture. He planted potatoes as a child, occasionally helped birth a calf. By the time he had delivered his talks, out of which Biodynamics was born, and just months from his death, his philosophy was fully developed. He simply laid its grid-work over the subject of farming.
And just as with Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, all those who pass before their time, there is nothing more tempting than to 'complete' their work.
I meet people here on the left coast who believe in ghosts, transubstantiation, UFOs, telekinesis, spoon-bending, witchcraft, remote-seeing, reincarnation, Diebold Machines, that the earth is flat, in the laying on of hands, Scientology, retrogression therapy, ECK, AA, that Jack Bauer is real, Moonies, that life is an illusion, let's mention wine rating points, Robert Parker... and so many more. They can't all be right!?
Fun post, Alice.

KenP it's not a fun post, you're making a caricature out of it. Sure thing: for rational people the biodynamic approach seem to be "over the top", but nobody's questioning the skills of Nicolas Joly e tutti quanti anymore... What Americans do believe in "left" coast I don't know, but i've been in Georgia last year and sometimes i had to call Scotty to beam me up...

Geert, I think something has been lost in translation here. Cheers.

Ken, if I remember my chemistry right, oxygen is a strong solvent and acid. I think that's what Joly was getting at. However, I don't see the connection between that (a hypothetical) and purposefully putting a poison onto your soil, even though the soil is "healthy" and can metabolize it. (how much and for how long...?)
I think its funny that Joly accuses the chemical industry of propagating the story that copper is toxic. Maybe they do have trouble selling their poisons (thought I doubt it judging from the look of my area's vineyards). But the fact that copper is a toxin, even at the levels he is applying, is an undisputed fact.
And there are alternatives...

That's a little disquieting--there is not a single statement of fact in M. Joly's comments that is responsive to your question about safety. If there's an answer out there, he doesn't seem to have it.

Alice:

FWIW, Cornell's Pesticide Management Education Program has a very usable website up that details toxicities of the various pesticides OK'd for use in the US.
The page dealing with copper sulfate is accessible here... http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/copper-sulfate-ext.html.

I have to agree with others here who are saying that copper sulfate is toxic. The less you use, the better off you are. There *is* a case to be made that copper additions can spur growth in some plants, leading to the belief that copper applications are actually good for the plant. After all, copper is an essential trace element in most living organic systems. But the quantities involved in spraying Bordeaux, and the method of application are more geared to disease prevention, and will certainly be at least mildly toxic for many organisms in the soil.
Even if that weren't the case, what would allow us to so readily accept a treatment of a heavy metal to aid the vine when things like chemical fertilizers are so soundly rejected?

If you really want to know whether copper is toxic, go out and take a picture of people spraying it in the vyds.
I guarantee you that they'll look more like your second picture here, workers trying to put as many layers of protection between themselves and the sprays they're broadcasting.

Actually, I do believe that Nicolas addressed the copper issue, though I do wish he would have given it more acknowledgment.

His point is that a little is OK, maybe even beneficial. Too much is toxic and it seems connected to how healthy soil is to begin with.

I really don't believe there needs to be a lot of research in proving the wisdom of BD (Like who cares? The proof is in the glass), this copper issue could stand some honorable science by an outside party, with nothing to prove, to pinpoint how much is indeed too much.

The fact that some copper is beneficial seems well documented, at least in folklore.

There might be a lot of kerflooey in the following, but there are probably kernels of truth. (From www.drlwilson.com/articles/
copper_toxicity_syndrome.htm)

++
Copper is an essential trace mineral that is vitally important for both physical and mental health. It has been studied for years, including at government laboratories. However, its importance for health is still largely unappreciated. The following article is an introduction to the large subject of copper imbalance. The author is deeply indebted to Dr. Paul C. Eck, an avid copper researcher.

COPPER'S ROLE IN THE BODY

++Copper is critical for energy production in the cells. It is also involved in nerve conduction, connective tissue, the cardiovascular system and the immune system. Copper is closely related to estrogen metabolism, and is required for women's fertility and to maintain pregnancy. Copper stimulates production of the neurotransmitters epinephrine, norepinephrine and dopamine. It is also required for monoamine oxidase, an enzyme related to serotonin production.++

Hank, Of course, too much oxygen will burn your lungs etc., just as too many feathers can smother you, but as a practical matter this rarely happens (although in hospitals, foundries and duvet factories it occurs from time to time). I was being facetious, yesterday having been April Fools Day, after all. But about copper (Cu), our exposure is quite routine, from the pennies in our pocket to the plumbing in our homes and in multivitamins. Further, we know Cu, as a micro-nutrient, is fundamental to plant physiology (http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-04202005000100012). More importantly, Cu is found in plants themselves. One wonders if this might, in part, account for the efficacy seen in the plant-derived sprays advocated by BD. Now, copper is often used in the winery itself to 'clean' a wine of spoiling sulphur compounds, the byproduct of stuck fermentations and the like. And here BD has little to say. My larger point was the BD began as a very general approach to farming, a one-size-fits-all approach. This was largely a consequence of Steiner's global philosophy; his writings are a smothering explanation of all possible human experience, a system-building impulse so beloved to generations of the German intellectual tradition. Jumping ahead, winemaking was for BD an afterthought; a vineyard's specific demands was not of a foundational concern. Hence, BD has had to play catch-up to skilled vignerons. Shaded and contorted interpretations of Steiner's 1924 Ag lectures were required to address winemaking's focussed requirements. And this is where the difficulties and controversies surrounding BD are located, where Steiner's undisciplined, wild writings on every subject in the universe collides with the puritanical, controlling agency that is Demeter, Int. And winery practice is a case in point. A certified winemaker may add anything s/he wishes, manipulate to the heart's content. In fact, I would go so far to say that it might be possible to make a Demeter certified Mega Purple!
In any event, I gone on too long. Cheers.

