Effect of Agrizest Treatment on Pest & Disease Damage Compared to a Prescribed Fertiliser Regime
Trial Location:
Blenheim, Marlborough, New Zealand
Trial Objectives:
To Show That Agrizest will:
Provide a more efficacious and cost-effective alternative to traditional complex fertiliser regimes, enhancing plant health and reducing pest and disease damage.
Note: Agrizest has no direct effect on pests or diseases.
Trial Design: Split block, independent, commercial scale trial.
The trial was carried out in Blenheim by one of New Zealand’s leading wine companies.
The trial is a fully replicated trial; a continuation of an observational trial started during the previous season.
Spray Programme:
The trial compared two treatments (Agrizest and the “CTR” nutrient treatment) and a control treatment.
The recommended (named vineyard) pest and disease spray schedule was carried out as usual on all treatments. The treatment areas were the same as those used in the previous season with the intent that any multi-season effects would be captured.
Trial Details:
Each treatment was applied to approximately one-third of each section. Within each treatment area, bays were randomly selected as treatment replicates on which measurements were conducted. Since the treatments consisted of foliar-applied sprays, two treatment areas of approximately 30 rows each were sprayed every time a formulation was used throughout the season.
Eight replicates per treatment were marked out in early October. The total area per treatment was approximately 3.2 hectares. For some measurements, such as inflorescence counts, yield estimation segments from the standard Vineyard Yield Estimation Program were used instead of the bay replicates.
To maintain consistency, 54 yield estimation segments were established—rather than the usual 50—to ensure that nine segments were set up within each treatment area.
Treatment Programme:
Table 1: The calendar of applications for Agrizest and CTR treatments during the 2006/2007 season
Results
Pre-harvest pest and disease assessment results.
Ten bunches were assessed per rep. n=8. Error bars show ± 1 standard deviation.
Costs
Total and per hectare cost of the Agrizest and CTR products for the trial area.
Conclusion
•Agrizest reduced berry splitting compared to the CTR products and control.
•Agrizest reduced botrytis.
•Agrizest treatment was 1/3 the cost of the competitor’s treatment regime (CTR) per hectare.
More information available on request - Please Contact Us for more information.