Economic comparison of viticultural cultivation systems: evaluating costs across integrated, organic, and biodynamic practices

Abstract

The cost-effectiveness of a winery requires constant cost control in order to ensure competitiveness on the wine market. Primary production is therefore closely linked to the market situation and helps producers to maintain economic viability even in years of weak sales (Dixon & Viticulturist, 2023). The ongoing challenge of increasingly sustainable production therefore requires a compromise to be found between environmental benefits, economic advantages and production costs (Falcone et al., 2016). Management also plays a crucial role, as it affects the economy through resource and energy input and output (Lin et al., 2017). The rising labour and input costs in the past few years (Federal Statistical Office Germany, 2024; Statista, 2024a) are encouraging a conversion of management to greater mechanisation. The cost-benefit ratio resulting from this varies with increasing farm size and the investment risk for the purchase of machinery decreases (Signorini & Ivey, 2023). Operational availability of machines depends on key factors such as accessibility of the vineyards, row orientation and the training system. As a result, the potential cost savings can differ considerably depending on these factors (Strub et al., 2021). Labour costs are regulated by legal wage conditions. Individual investments in mechanisation can create realistic cost savings and at the same time prevent labour shortages (Signorini & Ivey, 2023).  The differences between integrated, organic and biodynamic viticulture are generally known. The current data on financial performance is still very limited, however. For agriculture, the results of Crowder & Reganold (2015) out of a global meta-analysis of 55 crops, show a higher profitability of organic farming, despite low yields and without taking subsidies into account.