Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Viticultural Production in Central European Conditions

Citation: Baˇca, P.; Mašán, V.; Vanýsek, P.; Burg, P.; Binar, T.; Burgová, J.; Abrham, Z. Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Viticultural Production in Central European Conditions. Sustainability 2024,16, 6561. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156561 Received: 14 June 2024 Revised: 28 July 2024 Accepted: 29 July 2024 Published: 31 July 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). sustainability Article Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Viticultural Production in Central European Conditions Petr Baˇca 1, Vladimír Mašán2,* , Petr Vanýsek 1, Patrik Burg 2, Tomáš Binar 1, Jana Burgová3 and Zdenˇek Abrham 4 1Department of Electrotechnology, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Communication, Brno University of Technology, Technická10, 616 00 Brno, Czech Republic; [email protected] (P.B.); [email protected] (P.V.); [email protected] (T.B.) 2Department of Horticultural Machinery, Faculty of Horticulture, Mendel University in Brno, Valtická337, 691 44 Lednice, Czech Republic; [email protected] 3 Department of Breeding and Propagation of Horticultural Plants, Faculty of Horticulture, Mendel University in Brno, Valtická337, 691 44 Lednice, Czech Republic; [email protected] 4Research Institute of Agriculture Engineering, p. r. i., Drnovská507, 161 01 Prague, Czech Republic; [email protected] *Correspondence: vladimir[email protected] Abstract: A number of factors will increasingly play a role in the sustainability of wine production in the coming period. The current situation suggests that the analysis of energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will play a particularly important role. The so-called carbon footprint, expressed in CO 2 equivalents, is used to express the sum of GHG emissions. This study presents an analysis of vine cultivation in a particular Central European region, with the main focus on quantifying the inputs, yield, fuel consumption, and GHG emissions. The emphasis was placed on conventional, integrated, and ecological production systems of growing, evaluated with the help of the developed AGROTEKIS version 5 software. A total of 30 wine-grower entities in the Morava wine-growing region, the subregion VelkéPavlovice, in the Czech Republic weather climate, were included in the input data survey. By analyzing the aggregated values, the real savings in energy and curbing of CO 2 emissions of vineyards could be observed, relating to individual work procedures with lower energy demand used in the vineyard treatment as well as the amounts and doses of agrochemicals used. The average values of the total impacts did not show any statistically significant differences between the conventional (971 ± 78 kg CO 2 eq · ha −1· year −1 ) and integrated production systems (930 ± 62 kg CO 2 eq · ha −1· year −1 ), whereas the values for the ecological production system were significantly higher (1479 ± 40 kg CO 2 eq · ha −1· year −1 ). The results show that growing vines under ecological production conditions generates a higher proportion of the carbon footprint than under conventional production conditions. Overall, the best results can be achieved in an integrated production system. Keywords: greenhouse gas emissions; fuel consumption; materials; process; conventional; integrated; ecological production; VelkéPavlovice 1. Introduction Major global challenges that contemporary society face include population growth, an increasing demand for food, scarcity of fresh water, deteriorating environmental quality, and increasingly in recent years, climate change caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases [ 1 ]. It is precisely because of the continuous increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere that major changes in the global climate system can be expected in the coming period. These changes will have a negative effect on all societal levels, the environment, and agriculture. According to a number of studies, agriculture is the source of 15 to 30% of all GHG emissions [ 2 , 3 ]. For these reasons, new sustainability Sustainability 2024,16, 6561. