The Influence of Alternative Weed Control Under “Sauvignon Blanc” Vines on Grape Characteristics and Environmental Footprint

Chemical control of weeds with the herbicide glyphosate under vines in the vineyards is currently easy, effective, and cheap. There are currently no completely equivalent alternative herbicides or suitable mechanical control methods that have the same efficacy in suppressing weeds under vines in vineyards as glyphosate. Therefore, in this research, we tested two alternative technologies for controlling weeds under the vines as a counterweight to the predominant control approach with the herbicide glyphosate: (1) chemical control with pelargonic acid, acetic acid, and the plant extract-based fertilizer Stopeco^® with herbicidal action, and (2) mechanical control with a combined tool consisting of a rotary star tiller and finger weeder. A comparative analysis was conducted on time and fuel consumption, the extent of the carbon footprint, grape yield, and quality, which showed that the tested alternative methods of weed control were not comparable to the herbicide glyphosate in terms of effectiveness in weed suppression but were comparable at grape yield. In our trial, at the number of treatments we performed, differences in environmental footprint between different treatments were significant (glyphosate variant 10.55–11.21 gha anno⁻¹; other variants 7.48–8.08 gha anno⁻¹). Alternative mechanical and chemical methods need to be applied at least three to four times a year to achieve results comparable to those from two applications of glyphosate. For this reason, it is possible that, in the case of a slightly increased number of passes by mechanical tools or a slightly increased number of sprayings with alternative preparations to reach the efficacy level of glyphosate treatments, the foot print parameter, CO₂ emissions and global warming potential (GWP) parameter in alternative treatments would no longer be more favorable than when using the herbicide glyphosate twice a year.