Category: General Concepts

For basics category

  • Fundamentals of Spray Drift

    Fundamentals of Spray Drift

    The year 1989 marked my first spray drift trial under the watchful eye of Dr. Raj Grover and John Maybank. We evaluated the performance of several spray shrouds, Flexi-Coil, AgShield, Brandt, and Rogers, and wanted to measure just how effective they were. But in my heart I wasn’t interested in drift. I wanted to study herbicide efficacy. Anyway, I thought, we’ll do this trial and I’m pretty sure we won’t have to revisit the topic.

    It’s now thirty-two years later and spray drift has interwoven itself into all my projects, remains one of the most powerful drivers of regulatory activity, is likely the most visible consequence of poor stewardship, and will stay as one of the dominant creators of public opinion around modern agricultural practice.

    Drift has not gone away. And yet our understanding of it is far from complete.

    Spray drift is defined as the wind-induced movement of the spray cloud away from the treated swath. Droplet drift can occur for all sprays, and it happens within minutes of the spray pass. Its cousin, vapour drift, is limited to active ingredients that are volatile, that is, they can evaporate from dry deposits after application. Vapour drift happens after the spray application is complete and can last several days.

    Droplet Drift

    Droplet drift can be divided into two phases that are separated by about 1 second and that are measured differently. “Initial drift” happens first and refers to the product that leaves the treated area immediately after atomization. It is airborne and can be measured by placing air-samplers (any device that can capture droplets in air) close to the downwind edge of the spray swath.

    Figure 1: Initial vs Secondary drift. Once the drift cloud leaves the treated swath, the relative strengths of turbulence and sedimentation determine the amount that remains airborne and the amount that lands downwind.

    Secondary drift describes the airborne spray cloud that continues to move downwind from the swath edge, where it either remains aloft or deposits on the surface below it. It is typically measured using samplers placed on the ground that capture sedimenting spray droplets. The difference in method is important because it goes to the heart of the problem of understanding spray drift.

    Figure 2: Droplet drift occurs when displacement energy exceeds droplet energy. The droplet’s combination of mass and velocity cannot withstand the energy presented by moving air.

    Initial drift is actually quite easy to understand because its creation is intuitive. The displacement of droplets from the spray plume is a function of balancing two types of energy. The first, droplet energy, is the product of droplet diameter and velocity. The more energy in the droplets, the more difficult they are to displace, and that’s why larger, heavier droplets or fast-moving air assist are useful drift reducing tools.  The second, displacement energy, comes from relative air movement, either from forward travel speed or wind and the associated turbulence. More wind or turbulence means more power to displace.

     Figure 3: Initial drift follows an expected response to greater wind speeds and coarser sprays. Data from a pull-type sprayer travelling 13 km/h with 60 cm boom height.

    Because initial drift is easier to understand, our most common advice for reducing drift is based on maximizing droplet energy and minimizing displacement energy. Lower booms, larger droplets, slower travel speeds, shrouds, or properly implemented air assist all help reduce initial drift. It makes sense that creating less initial drift will also reduce downwind deposition arising from secondary drift.

    Figure 4: Management of initial drift is intuitive. We reduce drift by adding energy to the droplet and by protecting the droplet from exposure to moving air.

    Downwind Deposition

    After leaving the spray swath, the moving secondary drift cloud has two main options. It can deposit or it can remain airborne. Basic physics suggest that all objects eventually fall to the ground, and since smaller objects need more time, they drift further. But when atmospheric turbulence and topography are considered, it’s not quite that simple. These two complicating factors control what proportion of the drift cloud remains airborne, and what proportion deposits.

    Drift trials show that about 20% of the initial drift amount returns to the surface within the first 100 m or so of the sprayer. The rest remains and rises in the atmosphere where it evaporates and gets mixed further.

    Figure 5: The majority of secondary drift remains airborne. Data are for Medium spray quality from a pull-type sprayer with 60 cm boom height and 13 km/h travel speed

    It happens quickly. Just 5 m downwind of the spray swath, the cloud is already 4 m tall. At 100 m downwind, we’ve measured its height to be 30 m.