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156561 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2024,16, 6561 2 of 15 strategies and cultivation technologies based on mitigation principles are being sought and tested. Overall, viticulture plays a crucial role in global agriculture and economies, combining agricultural production with cultural heritage, tourism, trade, and technological innovation. Its economic significance underscores its impact on local, regional, and global scales. According to the figures given in the report of the International Organization of Vine and Wine [ 4 ], the global acreage of vineyards was 7.2 Mha in 2023, which includes vineyards used for wine production, table grapes, and other grape products. Despite the fact that Europe has seen a gradual decline in cultivated area in recent years due to the economic depression, it remains one of the continents with the largest share of vineyards, accounting for 38% of the world’s area. Moreover, EU Member States account for 62.9% of global wine production [5]. For these reasons, the European Union has introduced a new “farm-to-fork” strategy within the framework of the “European Green Deal” (EC, 2019), which aims at the overall recovery and greening of the entire sector [ 6 ] (EC, European Commission, 2020). From the perspective of future development and sustainability, the overall transformation of the wine sector is therefore one of the main priorities for all EU Member States. Roy et al. [ 7 ] stated that one of the tools that contributes to the determination of the environmental burden of grape production is an internationally standardized environmental tool called the life cycle assessment (LCA). This tool is often referred to as a “cradle to the grave” analysis. There has been carried out in a number of studies that emphasize the need for LSAs for viticulture and winemaking [ 8 – 10 ]. Detailed analysis of the environmental impacts will influence the way in which legislators (e.g., governments) will legislate the future development of agricultural and industrial systems in the food sector. The aim of this system is to identify the most significant environmental burdens associated with the life cycle of the system according to ISO 14040 and 14044 [ 11 , 12 ]. LCA studies apply a number of indicators; one of the most frequently used is the carbon footprint [13–15]. According to this approach, carbon footprint analysis quantifies the carbon emissions directly and indirectly caused by the activity or accumulated during the life cycle of the target product [ 16 ]. The result is a classification of the production process with a link to greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Kyoto Protocol. These emissions are then expressed in kg of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 eq.) (i.e., a measure of the greenhouse effect of the gas with respect to its global warming potential) [17]. Other methods of establishing the carbon footprint are also used in practice. The objectivity of these methods always depends on the collection of consumption data for all emission sources within specified thresholds [ 18 ]. For each method, it is necessary to define all the parameters and assumptions made in the calculation of the carbon footprint. The most common principles for determining the carbon footprint are usually a calculation using data on the individual activities carried out multiplied by the standard emission factors. There are also calculation methods based on the principles of models or directly realized measurements [ 19 ]. Previous observations have shown that the highest share of GHG emissions in viticulture is due to diesel combustion and the use of pesticides and fertilizers [10,17,20–23]. Most scientific papers published recently (e.g., [ 24 – 27 ]) have typically narrowly focused on specific grapevine production systems and do not provide an objective comparison of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced. However, there is an increasing need in viticulture practice for comprehensive environmental assessments of all production systems that respect their specific characteristics [ 24 ]. For such assessments, very different methodologies and frameworks have been developed and verified, finding applications in agriculture, industry, research, and in the creation of legislative regulations. These methodologies vary significantly in terms of the scope of the input data, the accuracy, and the aspects of sustainability they evaluate (economic, social, cultural, and governance). Sustainability 2024,16, 6561 3 of 15 Some studies have assessed emission production related to certain issues in grapevine cultivation. For example, Ref. [ 28 ] compared the impact of fertilizing vineyard alleys with compost incorporated into the soil against an unfertilized control variant. The results did not confirm significant differences in the amount of emissions produced. Another study [ 29 ] focused