"it might be possible to make a Demeter certified Mega Purple! "

I'm sure its been done..secretly, of course, but with the best of spiritual intentions!

Joly is such an amazing idiot. When I read his arguments, I always imagine them arguing the exact reverse, and it is always equally (im)plausible.

Oh Joe....really, Nicolas is a luft mensch, but he has done a truly great thing with the Return to Terroir. That group is beyond BD. It really took a stand, brought the concept of authentic wines to international attention with his zealousness. He is an observer, not a scientist. And you are in the business of science… of sorts. Of course you are at odds with him.

I align with Nicolas, because I too shoot from an emotional hip. No matter what you think of the man, or BD (even though you do drink quite a number of BD wines---copper and all) you can't deny ( I think) his major contribution to the wine world, can you?

The question of copper (and sulfur) is one that I wrestled with for quite a while before choosing which way to go with my own vines. In the end, I opted to forego the organic label and chose -- specifically -- penetrating, synthesized fungicides specially designed to have no impact on the soil, and to last only 14 days in the vine (at least, that's what it says on the label, and if I trust Bayer with my aspirin, I guess I should trust them with my pinot noir).

It was this choice alone that prevented me from having the organic designation, as all the rest of my viticulture is organic.

My decision was based to a large extent on the following: The recommended dose for copper as a fungicide -- I'll use Dupont's Kocide as an example, because it's what I use for late-season treatments -- is 4.5kg/ha, with copper hydroxide representing 53.8% of that total. Normally, the bio guys treat around 10 times per season, so we're talking more than 24kg of pure copper in the vineyard per season, an amount which is cumulative, depending on annual rainfall. And that's leaving aside years like 2007, when some bio guys had to treat 12-13 times. In addition to the toxicity issue, there's also the issue of casse cuprique, which can emerge in wines when the level of copper builds up in the soil, and can necessitate an additional manipulation with gum arabic or something else that no one with any sense wants in their wine.

The same argument holds for sulfur, except that it's somewhat less toxic. In the end, my choice was made by weighing the options and going with what had the least amount of long-term impact on the soil, and which provided the best protection of the vines. As I'm still fairly new in this game, we'll see whether I was sensible. But so far, so good.

PS: Can't wait to read the book.

"and if I trust Bayer with my aspirin, I guess I should trust them with my pinot noir"

Truly a scary and illogical statement.

Joly is a great guy, you want to agree with him solely because of his convictions, but please take it with a grain of salt. I worry too about copper, but is copper the whole story?

Blair:

With regard to your comment...
"Normally, the bio guys treat around 10 times per season, so we're talking more than 24kg of pure copper in the vineyard per season, an amount which is cumulative, depending on annual rainfall."

Your numbers here are FAR in excess of what is typically cited by a conscientious French biodynamie/natural grower.
In conversation with vignerons at their facilities, and often looking at their spray schedules while discussing, the numbers employed seem to be far closer to Joly's than yours; total per annum application of Cu (as Cu alone) is on the order of 3.0 to 5.0 kg/hectare. References for this are people like Angeli, Tissot, Cousin, Frick, etc.
These people seem fairly consistent on this. They also seem consistent in their belief that the vyd would do best without any copper sprays at all if disease incidence could otherwise be kept to a minimum.
Joly's assertion that 3 to 5 kgs per hectare per year is good for the vines seems odd, given that people are working so hard to reduce copper-based sprays, that the EU is moving towards a total ban on spraying copper, that vines in the wild have thrived for millenia without such applications, etc, etc, etc.
I think that the "3-5" number is probably what most vineyard ecosystems can handle without any outward signs of degradation or copper build-up. This is probably particularly true of those systems with high rainfalls and thriving and varied populations of florae and faunae (both micro and macro). But, as with most of these things, there's a bit of hubris attached to the notion that "no negative effect as noted by humans" is equivalent to "no negative effect".

Another point of view on this - if your soil is truly healthy and biologically active and balanced, then the incidence of disease should be small indeed. Healthy plants do not get "sick". Joly's (and others) continual use of copper points to an imbalance in the soil, signaling the fungus to "take out the weak vines", as it were. (remember, fungi are Nature's clean-up crew, there to decompose dead and dying tissue).
Could it be that this very use of copper causes this imbalance over time?

Of-course we all need potassium too - is too much a bad thing ..... ;-)

Alice,

I think there are a lot of people whose hearts are in the right place, including some in full bio, who want nothing to do with Joly and are embarrassed by his prominence in the movement. The fact that he has run to the front of the parade with his trumpet does not in itself incline me to salute.

As for the Bayer antifungal, I have no idea.

But endless treatment with persistent heavy metals is very unlikely to be good for the mycorrhizal fungi in the soil, and thus for vine health. (The Coulee de Serrant is no poster vineyard for vine health, either. those vines look like my late houseplants in their final months.)