    The proportion of the spray that remains airborne depends on the spray quality and the nature of the atmosphere. If it’s windy and sunny, or if the spray is finer, turbulence sends more into the air. If it’s cloudy and the wind is low, we have little atmospheric mixing. As a result, a smaller proportion will remain airborne and more will sediment, and overall, we may actually have more potential to damage downwind areas.

    When we graph spray drift deposit data from a windy day, the deposit amount decreases exponentially with downwind distance. Usually, drift damage follows the same pattern. The larger droplets that contain the majority of the dose deposit first. The smaller droplets go further and are more likely to mix in the atmosphere and rise with thermals.

    Figure 6: Deposited drift decreases logarithmically with distance. Top, linear axes. Bottom, log axes.

    Under temperature inversion conditions that are common on calm summer evenings, overnight, and early mornings, the damage from the drift cloud does not decrease the same way. The cloud containing the buoyant mist lingers over a large area. Without atmospheric mixing and its resulting dilution with time and distance, large areas can be damaged.

    The Effect of Turbulence on Deposition

    We’ve established that the more atmospheric mixing we have, the less spray will deposit on the ground, at least in the short term. How does this affect our thinking on the role of wind?

    When we evaluated drift data from a number of trials, we always saw more initial drift with higher wind speeds, as expected. However, the downwind deposit did not usually increase significantly. We attributed this observation to turbulence generated by wind which lifted more of the initial drift higher into the atmosphere. To be clear, deposited drift did not go down with higher wind. It just didn’t rise as fast as initial drift.

    Figure 7: The effect of wind speed on airborne drift (top line) vs deposited drift (bottom line) from a high clearance sprayer travelling 23 km/h and emitting a Very Coarse spray.

    The effect of turbulence can be viewed as a good thing because it protects downwind objects. Rapid dilution reduces immediate drift damage. We can use turbulence to protect objects on the ground. It’s certainly better than the alternative, emitting sprays when the atmosphere can’t dilute them, such as in an inversion. In that case, downwind areas remain at risk for a long distance, and for a long time.

    But we have to also consider what happens to airborne spray droplets. Some pesticides degrade in sunlight and stop being a problem. But others are more stable and may persist in the atmosphere for days or longer. During that time, they may move significant distances, ultimately returning to the earth’s surface in precipitation or in dust. Even though the atmosphere has diluted them, these deposits are measurable, and will show up in environmental monitoring of air, soil, and water.  We may not be able to find out where they originate, but the public knows who to blame. Agriculture.

    Vapour Drift

    Vapour drift is another issue altogether. It occurs hours and days after application, as long as the volatile product remains on a surface and conditions that allow formation of vapours persist. Vapour pressure is related to surface temperature, and losses increase with warmer surfaces. Some products enter the vapour phase when in contact with water, and release vapour after a rainfall.

    In situations where vapour is released for several days after application, it becomes impossible to control its subsequent movement. For droplet drift, if we know the wind direction at the time of spraying, we know where the impact is likely to be. But vapour movement depends on conditions that may occur between now and three days from now, and these could include high temperatures, various wind directions, and even inversions in which vapours accumulate. Ultimately, the best way to avoid off-target vapour movement is to avoid using volatile products.

    The Public Good

    Spray drift is one of agriculture’s most important stewardship challenges, and our industry needs to continue to improve its track record. Sprayers have a difficult task of converting a relatively small volume of liquid into a spray that offers good target coverage yet doesn’t move off the treated area. Favourable weather combined with droplet size management are at the heart of making this system work, but there isn’t a lot of wiggle room. Once again, an emphasis on sprayer productivity is one of the most fruitful areas to invest in, as this makes the best of the sometimes rare conditions in which spraying conditions are optimal.

  • John Deere See & Spray Select

    John Deere See & Spray Select

    On March 2, 2021, John Deere entered the optical spot spray (OSS) market with its first product, See & Spray Select™. This “Green on Brown” system identifies green material on a non-green background and is thus suited for pre-seed burnoff, chem fallow, or post harvest. It is competing for the same market space as Cropland’s WEEDit and Trimble’s WeedSeeker, but uses a slightly different approach.