on reducing the emissions released from soil in tilled vineyards and no-till vineyard alleys also did not demonstrate statistically significant differences. Zhang et al. [30] confirmed that Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) are fundamental for reducing soil emissions during the irrigation and fertilization of vineyards. These findings could be applied to different vineyard management methods such as mulching the soil surface with organic matter, the handling of pruning, etc. Rose et al. [ 31 ] stated that software applications incorporating one or more simulation models and communication functions are suitable tools for decision-making by farmers and advisory entities. These applications allow for the analysis and synthesis of various input data. One specific example of such a software application is the interactive dialogue program AGROTEKIS, designed for modeling and economically evaluating technological procedures and the resulting economics of crop cultivation. This expert system and its extensive database are jointly used within the framework of international reporting by the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic for the processing of the national emission inventory of pollutants from agricultural machinery operations in the Czech Republic—NFR category 1A.4.c.II-Agriculture, processed according to the methodology of the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook within the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution [32]. The database system enables the calculation of the input activity data related to fuel consumption from various agricultural operations, which is then used to calculate the emissions of the monitored pollutants. Summary results of the fuel consumption are provided, for instance, in Chapter III.3.4 of the Informative Inventory Report Czechia, 2023 [ 33 ], pp. 42–43. This system allows for a new evaluation approach with several methodological modifications. The main differences lie in the possibility of a comprehensive assessment of different farming systems, which takes into account the ratio of manual and mechanized work operations as well as the soil maintenance system and the use of the latest methodologies for assessing the carbon footprint. The aim of this paper is a model-based evaluation of the technological practices applied in grapevine cultivation in the realm of Central Europe, with the main emphasis on the quantification of inputs, yield, fuel consumption, and the determination of greenhouse gas emissions, with an overlap of the conventional, integrated, and ecological production systems using the AGROTEKIS software. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. The Viticultural Area For the purposes of the model evaluations, data obtained from wine-growing entities farming in the Morava wine-growing region, subregion VelkéPavlovice (Figure 1), were used. Sustainability 2024,16, 6561 4 of 15 Sustainability 2024, 16, 6561 4 of 15 Figure 1. Location of the Velké Pavlovice wine subregion in the context of the Czech Republic and Europe. 2.2. Data Acquisition and System Boundaries A total of 30 viticultural entities were included in the input data survey, and the data were collected through a questionnaire survey in the years 2022–2023. Almost 96% of all vineyards registered in the Czech Republic are concentrated in the Morava wine-growing area (colored in Figure 1). The Velké Pavlovice subregion is the largest in terms of vineyard area and covers an area of almost 4800 ha. The long-term average annual temperature is 9.42 °C and the average annual rainfall is 510 mm. The average annual wind speed in the area is 3–5 m·s−1 (at a height of 10 m above the ground). System boundaries were limited only to the agricultural phase (i.e., grape production) to allow for direct comparisons between different cultivation systems, regardless of the post-agricultural life cycle phases. For each system, the analyses performed respected the work operations implemented such as vine pruning, chemical protection, fertilization, grape harvesting and the main material inputs such as fossil fuels, pesticides, fertilizers, and seed consumption, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 1. Location of the VelkéPavlovice wine subregion in the context of the Czech Republic and Europe. 