Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
Location of the four vineyards studied and the main American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) in Sonoma County, CA. Map generated using QGIS geographic information system software (ver. 3.36.0-Maidenhead; QGIS Development Team).
- Figure 2
Comparison of cost distribution per hectare along A) capital expenditures (CAPEX) and B) operating expenses (OPEX) for the conventional viticulture (CV) and regenerative agriculture (RA) management scenarios. “Indirect cost” includes property taxes, insurance, maintenance and repairs, and capital recovery costs.
- Figure 3
Annual net cash flows over a 30-yr vineyard lifespan, comparing in-house and outsourced regenerative agriculture (RA) scenarios relative to a conventional viticulture (CV) baseline, expressed for a 4-ha vineyard. Net present value (NPV) was calculated at a 2.5% discount rate. In-house RA produced a positive NPV ($2227 total; $557/ha), while outsourced RA resulted in a negative NPV (−$7024 total; −$1756/ha). In-house benefits include year-1 equipment savings ($9000), indirect benefits rising to $4142/yr, waste-disposal savings ($1344/yr), and lamb/mutton sales ($1200 to $1800/yr), partly offset by composting and sheep operating expenses and periodic compost cover replacement. Cash flow fluctuations reflect variation in lamb sales (four to six animals per year) and the 3-yr compost cover cycle. Outsourced RA shares the same equipment savings and indirect benefits but carries recurring compost purchase and grazing service costs, without revenues from livestock or waste-management savings (see Tables 3, 5, and 6).
Tables
- Table 1
Main characteristics of the four vineyards studied under conventional viticulture (CV) and regenerative agriculture (RA) management. Soil type taxonomies were taken from the USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey (https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). Yield was averaged from 2 yr (2022 to 2023) and average yield prices were taken from the 2022 and 2023 California Grape Crush Reports (CDFA 2023b, 2024). Weed control (under-vine mechanical with a Clemens side weed knife) was performed at a 5- to 10-cm till depth, one to three times per year (spring and summer); herbicides were applied two to three times per year. Mowing occurred only in alleyways, during spring (April to May) then during summer (July to August). Synthetic fertilizers were used in the same amount and form as in the CV scenarios. AVA, American Viticultural Area; Mg, Megagram.
Characteristics Scenarios CV1a CV2a CV3a CV4a RA (1 to 4) Grape cultivar Pinot noir Chardonnay Cabernet Sauvignon Chardonnay Sameb Clone Dijon 667 FPS04 Martini 337 FPS04 Martini Same AVA Russian River Valley Russian River Valley Alexander Valley Russian River Valley Same Soil type Yolo silt loamc Yolo clay loamc Positas gravelly loamd Yolo sandy loame Same Rootstockf 101-14 140-R 101-14 5C Same Planted area (ha) 2.04 6.13 4.11 13.6 Same Vine age (years) 11 6 23 34 Same Vine density (vines/ha) 5382 3588 3076 1122 Same Yield average (Mg/ha) 11.6 19.3 7.03 9.7 Same Price average per Mg ($) 3750 2500 3000 2500 Same Trellis system Guyot Guyot Scott Henry Quadrilateral cordon Same Crop management Soil tillage Alternate
(Rototiller)Alternate
(Disk)Alternate
(Disk)Alternate
(Disk)No-till Weed control Herbicides and mechanical control Herbicides and mechanical control Herbicides only Herbicides and mechanical control Mechanical control only Mowing Twice/year Twice/year Twice/year Twice/year No mowing Nutrient management Synthetic fertilizers Synthetic fertilizers Synthetic fertilizers Synthetic fertilizers Compost and fertilizersg Cover croppingh Forage mix Forage mix Forage mix Forage mix Sheep forage mix Livestock integration None None None None Sheep grazing
(two events/year)↵aCV, vineyards employing practices that support soil health, in line with certification requirements of the California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance.
↵bIndicates the same characteristic across respective site numbers (e.g., Pinot noir for both CV1 and RA1, Chardonnay for both CV2 and RA2, etc.).
↵cFine-silty, mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Mollic Xerofluvents.
↵dFine, montmorillonitic, thermic Mollic Palexeralfs.
↵eFine-loamy, mixed, thermic Fluventic Haploxerolls.