    At the heart of the See & Spray system is a relatively simple RGB camera that is mounted directly to the boom and looks about 1.5 m ahead.  When this camera detects a spot of green colour, it assumes that this is a plant and activates a nozzle in line with that plant. John Deere says the weed size threshold is about ¼” (6 mm), and is evaluating its experimental data to identify exceptions to that rule of thumb.

    See & Spray Select uses an RGB camera to detect weeds (Image courtesy John Deere)

    In 2017, John Deere conducted a highly publicized acquisition of Blue River Technologies, a start up that pioneered artificial intelligence (AI) plant identification and coined the term “See & Spray”. However, the technology John Deere announced this time originated with the University of Southern Queensland near Toowoomba, Australia. The university’s Centre for Agricultural Engineering had received some initial seed financing from Sugar Research Australia, Cotton Research and Development Corporation, and Hort Innovation, and eventually partnered with John Deere. This is yet another example of the value of farmer investments in research.

    Blue River contributed to this project but remains committed to its path of developing Green on Green OSS through machine learning. John Deere says this first product is part of an evolution of spraying with ever-increasing precision that will culminate in spot spraying weeds within a canopy.

    The pixels in the See & Spray camera chip are mapped during its initial calibration, allowing the processor to know which nozzle to turn on. There are two user-selected modes. In “Single Nozzle” Mode, the system turns on as few nozzles as possible. If the weed is directly under a nozzle, just that nozzle is turned on. Should the weed be in between two nozzles, both will be turned on. In “Overlapping” Mode, a detection will turn on at least three, and up to six adjacent nozzles. This mode is intended for herbicides that contain specific nozzle recommendations on the label, such as dicamba. By fitting these tips on the spot spray location, the required overlap and subsequent coverage can be guaranteed to be compliant with that label, a unique feature of See & Spray.

    The number of nozzles activated by a weed detection depends on the location of the weed relative to the nozzles, and the mode selected by the user (Image courtesy John Deere)

    In all modes, the user can specify the distance before and after the detected plant that the nozzle will spray. This feature is useful when boom height varies or when travelling faster to provide extra assurance that the target will be covered by the spray. The boom height range for See & Spray is 26 to 47” (66 to 120 cm), and the maximum travel speed with nozzles pointed down is 12 mph.

    Installation of a 40 degree angled adaptor allows sprays tom be emitted backwards, and increases the spray speeds to 16 mph due to the extra distance and time afforded the sensors andoin processors to make a decision.

    See & Spray has a built in contingency for suboptimal conditions, for example when the boom falls outside its height range, or the nozzle speed (not tractor) exceeds the 12 or 16 mph maximum in a turn, or a light or sensor or processor fault occurs. Called “Fallback Mode”, the boom can be configured to shut off, or to go into broadcast mode (using the spot spray nozzles) at that time. These types of insurance are a necessary part of an OSS on the market today.

    To prevent fallback mode from occuring unecessarily, operators often choose to reduce their tractor speed one or two mph to allow for yaw without triggering all the nozzles.

    No OSS system is perfect. Tiny weeds, or those obscured from camera view by crop residue, may be missed. The contingency for WEEDit is “Combined Mode”, where the entire boom emits a broadcast spray at a user-determined fraction of the full dose, while still maintaining spot spray capability at the full dose when a detection occurs. The reduced dose is sufficient to control the smallest weeds, whereas the spot spray is emitted at the full label rate for the larger ones. This capability is made possible through Pulse-Width Modulation (PWM) control of each nozzle.

    John Deere has developed a mode of its ExactApply system to create the same outcome. Called “A & B Mode”, the rear nozzle (B location on the ExactApply nozzle body) is being activated by See & Spray. The front nozzle (A location) can be asked to spray simultaneously over the entire boom width. By choosing a smaller nozzle, a fraction of the label rate can be applied as a broadcast while maintaining spot spray capability. The broadcast boom is pulse-width modulated and retains the swath control and turn compensation of ExactApply. This mode also makes it easier to ensure coverage of these smaller weeds by selecting a finer, wider (110 degree) angles spray on the broadcast boom, and retaining a coarser, narrower fan angle banding nozzle for the spot application. The spot spray does not use PWM, relying on conventional speed and pressure to ensure the correct rate.