2.2. Data Acquisition and System Boundaries A total of 30 viticultural entities were included in the input data survey, and the data were collected through a questionnaire survey in the years 2022–2023. Almost 96% of all vineyards registered in the Czech Republic are concentrated in the Morava wine-growing area (colored in Figure 1). The VelkéPavlovice subregion is the largest in terms of vineyard area and covers an area of almost 4800 ha. The long-term average annual temperature is 9.42 ◦ C and the average annual rainfall is 510 mm. The average annual wind speed in the area is 3–5 m·s−1(at a height of 10 m above the ground). System boundaries were limited only to the agricultural phase (i.e., grape production) to allow for direct comparisons between different cultivation systems, regardless of the post-agricultural life cycle phases. For each system, the analyses performed respected the work operations implemented such as vine pruning, chemical protection, fertilization, grape harvesting and the main material inputs such as fossil fuels, pesticides, fertilizers, and seed consumption, as shown in Figure 2. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6561 5 of 15 Figure 2. Graphical representation of the evaluated cultivation. For the purpose of the evaluation, wineries were selected that applied the same variant of the technological procedure, which was the use of alternating every second alley grassed. The bushes were grown with 1.0 m between plants (intra-row) and 2.2 m between rows (inter-row, alleys) with 4545 pcs of vines per ha. The shrubs were grown on a high line with a height of 1.0 m and shaped using a 1-cane (cordon) grape training system. The height of the trellis was 2.1 m. The size categories of vineyards with a cultivated area of 8– 10 ha were chosen as the most widespread in terms of representation. During the surveys conducted in the form of guided personal interviews and obtaining data from the required records, attention was particularly focused on data on the fertilizers and pesticides used (type, active substance) and their application rates, data on manual and mechanized operations and their repeatability during the year, and in the case of mechanized operations, data on the mechanized equipment used, its performance, and fuel consumption. The long-term average grape yield in the Morava wine-growing region is around 6000 kg·ha−1. This reflects the region’s focus on quality wine production, which often involves practices that prioritize grape quality over quantity. 2.3. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Each third of the vineyards applies different production systems—conventional, integrated, and ecological. The conventional system (CS) of production is the standard method but has the disadvantage of requiring a large volume of inputs. These include, in particular, chemicization [34] (application of industrial fertilizers, non-selective herbicides, broadspectrum insecticides) and uncoordinated use of mechanization (contributes to compaction of the subsoil due to repeated passes, disturbance of the soil structure by repeated cultivation of the alleys). The integrated system (IS) is a method of agricultural management aimed at ensuring sustainable development as defined by Article 6 of Act No. 17/1992 Coll. on the Environment (“Permanently Sustainable Development”) [35–37]. Registered members of the association must follow strict international criteria set by the IP Association for their vineyards. In the Czech Republic, these criteria are updated approximately every two years under the name ‘Guidelines of the Union of Integrated Grape and Wine Production’. The guidelines are based on vine IP systems developed for Swiss viticulture by Basler [38] Figure 2. Graphical representation of the evaluated cultivation. Sustainability 2024,16, 6561 5 of 15 For the purpose of the evaluation, wineries were selected that applied the same variant of the technological procedure, which was the use of alternating every second alley grassed. The bushes were grown with 1.0 m between plants (intra-row) and 2.2 m between rows (inter-row, alleys) with 4545 pcs of vines per ha. The shrubs were grown on a high line with a height of 1.0 m and shaped using a 1-cane (cordon) grape training system. The height of the trellis was 2.1 m. The size categories of vineyards with a cultivated area of 8–10 ha were chosen as the most widespread in terms of representation. During the surveys conducted in the form of guided personal interviews and obtaining data from the required records, attention was particularly focused on data on the fertilizers and pesticides used (type, active substance) and their application rates, data on manual and mechanized operations and their repeatability during the year, and in the case of mechanized operations, data on the mechanized equipment used, its performance, and fuel consumption. The long-term average grape yield in the Morava wine-growing region is around 6000 kg · ha −1 . This reflects the region’s focus on quality wine production, which often involves practices that prioritize grape quality over quantity. 