↵fVitis parentage by rootstock: 101-14 (Vitis riparia × Vitis rupestris), 140-R (Vitis berlandieri × V. rupestris), and 5C (V. berlandieri × V. riparia).
↵gSynthetic fertilizers were used in the same amount and form as in the conventional scenarios.
↵hForage seed mix: generally white clover, annual barley, and rye, applied at a rate of 67 kg/ha; sheep forage seed mix: 1% Campeda Subclover, 2% Hykon Rose Clover, 2% Dwarf Essex Rape, 23% Austrian Winter Peas, 35% Winter Ryegrain, and 35% Triticale, all applied at a rate of 112 kg/ha.
- Table 2
Summary of the monetized cost and revenue components considered in the study for the four vineyards. Details and explanations of the value sources are presented in Appendix 2.
Costs Monetary value per ha ($) Years of occurrence Low High Vineyard establishment Landa 100,000.00 150,000.00 1 Soil preparation 1000.00 2000.00 1 Herbicides 300.00 600.00 1 Fertilizers 6000.00 10,000.00 1 Vine planting 7853.00 32,291.68 1 Irrigation system 10,000.00 50,000.00 1 Trellis system 26,984.75 45,509.75 1 Equipment 200,000.00 400,000.00 1 Vineyard operation Herbicides 0.00 300.00 2 to 30 Mowing 0.00 380.00 2 to 30 Tilling 0.00 400.00 2 to 30 Fertilizers 450.00 1000.00 2 to 30 Undervine management 200.00 370.00 2 to 30 Pesticides 600.00 1500.00 2 to 30 Irrigation 500.00 1000.00 2 to 30 General labor 11,856.00 23,712.00 2 to 30 Compost purchased with delivery 1000.00 1500.00 2 to 30 Sheep grazing (two events per year) 400.00 500.00 2 to 30 Cover crop seed and planting 40.00 300.00 1 to 30 Property taxes 800.00 1400.00 1 to 30 Insurance 600.00 1000.00 1 to 30 Sanitation services 197.60 300.00 1 to 30 Investment repairs 450.00 2500.00 1 to 30 Offices expenses 370.50 500.00 1 to 30 Capital recovery cost 2000.00 4000.00 1 to 30 Revenue Winegrape production 22,600.00 72,375.00 3 to 30 ↵aLand purchase costs are based on minimum values and trends for plantable land in Sonoma County (Combs et al. 2022).
- Table 3
Parameters influencing cost and benefits per hectare in the outsourced regenerative agriculture (RA) scenario compared to the conventional viticulture (CV) scenario. VM, vineyard manager; Mg, Megagram.
Parameter Cost ($) Benefit ($) Year of occurrence Description Source Mower - 12,500.00 1 Savings on equipment that are not required when integrating sheep grazing. VM Disk implement - 10,000.00 1 Savings on equipment that are not needed when reducing soil disturbance. VM Compost spreader 13,500.00 - 1 One-time investment for equipment to broadcast compost in the vineyard. VM Cover crop seed 113.60 - 1 to 30 Cost difference between the forage mix used in the CV scenario and the sheep mix required in the RA scenario. VM Compost acquisition 840.00 - 2 to 30 9.88 Mg applied per ha. Costs include trucking. Increases operational costs by 67% of RA-specific costs. VM Compost application 50.00 - 2 to 30 Cost associated to broadcasting the compost in the vineyard. VM Sheep grazing events 444.60 - 2 to 30 A single sheep grazing event lasts 3 to 5 days by a 20-sheep flock in 0.4 ha. Two events were considered in the year. These events explain the 28% of RA-specific costs. VM Nutrient inputs (compost) - 253.20 2 to 30 Fertilizer nutrient value by considering its N, P, and K nutrient content, and their equivalent from the commodity prices on commercial fertilizers. Coker et al. 2022, Estimateda Nutrient inputs (manure) - 18.10 2 to 30 Based on the amount of manure delivered by sheep per day (5% of its body weight), and its fertilizer nutrient value (N, P, K content). Moreno-Caselles et al. 2002, Ogejo et al. 2010, Marzi et al. 2020, Coker et al. 2022, Estimateda Soil erosion control - 48.00 2 to 30 Vineyards with permanent cover crop and no-till show average soil reduction losses of 1.8 Mg/ha/yr (74 to 91%). Robinson et al. 2014, Biddoccu et al. 2020 Carbon credits (compost) - 64.20 2 to 30 Average carbon sequestration value of compost per Mg, $3.98 to $9.20. Coker et al. 2022 Carbon credits (manure) - 2.10 2 to 30 Studies show a 5.3% increase in carbon over 10 yr in topsoil when permanent rotational grazing is adopted. Therefore, an increase of 1049 kg C/ha (5.3%) in 10 yr was estimated. Wiltshire and Beckage 2022, Estimateda No herbicides - 170.00 2 to 30 Savings on chemicals and spray costs. VM No mowing - 240.00 2 to 30 Savings on labor and equipment maintenance costs. VM No tilling - 240.00 2 to 30 Saving on labor and equipment maintenance costs. VM ↵aMore information can be found in Appendix 2.
