A six-year comparison of organic, biodynamic, and “low-input” and “high-input” viticulture (three years of conversion, three of maintenance) recently came to fruition in South Australia, courtesy of researchers at the University of Adelaide. The full report is freely available here (and three cheers for research freely shared). It’s 73 pages long, but the conclusions are fairly simple. The most worthwhile among them: in blind trials, experienced wine professionals rated the organic and biodynamic wines more interesting than the conventional versions.
- Soil health (nitrogen, phosphorus, organic carbon, microbe mass) was most strongly improved by compost, not by any particular management system. All four systems were tested with and without compost.
- Compost had the single most dramatic positive effect on soil health, no matter the underlying management system.
- Management system had no consistent effect on vine growth, berry weight, or berry composition.
- Low-input, organic, and biodynamic alternatives yielded at 91%, 79%, and 70%, respectively, of…
View original post 459 more words