Avoiding frost damage in grapevines by application of various protective substances

Ferdinand Regner; Christian Redl; Erich Ferschel; Ida Brandstätter

doi:10.2478/mittklbg-2025-0010

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Avoiding frost damage in grapevines by application of various protective substances

Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg: Journal of Viticulture, Oenology, Pomology and Fruit Processing

Volume 75 (2025): Issue 3 (September 2025)

By: Ferdinand Regner, Christian Redl, Erich Ferschel and Ida Brandstätter

Open Access

|Dec 2025

Figures & Tables

Temperature profile of a frost regimen applied in the incubation chamber, the red line is the air temperature while the blue line is the sensor temperature at the object in °C

Grapevine cuttings exposed to frost conditions outdoor with a minimum temperature of −4 °C and the reaction of the shoots (leaves)

Frequency of damaged (1), necrotized (2) and healthy (3) grapevine shoots after treatment with Cropaid (C), urea (H) and in the untreated control (K)

Comparison of frost damage control (C), Megafol application (M) and Agros-3 application (A) by the frequency of damaged shoots

The difference between Urea (U; 2%) and both the control (C) and Cropaid (K; 0,5%) was significant

Var. 1	Var. 2	difference of mean value	standard deviation	Significance	confidence	interval
K	C	−0,04762	0,25614	0,981	−0,6632	0,5679
K	U	−,95238*	0,25614	<0,001	−1,5679	−0,3368

C	K	0,04762	0,25614	0,981	−0,5679	0,6632
C	U	−,90476*	0,25614	0,002	−1,5203	−0,2892

U	K	,95238*	0,25614	<0,001	0,3368	1,5679
U	C	,90476*	0,25614	0,002	0,2892	1,5203

Results of treatment with different substances and following frost exposition

Tissue	Substance (concentration)	Application frequency	Incubation	Control - healthy	Control - damaged	Treated-healthy	Treated-damaged
GV cuttings	Superfifty (2%)	2x	short	2	4	4	2
GV cuttings	Veganofluid (3%)	2x	long	0	6	0	6
GV cuttings	Urea (2%)	2x	long	1	5	4	2

Substances used in the protection trials with information about the supplier and the used concentration

Substance or product	supplier	concentrations
Agros-3	Deygest, ES	0,5%, 1%, 2%
Cutisan	Biohelp, AT	1%
Hortisul	Agrando, DE	1%, 2%
Prev B	Biohelp, AT	0,2%, 0,3%
Superfifty	Biohelp, AT	1%, 2%
Zn Chelate	Raiffeisen LH, AT	1%
Baking soda	Kotanyi, AT	1%, 2%
Basfoliar Aktiv	BASF, DE	0,5%, 1%, 2,5%, 5%
Cocana	Biohelp, AT	0,5%, 1%
CropAid	Cropaid Int. Limited, UK	0,3%, 0,5%
Fertileader Vital	Timac Agro, FR	1%, 2%
Fruit Lime	Schneider, Verblasetechnik, DE	1%
Fuguran Progress	Certis, DE	1%
Genol Antifreeze	Raiffeisen warehouse	1%
KHPO₄	Merck, DE	1%, 2%
Kumar	Certis, DE	1%, 2%
Megafol	Syngentha, DE	1%, 2%, 2,5%
Myco Sin Vin	Biohelp, AT	1%, 2%
PK Fit	Hechenbichler, AT	0,5%, 1%
Potassium Water Glass	Pottasol, Biohelp, AT	0,5%, 0,7%, 1%
Prestop	Biohelp, AT	0,50%
Radam Extra 250	Kwizda Agro AT	0,1%, 0,5%, 1%, 1,5%
Regalis® Plus	BASF, DE	0,10%
Sojall Vitana	SOJALL Pro Natura GmbH	1%, 2%
Syneco AF5	Syneco, Milano IT	1%, 1,5%, 2%
Urea	Roth, AT	1%, 2%
Veganofluid	Veganosol GmbH, DE	3%, 4%, 5%

Results of treatment with Megafol 2% and following frost exposition

Tissue	Substance (concentration)	Application frequency	Incubation	Control - healthy	Control - damaged	Treated-healthy	Treated-damaged
GV cuttings	Megafol (2%)	2x	short	2	4	3	3
GV cuttings	Megafol (2%)	2x	long	2	4	4	2
GV cuttings	Megafol (2%)	2x	long	3	3	2	4

Results of treatment with Cropaid and following frost exposition

Tissue	Substance (concentration)	Application frequency	Incubation	Control - healthy	Control - damaged	Treated-healthy	Treated-damaged
GV cuttings	Cropaid (0,5%)	2x	short	4	2	2	4
GV cuttings	Cropaid (0,5%)	2x	long	2	4	4	2
GV cuttings	Cropaid (0,5%)	2x	long	2	4	5	1

Incidence and severity of frost damage on shoots at a vineyard in Krems_ Statistical analysis was done with Kruskal Wallis Test_ Different superscript letters represent significant differences_

Frost damage	Incidence (%)	Severity (%)
Control	8.0^b	5.9^b
Megafol	3.5^a	2.3^a
Agros-3	23.8^c	11.5^c
p-value	< 0.001	< 0.001

Results gained by incubation with the frost chamber after a twice spray treatment_ The differences were not significant_ Number of pots for each classification_

Tissue	Substance (concentration)	Application frequency	Incubation	Control - healthy	Control - damaged	Treated-healthy	Treated-damaged
ZW cuttings	NaHCO₃ (1%)	2x	short	2	4	4	2
GV cuttings	Urea (1%)	2x	long	1	5	3	3
GV cuttings	Syneco AF5 (1%)	2x	long	2	4	3	3

Results of grapevine cuttings treated with a combination of Zn chelate and urea

Tissue	Substance (concentration)	Application frequency	Incubation	Control - healthy	Control - damaged	Treated-healthy	Treated-damaged
GV cuttings	Urea (2%)	2x	long	2	4	4	2
GV cuttings	Zn chelate (1%) - urea (2%)	2x	long	2	4	4	2

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/mittklbg-2025-0010 | Journal eISSN: 3061-063X | Journal ISSN: 3061-0621

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 141 - 153

Submitted on: Apr 29, 2025

Published on: Dec 26, 2025

Published by: High School and Federal Office of Viticulture and Pomology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

Related subjects:

© 2025 Ferdinand Regner, Christian Redl, Erich Ferschel, Ida Brandstätter, published by High School and Federal Office of Viticulture and Pomology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 75 (2025): Issue 3 (September 2025)

Avoiding frost damage in grapevines by application of various protective substances

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1:

Fig. 2:

Fig. 3:

Fig. 4:

The difference between Urea (U; 2%) and both the control (C) and Cropaid (K; 0,5%) was significant

Results of treatment with different substances and following frost exposition

Substances used in the protection trials with information about the supplier and the used concentration

Results of treatment with Megafol 2% and following frost exposition

Results of treatment with Cropaid and following frost exposition

Incidence and severity of frost damage on shoots at a vineyard in Krems_ Statistical analysis was done with Kruskal Wallis Test_ Different superscript letters represent significant differences_

Results gained by incubation with the frost chamber after a twice spray treatment_ The differences were not significant_ Number of pots for each classification_

Results of grapevine cuttings treated with a combination of Zn chelate and urea

Paradigm

My account