- Table 4
Comparative economic analysis of 1 ha for the conventional (CV) and regenerative (RA) management scenarios in the four vineyards studied over 30 yr. Mg, Megagram; NPV, net present value over 30 yr.
Vineyard (grape) Density (vines/ha) Yield (Mg/ha) Price ($/Mg) Scenario Initial investment ($) Annual operating costs ($) Annual revenue ($) NPVa ($) NPV changeb (%) Vineyard 1
(Pinot noir)5382 11.6 3750 CV1
RA1260,043
257,39623,573
23,90843,500
43,500134,372
128,130-4.6 Vineyard 2
(Chardonnay)3588 19.3 2500 CV2
RA2250,440
247,79319,370
19,70548,250
48,250312,724
306,630-1.9 Vineyard 3
(Cabernet Sauvignon)3076 7.03 3000 CV3
RA3227,659
226,14817,919
18,23721,090
21,090-140,605
-147,441-4.9 Vineyard 4
(Chardonnay)1122 9.7 2500 CV4
RA4207,515
205,87411,530
11,76824,250
24,25060,731
55,622-8.4 - Table 5
Costs and benefits of in-house compost production of 20 Megagrams (Mg)/yr for four 4-ha vineyards. VM, vineyard manager; CAPEX, initial capital expenditures.
Category Cost ($) Benefit ($) Year of occurrence Description Source Initial costs Turner 8000 - 1 Main equipment required to mix the composting materials. Assuming secondhand equipment. VM Utility tractor - front loader 5000 - 1 This assumed tractor from vineyard can be used; only front loader implement would be required. VM Thermometers 400 - 1 Four units. Temperature monitoring. VM Plastic 80 - Every 3 yr Compost pile cover, periodic replacement. VM Total initial costs 13,480 - 1 Annual operating costs Labor 1680 - 3 to 30 Management and maintenance of compost (e.g., monitoring, turning, mixing, and adding water): 4 hr once per week for 5 to 6 mo. VM Resourcesa 140 - 3 to 30 Mainly water and chicken manure. Additional organic matter if required. VM Equipment maintenance 60 - 3 to 30 Tools and machinery. VM Total annual operating costs 1880 - 3 to 30 Annual benefits Waste management - 1344 3 to 30 Savings on waste fee disposal from Zero Waste Sonoma (e.g., yard debris): $112/Mg, and assuming 30% biomass discarded from winegrape. Zero Waste 2024b Total annual benefits - 1344 3 to 30 Net annual cash flow - - - $1344 - $1880 = -$536/year (Non-CAPEX years) ↵aScreening to finish size (to achieve homogeneity in compost) was not considered, which can increase cost by up to 40%.
↵bhttps://zerowastesonoma.gov/disposal-options/central-disposal-site-transfer-stations-fee-schedule.
- Table 6
Costs and benefits for in-house sheep grazing integration in a 4-ha vineyard. VM, vineyard manager; CAPEX, initial capital expenditures.
