The notion that wines produced biodynamically are necessarily more expensive than other wines because of the additional constraints that biodynamics imposes, is relatively common. Well, in my opinion, the reality is a bit more complex. In this section I hope to shed light on the subject, both for you as a wine lover, and for producers who hesitate to change their methods because of the additional costs involved.
First of all, let us look into cultivation costs. It is clear that biodynamics generally entails an increase in working hours and therefore, increased labour costs. This refers most specifically to the time spent meticulously carrying out the various grape-growing tasks: ploughing (possibly even with horses), tasks done during vine growth (disbudding, and so on), manual harvesting; and, above all, work specific to biodynamics: the preparation of dynamisations and the spraying of the preparations and infusions, the spreading of prepared compost, observance of lunar rythms, and ‘sensitive’ observance of one’s vines. The former tasks can be very time consuming and generally depend on how demanding the winegrower is. Yet, they are not at all exclusive to biodynamics. With respect to the latter tasks, which are the only additional biodynamic work, the extra time spent is not really significant, and I would estimate it to be between ten and twenty hours per hectare, annually. It essentially involves organisational issues such as working early in the morning or late in the evening to spread the preparations. In general, most of this slight cost increase is offset by a significant reduction in the purchasing costs of agrochemical products. Insecticides, herbicides, systemic fungicides and other anti-rot products are actually very expensive compared to sulphur, copper and natural plants. Collecting a bag of fresh nettle in the spring is not very costly! For me, I am very happy if, for the same price, I can spend less on chemical products and machines, and more on human labour.
Before leaving the subject of production costs, I would like to address the issue of yields. It is clear that, in the short-term, yield directly determines the profitability of an agricultural enterprise. The cost of producing 30 hectolitres (4,000 bottles), 60 hectolitres (8,000 bottles) or 90 hectolitres of wine (12,000 bottles) from one parcel of vines is essentially the same. The quality will, of course, be very different in each of the three cases. This depends on the choices made by the grower, and on the rigorously regulated statutes of the French appellation contrôlée system. Yet, I must say that biodynamics can certainly be applied whatever the chosen yield level. It is absolutely wrong to think that it would automatically lead to a reduction in yields. The biodynamic grower has at his disposal preparations which aim to increase vigour and therefore grape production, and other preparations that decrease it.
The following quote from the director of a large estate in Burgundy, based in Beaune, reflects my point of view: ‘Contrary to preconceived ideas, applying biodynamic methods leads neither to a significant reduction in yields, nor to any noticeable increase in production costs, compared to conventional agriculture’.
I would like to make here a general comment about the problems associated with reduction of costs through the implementation in agriculture of the industrial model. During the first years of my professional career, I devoted myself to optimising the production costs of supply and distribution, primarily in large factories. I worked as an organisational consultant in various industrial sectors: automobile, petrol, pharmaceutical, and animal feed. With the industrial model, the pursuit of cost optimisation (based on the theory of monetary scarcity) initially involves the standardisation of processes and products (‘fordism’ in the automotive industry at the beginning of the twentieth century). The standardisation of processes also imposes the standardisation of raw materials. Otherwise, how could a unique and consistent formula be maintained if different raw materials were used? Thus, dear reader, it is particularly important to be aware of this key point: agricultural commodities are naturally variable because they come from living organisms. ‘Living’ means ‘diverse’, but certainly not ‘standardised’ to which it is opposed. For me, this is the fundamental reason for which the industrial model’s way of reasoning (cost optimisation through process standardisation) is a denial of life and cannot apply itself sustainably to agriculture. Denial of this evidence pulls agriculture into a vicious circle that usually leads rather quickly to a significant loss of quality, and sometimes later, the opposite of the desired goals: a decrease in production linked to a decrease in soil fertility, and an increase in costs from the purchase of agrochemical products.
First example: the decision to consolidate land in favour of mechanisation and productivity. In the end, it was realised (in Europe) a bit too late that the destruction of hedges leads, on one hand, to a visible decrease in the biodiversity of fauna and flora (birds and insects in particular), and rapid soil erosion through the loss of clay on the other. This second point is critical because it leads to a loss of soil fertility within a few decades. As a result, many specialists foresee the risk of a significant reduction in the land’s productivity within the next ten to twenty years.
Second example: the standardisation of crops which is a denial of the notion of terroir. One talks about vine terroir, but there is also wheat terroir, asparagus terroir, carrot terroir, and so on. Because of pressure from the animal feed industry, we can witness aberrations such as generalised corn production in Alsace, a region in northeast France. Corn, however, requires a great deal of water and Alsace is a region that receives very little rain because of the Vosges mountains which act as a barrier (it rains as little in Colmar, in Alsace, as in Montpellier, in southern France). The result: a visible aggravation of drought conditions.
Fortunately, viticulture is the form of agricultural production which has been able to resist this general trend and defend the diversity of its products through the diversity of its terroirs. End of my general comment.
Let us go back to the question of wine prices. Price is one thing, but for many wines, the selling price depends mostly on quality (real or imaginary quality, some might say). Let us talk more generally about the wine’s image with the consumer. This image encompasses quality, history, scarcity, fashion, and certainly many other factors. In viticulture, an estate’s or an appellation’s profitability builds itself less on the reduction of its production costs at any rate, and more on quality recognition and image of its wines. On this matter, I much prefer to buy an excellent Clos Puy Arnaud from Thierry Valette who makes an exciting, elegant wine full of feeling from an excellent limestone terroir composed of starfish fossils, a wine that is produced biodynamically (but classified Côtes-de-Castillon), than a wine from some of his Saint-Émilion Grand Cru neighbours who have nothing grand but their name and are yet sold at twice the price. But this stays between you and me. Regarding a wine’s selling price, I find myself in an awkward situation. On one hand, I do not want biodynamics to be reserved for the élite, but rather to be available for all price levels. It is part of the product’s nutritional quality before its organoleptic quality, and should be accessible to all. On the other hand, I also hope that the consumer will discern the value of biodynamic wines. And, the fact that they are more sought after than other wines will certainly be reflected in the price.
In conclusion, no, biodynamics is not a form of agriculture for the rich. There are a number of ‘simple wines’ at low prices. In the village next to mine, Didier Montchovet produces an excellent Bourgogne Grand Ordinaire red for 5 euros per bottle. In another region, Guy Bossard’s Muscadet (produced biodynamically, with draught horses) is an excellent reserve wine at a price of 6.80 euros. Yet, it is clear that for growers cultivating the best terroirs and pursuing excellence, biodynamics is a means of going even further. Quality improvement justifies the fact that their wines are more sought after, and their value can indeed be a reflection of this.