    If planning to use A & B Mode, a user would first need to decide if they will calculate the spot spray dosing on a single or a multiple activated nozzle system. If priorizing the single nozzle actiation, one would first determine the band width of that nozzle, and size the nozzle accordingly. The band width should be ar close to the nozzle spacing as possible to maximize savings. Say the sprayer has 15″ spacing, and the nozzle’s band width is 20″. Now, whenever multiple nozzles are activated, they would operate as a 15″ spacing and would over-apply 20/15 = 1.33, or 33%. Say you want to apply 15 gpa (you may need to boost the spot spray volume to allow you to cut that with the broadcast feature). You can do it with the band (and overdose when using multiple nozzles, or apply 15 gpa with the multiple nozzles, underdosing by 28% when a single nozzle is activated. Or split the difference.

    The next step is to select the application rate of the broadcast. If you want to apply 30% of the spot spray rate using the broadcast nozzles, size these accrodingly to apply 5 gpa.

    For band- and spot-sprays, the width of the spray pattern at the target height determines the dose, therefore careful selection is advised. A worksheet that shows boom heights at various fan angles and nozzle spacings is downloadable here. TeeJet and Hypro offer a selection of narrower flat fan tips, but none yet in a low-drift design. Other nozzles are in development. Agrotop has already developed a low-drift “Spot Fan”, and MagnoJet, a Brazilian ceramic nozzle supplier, has 30 and 40 degree low drift tips for sale. Wilger has develped the DX series ComboJet tips in 20, 40, and 60 degree fan angles, in a low drift (pre-orifice design that works with PWM.

    The camera sensing threshold can be adjusted to optimize a specific target. For example, to specify a certain weed size, that weed can be held in view of the sensor and the user can adjust the sensitivity until the weed is properly detected. As with any higher sensitivity, this runs the risk of more false detections, resulting in over-application. But it gives the user some knowledge that an important weed stage is being targeted properly.

    The See & Spray camera relies on ambient light conditions, and John Deere recommends it not be used within 30 minutes of dawn or dusk. Both WEEDit and WeedSeeker, in contrast, can operate under any light conditions.

    One of the challenges of running a OSS boom is the unpredictable fluctuation in flow requirement, which can theoretically range from just a few nozzles spraying to the whole boom activated in less than one second. While this extreme example is rare, a sophisticated and fast-responding pressure-based flow capability is nonetheless required. WEEDit uses a Ramsay Valve into their units to handle this challenge, whereas John Deere is relying on its existing plumbing design.

    As a factory install, the See & Spray is fully integrated into the Series 4 display and is tied into JD Link. As a result, it can generate a high resolution map that shows each spot spray activation, by nozzle. The agronomic utility of this capability is significant, as it provides a very high resolution plant density map. This capability is also inherent in WEEDit and most green on Green systems available..

    See & Spray Select is a factory option and comes integrated into the 4600 series monitor (Image courtesy John Deere)

    It’s no secret that I believe optical spot sprays represent the future of pesticide application (see here). And it’s great news to see John Deere enter the OSS area with a factory installed option. As an influential force in ag, it lends credence to the concept and will benefit all other companies vying for this space. As they say, a rising tide raises all ships.

  • Simple Statistics for Growers

    Simple Statistics for Growers

    In North America, winter is agriculture conference and lecture season. Growers are inundated with graphs and charts and left to make sense of what they’re seeing. It might be an agrichemical rep promoting a new pesticide or a seed dealer comparing yields. Maybe an equipment dealer is illustrating return on investment. Even university researchers and government extension specialists have been known to flash the occasional graph from time to time.

    Without a basic understanding of how data can be abused, we are at the mercy of those presenting the data. So, in 2012, I was asked to develop a talk that would give growers a basic grounding in descriptive statistics. More to the point, it would empower a grower to raise their hand and ask questions if they felt a presenter was talking out of their… *ahem*.

