{"id":1037,"date":"2025-03-07T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-03-07T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/website-staging.vineforecast.com\/?p=1037"},"modified":"2026-01-08T17:39:42","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T16:39:42","slug":"vineforecast-shows-crop-protection-reduction-in-the-2024-field-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.vineforecast.com\/en\/2025\/03\/07\/vineforecast-shows-crop-protection-reduction-in-the-2024-field-trial\/","title":{"rendered":"Plant protection reduction through VineForecast in the 2024 field trial"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Efficient and sustainable plant protection is a cornerstone of modern viticulture. In 2024, Certis Belchim tested the VineForecast algorithm in field trials on a M\u00fcller-Thurgau vineyard in Spiesheim, Germany. The aim was to reduce the number of plant protection measures to a necessary minimum while ensuring effective control of Peronospora and Oidium.<\/p>

The result was promising: up to three fewer sprays with the same level of disease control.<\/strong> This was achieved through the data-based planning of the VineForecast algorithm, which optimises the applications based on AI-optimised disease and weather forecasts as well as the growth phases of the vine.<\/p>

VineForecast's lead modeller Paul Petersik, on the 2024 field trial<\/strong><\/h4>

In addition to the written test presented here, you will find a summary of the field test in the video below.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Experimental setup and realisation<\/strong><\/h4>

The experiments compared two strategies:<\/p>

  1. IP (integrated pest management):<\/strong>\u00a0Standard spraying sequences based on local agronomic recommendations.<\/li>
  2. VineForecast:<\/strong>\u00a0Spraying sequence optimised by the VineForecast algorithm, which takes into account local AI-optimised weather and disease data as well as growth parameters.<\/li><\/ol>

    The trials took place under ideal conditions for disease development: The alternating humid and warm weather conditions favoured Peronospora development before flowering, while dry and warm conditions after flowering posed a high risk for Oidium.<\/p>

    The trial was coordinated by Eurofins. In addition to the treated areas, untreated controls were used to assess the disease pressure and the effectiveness of the strategies. The differences in spraying intervals and measures saved were analysed by the Eurofins<\/a>\u00a0documented.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Summary\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    Peronospora: One spraying saved with the same protective effect<\/strong><\/h4>

    Peronospora was a major threat before flowering due to frequent rainfall and high humidity. While the IP strategy envisaged applications at 11-day intervals, VineForecast extended the intervals in cooler phases to up to 16 days due to the reduced growth of the vine.<\/p>

    Important differences:<\/strong><\/p>