Category Costs ($) Benefits ($) Year of occurrence Description Source Initial costs Purchase of Dorper sheep (10-sheep flock) 4000 - 1 Range for commercial crosses are ~$300 to $500 per head. Pure breeds (e.g., South African) can cost ~$2000 to $3000. VM Setup costs 6000 - 1 Core infrastructure (fencing, shelter, dog). VM Total initial costsa 10,000 - 1 Assuming 1 ha would require 2 to 3 sheep to be grazed whole year. Thus, a 10-sheep flock for a 4-ha vineyard was considered. - Annual operating costs Administrative/management laborb 1200 - 2 to 30 Depending on flock size, a herder is needed. A full-time herder can operate a flock of 500 ewes. Finzel et al. 2022, VM Fencing and shelter maintenance 100 - 2 to 30 Annual maintenance for fencing, shelter, and watering systems. VM Guard dog 1200 - 2 to 30 $100 is the maintenance cost per month for food and medical care. Finzel et al. 2022 Veterinary and health care 1000 - 2 to 30 Veterinary care includes purchased feed (salts and minerals). Cost is ~$100 per head. Salinas-Martínez et al. 2022, VM Total annual operating costs 3500 - 2 to 30 For a 10-sheep flock. - Annual benefits Income from meat - 1200 to 1800 2 to 30 At 4 mo, lambs can weigh ~36 to 38 kg. The cost of meat can vary from $4 to $8/kg. Assuming Dorper ewe can lamb three times in 2 yr. An older Dorper is sold as mutton, earning similar per-head prices because of their larger meat quantity. Salinas-Martínez et al. 2022, Knight and Taylor 2024, VM Total annual benefits - 1200 to 1800 2 to 30 Assuming the flock will breed at among 4 to 6 lambs per year, sold at $300 per head. - Net annual cash flow - - - $1200 - $1800 - $3500 = -$2300 to -$1700/yr (Non-CAPEX years). - - Table 7
Net present value (NPV) comparison for different yield and price scenarios across the four vineyards studied (Optimistic, minor yield declines and higher prices; Pessimistic, larger yield reductions and lower prices). Reported values are the differences in NPV between regenerative agriculture (RA) under each scenario and the conventional viticulture baseline calculated in Table 4. The RA scenario refers to the outsourced implementation. Bold text highlights the only scenario with a positive profit.
Scenario Yield decrease (%) Price variation (%) NPV ($) Vineyard 1: Pinot noir NPV ($) Vineyard 2: Chardonnay NPV ($) Vineyard 3: Cabernet Sauvignon NPV ($) Vineyard 4: Chardonnay Baseline 0 0 -6242 -6095 -6835 -5109 Optimistic -10 20 58,272 65,464 24,443 30,856 Optimistic I -20 20 -38,499 -41,874 -22,474 -23,091 Moderate -20 0 -167,528 -184,992 -85,031 -95,021 Moderate I -10 5 -50,596 -55,292 -28,339 -29,834 Moderate II -5 5 -8258 -8331 -7813 -5989 Pessimistic -30 -10 -304,620 -337,055 -151,497 -171,446 Pessimistic I -40 -20 -425,585 -471,227 -210,144 -238,880
Supplemental Table 1 Main inputs and outputs of initial data collected from interviews on the four vineyards studied. Q, quantity; EV, electric vehicle; UTV, utility terrain vehicle; ATV, all terrain vehicle; Mg, Megagram.
Supplemental Table 2 Economic comparison of different discount rates (DR) and time horizon analysis of 1 ha for the conventional viticulture (CV) and regenerative agriculture (RA) management scenarios. Net present value (NPV) difference = RA − CV. The main analysis uses a 30-yr time horizon (see Equation 1), while this table includes additional time horizons and discount rate combinations to explore sensitivity. Mg, Megagram.
Supplemental Table 3 Net present value (NPV) comparison across yield and price scenarios for four vineyards at a 4% discount rate (DR) and two time horizons (25 and 30 yr). Values represent the NPV difference between regenerative agriculture (RA) under each scenario (Optimistic, minor yield declines and higher prices; Pessimistic, larger yield reductions and lower prices) and the conventional viticulture (CV) baseline from Supplemental Table 2. Bold text highlights the only scenario with a positive profit.
Appendix 1 Economic questionnaire: Cost-benefit analysis in vineyards using regenerative practices.
Appendix 2 More information and sources on how the costs and benefits from the winegrape production systems were estimated.
Vol 77 Issue 1
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
More from this TOC section
Similar Articles