    • Did the researcher do their stats correctly?
    • Is the data clear and easy to understand?
    • Is the presenter skewing something to make us see what they want?

    Since writing it, I’ve been asked to deliver this talk to several grower groups, which is surprising because very few people love statistics. Now that we’re all webinar-savvy, I took the opportunity to update the presentation and record it.

    The video is only 15 minutes. When you’re done I hope you’ll appreciate that it’s OK to be skeptical of data. Ask questions and dig deeper.

  • Putting a Number on Pesticide Waste

    Putting a Number on Pesticide Waste

    Waste (noun): an act or instance of using or expending something to no purpose.

    In agriculture, environment and economy are intertwined. Producers strive to obtain the maximum return on their inputs. They study incremental returns and avoid applying more inputs than necessary, especially if conditions don’t warrant it.  The financial incentive is powerful, and waste is a four-letter word. This applies to seed, fertilizer, and pesticide. Pesticide labels identify the rate needed to obtain the desired result, and there is no incentive to over-apply. In fact, it’s illegal.

    But there are plenty of other places where applications incur waste. As with time efficiency, it’s a good idea to identify where this waste occurs, and the only tool needed is a sharp pencil.

    When might we incur waste in the spray application process?

    • Mixing more than we need because we don’t trust the flow meter or the tank gauge entirely, or don’t know the exact field size.
    • Priming the boom before the first swath.
    • Overlapping due to curvy terrain and coarse sectional control.
    • Spray drift away from the intended swath.

    How big are the losses?

    Let’s say we have a clean sprayer and need to spray 160 acres before moving to a new crop and product. We plan to apply 10 gallons per acre and have a 1,200 gallon tank with a 120 foot boom. That means we need 1,600 gallons of spray mix in total.

    Once we’re at the field we prime the boom. Each sprayer is different, but depending on operator experience, 30 to 50 gallons are usually needed to push product from the tank to the last nozzle. Only part of that is lost to the ground, as boom sections can be shut off as soon as product has reached every nozzle of that section. We’re assuming 0.2 gallons per foot of boom is lost.

    Spraying itself is relatively straightforward. Swath and sectional control handle the overlaps, but in less ideal terrain, double application is known to account for 4 to 5% of the area to reach non-square parts of the field. This is even more likely when the outer section is 10’ or more. Early turn-on of the boom prior to leaving the headland, to allow boom to reach operating pressure, adds to this.

    Air-activated shutoff for individual nozzles reduces section size at a reasonable cost.

    With an average nozzle, we can expect about 2% of the product to airborne drift. Most airborne won’t return to the ground within the field borders, so it’s a complete loss.

    Most of the spray that travels more than 5 m after leaving boom stays airborne and should be considered a total loss from the field.

    As we finish, the pump will draw air before the tank is empty due to sloshing or foaming, and a 50 to 60 gallon remainder may not be unusual. This simulation has assumed 5% of tank volume remains.

    We also need to purge spray from the boom at cleanout, consuming approximately 0.4 gallons per foot of boom. This occurs after the field is completely sprayed and is therefore considered waste.

    So how does this add up? The following table shows the approximate losses associated with five setups.

    Table 1: Spray mix losses during a sprayer operation. Setup 1 = baseline, Setup 2 = low application volume, Setup 3 = baseline with recirculating boom, tank level monitor, and low-drift nozzles, Setup 4 = large area between cleaning, Setup 5 = large area with recirculating boom, tank level monitor, and low-drift nozzles.

    In the first scenario, we spray just 160 acres at 10 gallons per acre. Priming the boom with 0.4 gallons per foot (allowing for all associated feed lines) consumes 48 gallons, but only wastes half of that, or 1.5% of the total volume needed for the field.

    Four percent overlap consumes another 64 gallons.

    If we have 5% of the tank volume left over, that’s 60 gallons. That amount is so small it doesn’t even register on the sight gauge but nonetheless it represents another 4% of the total sprayed amount.

    Upon cleaning the boom, we need to push the spray mix out of all the  plumbing after the pump, as it has nowhere else to go. At an assumed 0.4 gallons per foot, that’s another 48 gallons or 3%.

