What is the best fit for electric weed control in Australia?

Abstract

This study assessed the applicability of electric weed control (electroweeding) in Australian agricultural systems. Conducted by Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development WA (DPIRD) and CNH in collaboration with partners including Wine Australia, the project evaluated the effectiveness of electroweeding across viticulture, horticulture, orchards, broadacre and urban environments using machinery produced by Zasso. Field trials across 2022 and 2023 seasons tested operational parameters, including application speed, weed density, and soil moisture conditions, to refine manufacturer guidelines. Results indicate broadleaf weeds are more readily controlled than grasses, with optimized speeds ensuring high efficacy, even under conditions of wet soil or mature, dense weed populations. Electric weed control was particularly effective on herbicide-resistant species, significantly reducing biomass without adverse effects on soil biota, offering a potential management tool for organic production systems. While fire risk is negligible in winter and spring, it is substantial in summer and autumn when residues are dry. Economic assessments highlight higher costs relative to herbicide applications due to labour costs associated with the trial and higher rates of diesel use, factors which could be addressed in the future. The findings demonstrate electroweeding’s adaptability in Australian agriculture, in particular in viticulture, with promising prospects for integration into precision agricultural frameworks. Further research is recommended to refine technological adaptations for broader use. 

Summary

Methodology 

Electric weed control technology, developed by Zasso in partnership with CNH, was deployed using an XPower unit mounted on the rear linkage of a tractor. Two applicator configurations were tested: 

• XPS Applicator (0.55 m width) – Designed for viticulture and horticulture, mounted on either side of the tractor. 
• XPU Applicator (1.2 m width) – Intended for urban weed control, mounted at the front of the tractor. 

Field trials across the 2022 and 2023 seasons explored different application speeds, environmental conditions, and weed types. Manufacturer recommendations suggest speeds of 2–4 km/h for broadleaf weeds and 1–3 km/h for grass weeds, with optimal performance on dry plants and low surface soil moisture. The study examined scenarios where these recommendations were not followed to evaluate efficacy under real-world agricultural conditions. 

Key Findings 

• Damage to plants is immediate, enabling rapid assessment of coverage to ensure that areas are not missed. 
• Broad leaf weeds were controlled more effectively than grass weeds when using the electrical weed control method. Except for a few species, grass weed control is excellent when applied at the appropriate application speed. 
• Manufacturer recommendation is to treat dry plants, but performance at the appropriate speeds (1 km/h for grasses) gave over 90% control of wet plants, when using a 36 kW or 24 kW application at 1.5 km/h. 
• While manufacturer recommendations are to target weeds in dry soil, electric weed control efficacy following 2-3 mm simulated rainfall events did not indicate that surface soil moisture impacted control. However, 20 mm of rainfall did reduce grass control efficacy at an application speed of 2 km/h. An application speed of 1 km/h would have improved control. Therefore, in conditions of high surface soil moisture, application speed should be considered. 
• A project highlight was that electric weed control provided over 95% control of wet, fully mature, and exceptionally dense kikuyu at 1.5 km/h at a viticulture site (with wet topsoil due to recent rainfall). This species is often difficult to fully control with herbicide. 
• Damage to soil biota (i.e., bacteria and archaea in the 16s community, fungi in the ITS community and free-living nematodes) was not evident under any electric weed control treatment used at viticulture sites. 
• Results from viticulture weed control trials and the rhizoctonia trials both confirm no evidence of damage to the soil biota. This result highlights the potential for this technology to be used by organic growers. 
• Electric weed control was found to be highly effective on herbicide resistant weeds. Specifically, annual ryegrass with high resistance to group 1, 2 and 9 herbicides had biomass reduced by over 90% following electric weed control applications at 2 and 4 km/h compared to the application of herbicide (glyphosate 1.5 L/ha, group 9). 
• Fire risk resulting from application is very low in winter/spring but is significant when residue is dry in summer or early autumn. The risk was affected by residue type with oat hay having higher incidence of fires compared to barely straw. However, the average surface area of the residue or biomass did not alter fire risk during electric weed control application. 
• Electric weed control is more expensive than herbicides. Specifically, to complete an application using the XPower with XPU applicator at 2 km/h, the cost would be $210.55 per ha. Much of the cost for electric weed control is labour. If this is removed from the equation, the cost of electric weed control is reduced to $85.55 per ha (cost of fuel). Therefore, electric weed control is likely a viable solution for weed management in small areas, high value crops, where herbicide use is restricted or problem areas such as where herbicide development has occurred. 
• There is potential for the machine to have immediate value for winter and spring weed control in the viticulture and horticulture industries, as well as for urban and industrial management. Summer or autumn control is not safe in Australia due to fire risk. 

Conclusions 

Electroweeding demonstrates substantial potential as an alternative weed management tool, offering rapid efficacy, minimal ecological disturbance, and effective suppression of broadleaf and grass weeds, even in challenging conditions (e.g., wet soils, mature weeds). While application costs remain higher than conventional herbicides, further automation could significantly enhance affordability.  

The technology is particularly suited for viticulture, horticulture, and urban weed control, with immediate adoption potential in winter and spring weed management. However, summer and autumn applications pose fire risks and require further assessment before widespread deployment in Australian agricultural systems. Future research will refine operational efficiencies, explore weed biomass mapping for precision agriculture, and assess long-term soil health impacts.