2.3. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Each third of the vineyards applies different production systems—conventional, integrated, and ecological. The conventional system (CS) of production is the standard method but has the disadvantage of requiring a large volume of inputs. These include, in particular, chemicization [ 34 ] (application of industrial fertilizers, non-selective herbicides, broad-spectrum insecticides) and uncoordinated use of mechanization (contributes to compaction of the subsoil due to repeated passes, disturbance of the soil structure by repeated cultivation of the alleys). The integrated system (IS) is a method of agricultural management aimed at ensuring sustainable development as defined by Article 6 of Act No. 17/1992 Coll. on the Environment (“Permanently Sustainable Development”) [ 35 – 37 ]. Registered members of the association must follow strict international criteria set by the IP Association for their vineyards. In the Czech Republic, these criteria are updated approximately every two years under the name ‘Guidelines of the Union of Integrated Grape and Wine Production’. The guidelines are based on vine IP systems developed for Swiss viticulture by Basler [ 38 ] and Murisier et al. [ 39 ], and are now the basis for international requirements for vine IP systems set by the IOBC. The IS focuses on maintaining or improving soil fertility and a diverse environment. It employs forecasting and signaling methods for vine protection and nourishment, uses natural biotechnologies and authorized agrochemicals, and strictly controls herbicide application. Herbicides can only be applied at permitted rates and repetitions in the weed-free strip under the trellis. A consistent, systematic approach to vine-growing and processing technology is essential for optimizing both the economic and ecological aspects of production. The ecological system (ES) of production is part of the so-called alternative agriculture. This system respects the principles of ecological farming, which is controlled by Act 242/2000 Coll., on organic farming, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 and Commission Implementing Regulation EU 203/2012. This system strictly adheres to rules in organically certified vineyards, which eliminate the use of mineral fertilizers, pesticides, or synthetically prepared substances like plant hormones. At critical moments, sulfur and copper preparations or natural products (plant extracts) are allowed for fungal disease protection. Pheromones, beneficial organisms, and methods that encourage natural predators are used against pests. Weeds are managed through preventive agrotechnology, green manuring, and mulching. Herbicide use is completely banned. This method maximizes the use of ecosystem information including forecasting, signaling, and expert systems. Sustainability 2024,16, 6561 6 of 15 2.4. The Software Used and Determination of the Carbon Footprint (CO2eq) All of the data obtained were input to the AGROTEKIS online modeling database system, Version 5, published in 2022, which is continuously updated in relation to legislative regulations (Research Institute of Agricultural Engineering, p.r.i., Prague, Czech Republic). On the basis of the input data, statistical processing (mean, standard deviation) was carried out, and model variants of technological practices were constructed, respecting the three described production systems. The determination of the emissions, or carbon footprint, associated with the individual process models was carried out according to a methodology working with typical greenhouse gas emission values according to Chapter VII of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/996 [ 40 ]. The total GHG emissions related to the model’s technological practices in viticulture production is calculated as the sum of the emissions produced during one year in the composition: • Greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer production and transport (kg CO 2 eq · ha −1· year −1 ), these calculations include emissions due to the neutralization of acidification caused by fertilizer. The calculation used here accounts for CO 2 emissions from the neutralization of nitrogen fertilizer acidity; •Greenhouse gas emissions from the pesticides used (kg CO2eq·ha−1·year−1); • Greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used