    If we add to that a conservative 2% drift loss, it sums to a surprising 14% of the total spray volume. For those that use lower water volumes (the second scenario), the volumetric losses are slightly less, but their proportion is higher, now accounting for 23% (!) of the total spray mix.

    In the third scenario, let’s assume we use a recirculating boom that returns the initial prime volume to the tank, eliminating any waste. We’ll also upgrade to individual nozzle sectional control, reducing overlap to 1%. And, since we want to know exactly what’s left in the tank, let’s invest in an AccuVolume system to precisely monitor tank volume. This allows us to make small rate adjustments up or down to be sure as much of the mixed product goes onto the sprayed swath as possible.

    Recirculating booms allows the spray mix to pass through entire length of boom without being sprayed, saving waste during priming and allowing waste-free boom rinses.

    When the sump begins to empty, we can introduce some water from the clean water tank to push the last of the mix to the boom (a continuous rinse system makes this easy).

    An AccuVolume sensor shows the exact volume left in the tank at any slope position and with 1 gallon resolution, allowing greater accuracy when filling and emptying.

    We’ll assume our sump waste is now reduced to 12 gallons. We still need to dispose of the content of the boom somehow, so the recirculating boom offers no saving there. But let’s also add better low-drift nozzles to reduce drift by 50% (now 1% total volume). Total loss is now just 6%.

    Low-drift nozzles such as this AirMix (Agrotop) SoftDrop reduce airborne drift by 50 to 90%.

    The last two rows in the table repeat the first and third scenarios for a larger sprayed area (1000 acres) before a tank cleaning is needed. This doesn’t change the magnitude of the volumetric loss, but reduces its proportion. Percent loss is down by a factor of two from the 160 acre interval, to 3 to 7%.

    Experienced operators might cheat the system a bit by mixing the required pesticide with some extra water to make up for the plumbing waste. Doing so prevents extra pesticide from being consumed, but it doesn’t reduce the inherent inefficiency.

    Lessons

    This exercise suggests that waste from spraying is probably higher than we assumed. If we average the scenarios, there is 10 to 15% waste. At, say, $200,000 spent on pesticide for a single spraying season, that’s $20 – $30,000 worth of product and water hauled that ends up where it doesn’t belong. Beyond the time and money, there can also be environmental consequences depending on how that waste is treated.

    There are some things that can be done.

    • Know the exact area of the field to be sprayed.
    • Study your sprayer plumbing and consider improvements such as recirculating booms and continuous cleanout.
    • Improve monitoring of tank content to allow lower remainders.
    • Consider individual nozzle shutoff to improve sectional control. These are part of Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) systems, but can also be achieved with less expensive valves.
    • Plan spray operations to minimize the amount of product changeovers.
    • Consider direct injection.

    The return on investment for plumbing improvements can be high and result in considerable future savings over the life of the sprayer. It’s worth thinking about.

  • The Most Important Developments in Spraying

    The Most Important Developments in Spraying

    Some things have improved a lot. Others have lost ground.

    Some years ago, a few of us weed scientists sat around a table and debated the most important developments in agriculture in our lifetimes. It was a great discussion, and we arrived at a few that included direct seeding (for its soil and moisture conservation as well as improved fertilizer placement), GMO crops (for slowing Group 1 and 2 herbicide resistance), and the abandonment of summer fallow in much of western Canada. Let’s apply this exercise to spray application to see what we come up with.

    What follows are my version of the most important spray technology developments in the last 50 years.

    1. Low-drift Nozzles. Spray drift is the biggest time management challenge and also perhaps the biggest public relations battle. These nozzles reduce drift, making more time available for spraying and doing it safely and effectively.
    2. Rate Controllers. I both love and hate these things. On the one hand, a rate controller matches sprayer output to travel speed. On the other, it has allowed spray pressures to go wherever they need, even beyond the optimum, to match travel speed, and that can lead to nozzle performance issues.
    3. Pulse Width Modulation. The pulsing nozzle fixes the rate controller problem mentioned above. Now, travel speed and pressure are independent. Plus, of course, a whole host of other flow management options, such as turn compensation and rate boosting, become available.
    4. Optical Spot Spraying. Once you see these in action, you can’t go back. Why would you spray a whole field when weeds only cover 10% of it? Products like WEEDit and WeedSeeker are proven green-on-brown performers after years of field success around the world.
    5. GPS Guidance. Some of us grew up with foam or disk markers, others learned to aim for brave family members perched on headlands. Achieving accuracy was stressful, overlap was insurance, and misses were common. The importance of this development is probably under-estimated.
    6. Sectional Control. The ability to adjust the spray width in individual nozzle steps makes sense, and this can come with or without PWM. In fact, that alone can save 5% of an annual chemical bill compared to conventional sections measuring about 10 to 15 feet. And it’s definitely better than the left boom or right boom options from the 70 and 80s.
    7. Operator Comfort and Safety. The refuge of the cab makes longer days bearable for all equipment, but for spraying it dramatically improves safety as well.

    But we’re far from done. We still need work in these areas.

    1. Cleaning and Waste Management. I can’t imagine another industry where managing potentially hazardous leftover materials are left to the discretion and circumstances of the applicator. Let’s make it easy and fast to thoroughly clean the sprayer and safely dispose of leftovers. Step 1 is smarter and simpler plumbing.
    2. Boom Stability. Booms are too high, resulting in more drift and poorer nozzle performance, and adding to operator stress. The sole reason is unsatisfactory levelling. It’s possible to solve this, but it seems to not be a priority.
    3. Weight. The road to productivity seems to be paved with larger, heavier machines. The side effects are fuel consumption, compaction, getting stuck. Let’s get smarter with frame design and logistics and talk acres/h rather than tank capacity and power.
    4. Cost. All farm equipment has seen cost increases that far outstrip inflation or any reasonable accounting of productivity and features. Sprayers lead the way. Yes, it’s possible to spins this as a value proposition. But it shouldn’t be necessary.
    5. Drift Management. Sprayer design continues to ignore drift management. We need sprayers that produce less drift by design, and this requires consideration of tractor unit, wheel, and boom aerodynamics. It’s more than a droplet size issue.
    6. Direct Injection. Although very handy for single product application, the plethora of product formulations and mixes has limited the success of direct injection systems. The complexity of injecting at the nozzle, and the resulting lack of available systems, has stymied some very attractive options, such as site-specific rate or product use.
    7. Ergonomics. If you need training, or to call someone before using your new sprayer for the first time, something’s wrong. Interfaces need to be intuitive and simple. The golden age of spray monitors was the 1980s. Those featured a main power toggle switch, a pump power switch, boom section switches, an agitation switch, and a simple way to enter the important information which was basically desired application volume. The screen can still be pretty, and you can still paint and monitor or tweak all the functions if you like that. But let’s at least have different tiers so beginners can also use the machine. Make interfaces using the philosophy Steve Jobs instilled in his trusted designer Jony Ive with the first iPod: no more than three clicks to achieve any desired outcome.

    A few areas show promise and may suit certain niches.

    1. In-Crop Weed Sensing. The green-on-green sensing that has been made possible by machine learning has shown some encouraging early success. Continuing improvements will eventually bring its reliability to within commercially acceptable standards. There is significant activity below the radar in this area, as all players recognize the enormous upside of a breakthrough.
    2. Autonomy. While dispensing a pesticide adjacent to sensitive areas isn’t exactly the low-hanging fruit of autonomy, such field sprayers will have a fit in the temperate plains of North and South America, Australia, and Asia and may help solve the cost and weight problem.
    3. Drone Application. The rapid pace of advancement in remotely piloted aerial systems, along with a seemingly low barrier to entry of new companies, will put pressure on the industry to make a decision on this alternate application method. If it can be done safely, it will have a dramatic impact.

    If you want to improve your sprayer, don’t ignore the small things you can do in your operation. Although we’re conditioned to look for game-changing technology, the most sustained improvements don’t come from a single innovation, but from a period of persistent evolution. A lot of small improvements add up. Spray application is no different.