for the operation of machinery means (kg CO2eq·ha−1·year−1) [41]. GHG emissions from the production and transport of mineral fertilizers were calculated as follows, in accordance with the methodology: ehn =Σmhni ×efhni_(kg CO2eq·ha−1·year−1), (1) where: • m hni je is the amount of the i-th fertilizer (expressed in pure nutrients) that is used on one hectare of land per year; • ef hni is the emission factor from the production and transport of i-th fertilizer (kg CO2eq·kg nutrient−1) [41]. For the calculations, emission factors according to Annex IX of Implementing Regulation 2022/996 including greenhouse gas emissions from upstream phases of mineral fertilizer production should be used [40]. General emission factors can also be used for the modeling and evaluation of viticulture technologies [42]. The general emission factors for individual fertilizers are: •4.5719 kg CO2eq·kg nutrient−1applied for nitrogen fertilizers; •0.5417 kg CO2eq·kg nutrient−1applied for phosphate fertilizer (P2O5); • 0.4167 kg CO 2 eq · kg nutrient −1 applied for potassium fertilizer application in the form of K2O. The emission factor from the neutralization of nitrogen fertilizers in soil according to Annex IX Implementing Regulation 2022/996 of the Commission Regulation is 0.783 kg CO2-kg N−1[42]. Data on fertilizer use per hectare of vineyard over the course of one year were used to calculate the total amount of fertilizer. The data were obtained from input information from the vineyard operators surveyed. The greenhouse gas emissions from the pesticides used were in accordance with the methodology calculated as follows: ehn =Σmpei ×efpei_(kg CO2eq·ha−1·year−1), (2) where: Sustainability 2024,16, 6561 7 of 15 •mpei is the amount of the i-th pesticide used per one hectare of land per year; • ef pei is the emission factor from the production of the i-th pesticide (kg CO 2 eq · kg nutrients−1) [41]. Emission factors for plant protection products are set out in the ISCC manual [43]. The values of the emission factors used are: •11.552 kg CO2eq·kg active substance−1for glyphosate; • 10.970 kg CO 2 eq · kg active substance −1 for other plant protection products (ISCC System GmbH, Koeln, Germany, 2021). The data on the quantities of active substances were obtained from the Register of Authorized Plant Protection Products maintained by the Central Institute for Inspection and Testing in Agriculture. The register is open to the public, and the database contains plant protection products and auxiliary plant protection products authorized for use in the Czech Republic. Greenhouse gas emissions from fuel used in the operation of machinery were calculated as follows, in accordance with the methodology: epalPHM =ΣSpali ×efpali_(kg CO2eq·ha−1·year−1), (3) where: •Spali is the total annual amount of the i-th fuel (in this case diesel) used per hectare of land per year (l·ha−1·year−1); •efpali is the emission factor from the consumption of the i-th fuel (kg CO2eq·l−1). The emission factor for diesel fuel according to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/996 on the rules for verifying sustainability and greenhouse gas savings criteria and low risk indirect land use change criteria is 3.4102 kg CO2eq−l·l−1[43]. 2.5. Statistical Evaluation Methods Each variant measurement was repeated 10 times. The one factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) tests were conducted to determine the differences among averages at a significance level of α = 0.05. The results were reported as averages and standard deviations. The Statistica 14.0 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) software package was used. 3. Results and Discussion Table 1provides an overview of the common work operations for each evaluated variant of the technological procedures, categorized by conventional, integrated, and ecological production systems. The overview revealed that many work operations are shared across these systems. However, each production system also has unique characteristics, particularly in the use of plant protection products, fertilizers, and seeds for soil greening between vineyard rows. For individual operations, it is necessary to take into account their overall frequency during the growing season. Regardless of the production system chosen, comparable categories of machinery are used for each vineyard. In the model calculations carried out using AGROTEKIS, the average values of labor and diesel fuel consumption for a given work operation were then considered (Table 2). Sustainability 2024,16, 6561 8 of 15 Table 1. Agricultural practices—incoming agrochemicals and materials for conventional, integrated, and ecological vineyard production systems. Agricultural Practices Production System Conventional Integrated Ecological Frequency per Year Hectare Rate Frequency per Year Hectare Rate Frequency per Year Hectare Rate Active ingredients of fungicides and insecticides Sulfur 1×12 kg·ha−11×12 kg·ha−11×12 kg·ha−1 Sulfur – – – – 4–8×4 kg·ha−1 Iprovalicarb 1×0.9 L·ha−11×0.9 L·ha−1– – Metrafenone 1–2×0.16 L·ha−11–2×0.16 L·ha−1– – Cyprodinil, Fludioxonyl 3–5×0.5 kg·ha−13–5×0.5 kg·ha−1– – Fluopyram, Tebuconazole 1–2×0.4 L·ha−11–2×0.4 L·ha−1– – Valifenalate 1–2×2 kg·ha−11×2 kg·ha−1– – Difenoconazole, Cyflufenamid 1–2×0.65 L·ha−11–2×0.65 L·ha−1– – Fosetyl-Al 1×3 kg·ha−11×3 kg·ha−1– – Boscalid, Kresoxim-Methyl 1×0.6 L·ha−11×0.6 L·ha−1– – Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Folpet 1–2×2 kg·ha−11–2×2 kg·ha−1– – Cymoxanil 1–2×0.25 kg·ha−11×0.25 kg·ha−1– – Tetraconazole 1–2×2 kg·ha−11×2 kg·ha−1– – Cyazofamid – – 1×2 L·ha−1– – Lambda-Cyhalothrin – – 1×0.15 L·ha−1– – Mefentrifluconazol – – 1–2×1 L·ha−1– – Copper hydroxide – – – – 2–4×2 kg·ha−1 Copper oxychloride – – – – 3–5×1 L·ha−1 Magnesium sulfate—Bitter salt – – – – 1×7 kg·ha−1 extract from fermentation of Lactobacillus sp., Yucca extract – – – – 2–4×1 L·ha−1 Potassium hydrogen carbonate – – – – 2–4×10 kg·ha−1 Sulfuric acid clay with yeast and plant extracts – – – – 1x 4 kg·ha−1 Active components of herbicides Glyphosate 1–4×5 L·ha−11–2×5 L·ha−1– – Fertilizer Fertilizer PK 22 ×9 1×300 kg·ha−11×300 kg·ha−1– – Humic acids made from activated Leonardite – – – – 1×200 kg·ha−1 Seeds Standard – – – – 1×30 kg·ha−1 Note: “–” not applied. Sustainability 2024,16, 6561 9 of 15 Table 2. Agricultural practices for conventional, integrated, and ecological grapevine production. Some values may have more significant figures than customary in analytical chemistry. Operation System Management (Frequency per Year; Labor Intensity; Average Diesel Consumption on One Operation) Production System Conventional Integrated Ecological Vine pruning and related work operations (cane tying, repairing the trellis) Mechanical winter pruning (1×; 2.5 h·ha−1; 11.5 ±1.32 L·ha−1) with manual cutting (1×; 50 h·ha−1) YES YES YES Manual cane tying (1×; 25 h·ha−1)YES YES YES Repair of trellis (1×;4h·ha−1; 6.00 ±0.88 L·ha−1)YES YES YES Removal of grape canes Shredding of grape canes in the inter-row (1×; 1.7 h·ha−1; 8.5 ±1.45 L·ha−1)YES YES YES Maintenance of the strips between two rows and in the weed free strips under the trellis Inter-row mulching (2–4×; 1.2 h·ha−1; 8.1 ±0.79 L·ha−1)YES YES YES Inter-row cultivation (3–5×; 1.0 h·ha−1; 6.9 ±2.19 L·ha−1)YES YES YES Intra-row cultivation (under the trellis) (2–4×; 2.5 h·ha−1; 13.1 ±1.48 L·ha−1)YES YES YES Chemical treatment of the strips (intra-row) (1–4×; 1.5 h·ha−1; 8.20 ±0.32 L·ha−1)YES NO NO Cover crops sowing (1×; 2.0 h·ha−1; 10.9 ±0.55 L·ha−1)NO NO YES Green works (canopy management) Manual shoot thinning (suckering) (1×; 40 h·ha−1)YES YES YES Manual shoot positioning (2–3×; 50 h·ha−1)YES YES YES Shoot topping (2–3×; 1.7 h·ha−1; 9.5 ±0.15 L·ha−1)YES YES YES Defoliation (1–2×; 2.5 h·ha−1; 9.0 ±1.12 L·ha−1)YES YES YES Chemical protection Mistblowing (4–8×; 1.2 h·ha−1; 5.8 ±1.29 L·ha−1)YES YES YES Fertilization Deep root fertilization (1×; 2.6 h·ha−1; 16.5 ±3.21 L·ha−1)YES YES NO Spreading organic fertilizer (1×; 1.2 h·ha−1; 7.1 ±1.44 L·ha−1)NO NO YES Grape harvesting Fully mechanized harvesting (1×; 3.0 h·ha−1; 23.1 ±2.45 L·ha−1)YES YES YES Grape removal (distance 5 km) (1×; 0.2 h·ha−1; 1.5 ±0.10 L·ha−1)YES YES YES Sum of labor intensity (h·ha−1)278 360 371 Sum of diesel consumption (L·ha−1)185 198 210 The output report of AGROTEKIS showed that the values of labor intensity range between 278 and 371 h · ha −1 . Comparing the labor intensity values with the data reported by Walg [ 44 ] for the conditions in Germany (150–300 h · ha −1 for operations with a cultivated area of 30–80 ha), the values were higher, which corresponded to the different size structure of the operations surveyed as well as the lower level of mechanization equipment. Smaller vineyard enterprises in the conditions of the Czech Republic are not equipped with a complete range of mechanization means to ensure all working operations. Therefore, within the framework of the applied technological procedures, part of the operations (especially green work) is carried out in the traditional manual way, which increases the overall level of labor intensity. This higher labor intensity paradoxically leads to lower fuel consumption,