The level of filtration required for any given spray operation depends on the materials sprayed and the nuisance factor: That is, the balance between lost productivity from plugged nozzles and the effort required to address them during rinsing.
There are opportunities to install strainers at the tank opening (usually a basket), the suction-side of the pump, each section line, and behind the nozzles. While we’ve yet to see an operation that uses all four (speciality or field operations), the suction strainer and line strainers are required bare-minimum.
This infographic explains how strainers are classified. Be aware that older strainers may use a different colour code (e.g. 50 mesh used to be red – now it’s blue).
To convert these ratings to actual size exclusion, we look at the Mesh Width (mm). An 80 mesh (yellow) leaves a distance of 0.18 to 0.23 mm between the wires. We can convert Mesh Width from mm to microns by multiplying it by 1,000, giving us 180 – 230 microns.
Each level of filtration should get progressively finer, ending with the nozzle strainers being slightly finer than the nozzle orifice. Nozzle catalogues will often advise you on which strainer is appropriate for the nozzle you are using.
When we ask why operators don’t use nozzle strainers, the response is either “Because they plug” or “It’s one more thing to clean”. Well, if your nozzle strainers are plugging, it’s likely because you have an agitation (see here) or mixing issue (see hereand here) further up the line. They can handle a lot before the spray pattern begins to suffer … but yes, you do have to clean them regularly so they can continue their good work.
Running water through any strainer often fails to remove plugs and debris, which are a source of contamination that can wreak havoc later on. They have to be removed and physically scrubbed during rinsing. We ran a demo to show why this irritating process is still a must-do (here).
If you use an airblast sprayer, you should use slotted (not mesh, which plug too easily) nozzle strainers. Beyond the obvious benefit of preventing plugged nozzles, the strainer shoulder plays a role in keeping the nozzle snug in the nozzle body. Without it, you may need additional gaskets to prevent leaks. Be aware that some nozzle strainer designs can plug a nozzle body. Learn more here.
If you use a field sprayer with clean carrier water, liquid formulations and large nozzles, you may never need nozzle strainers. But, if you’re using a lot of dry formulations, if your agitation is under-powered, or if your fill water is less than pristine (we’ve seen frogs in sprayer tanks) then you might consider them… even if they are a nuisance to clean.
“I’m an organic apple grower with constant nozzle-clogging problems. These problems occur when we use wettable powders such as micronized sulfur and Surround WP. We always premix before adding to the tank through its strainer. Our airblast sprayers have towers and employ mechanical agitation. The nozzle/filter combo is TeeJet TXR8001K Ceramic Conejet Visiflow Hollow Cone spray tips with TeeJet 4514NY10 50-mesh nylon slotted strainers. The nozzle strainers rarely make it through a full tank without having problems. Do I need to add an additional level of filtration or is there something that I’m missing?”
A clogged slotted strainer inside the nozzle body. Note that the inners of the check valve seem clear (a good thing).A clogged slotted strainer.
You can almost feel the frustration. When I receive grower enquiries, I first turn to the library of articles on Sprayers101 as well as the Airblast101 textbook. I was surprised to discover that we didn’t have anything that addressed this issue directly. So, I checked through university extension and industrial resources. Ultimately I couldn’t find what I was looking for, so let’s correct this oversight.
Possible causes
There may not be a single reason for why nozzles plug. It might be a combination of the following factors:
1. Product choice
While any tank mix can create clogs if they prove to be physically incompatible, there are two formulations that have a reputation for clogging nozzles.
Wettable powder (WP) formulations such as micronized sulfur and diatomaceous earth are notorious for clogging nozzles. WPs consist of a finely ground solid active ingredient often combined with wetting and bulking agents to help hold them in a dilute suspension. They tend to be dry products rather than liquids.
In a similar vein, suspension concentrate (SC) formulations also consist of a finely ground solid active ingredient, but this time they are suspended in a liquid and kept dispersed in the sprayer tank by wetting agents, dispersants, and thickeners. These formulations are known as “flowables” or “suspensions”.
By the way, for those thinking he should change products, he already uses Kumulus DF (or Microthiol Disperss), which are reputedly the least troublesome formulations… and smell better than other sulfurs.
2. Mixing practices
Pre-slurries are sometimes prescribed for SCs. I personally feel that pre-slurries create exposure risks and more things to clean, but this opinion is moot in the case of WPs: Micronized sulfur and diatomaceous earth are not soluble. They’re particles that are held in suspension by fluid flow or agitation, so there’s no point in a pre-slurry.
For those readers that cook, consider the corn starch metaphor. You’re making a sauce, and you choose to thicken it with a pre-slurry of corn starch and water. The particles disperse, but do not dissolve, so if you fail to use it immediately they settle to the bottom of the container. They must be forcibly scraped up and resuspended.
3. Agitation
Best practice is to fill the tank at least ½ full of water and engage agitation before you add anything. To extend the cooking metaphor, you want a simmer but not a rolling boil. Once filled, never stop agitating or WPs and SCs will settle and may not resuspend uniformly, if at all.
Your sprayer design may affect matters. Some hydraulic agitation systems flag if they have undersized pumps. If your pump is busy sending flow to the nozzles, it may not have sufficient capacity to run the agitation. When your sprayer is “empty”, is there a thick accumulation at the bottom? You may have insufficient hydraulic agitation. Mechanical (paddle) agitation does not suffer this issue because it is direct-driven off the PTO. Read more here.
4. Clean-out practices
Perhaps plugs are occurring because of the previous tank, not the current tank. WPs can leave a buildup of settled pesticide in the tank, suction strainer and nozzle strainers. If you aren’t diligent about rinsing at the end of each day, products will settle and harden. Micro sulfur particles, for example, are less than 10 µm in diameter and harden into a flakey shell that can break loose and cause plugs.
5. Flow restriction
Several things can restrict flow. Elbows, bends and fittings can increase friction, reducing flow. The greater the distance a fluid needs to travel, the more flow is reduced. The greater the head (a pump’s head is the maximum height that the pump can achieve pumping against gravity), the more flow is reduced. There is an excellent description of this relationship here.
So, if an operator is using nozzles with a particularly small orifice, plus nozzle strainers, on a vertical boom, liquid flow will be reduced. This allows particles to fall out of suspension and settle, forming further restriction to flow and eventually, plugs.
Possible solutions
Now, armed with these potential causes, let’s return to the grower. After some back-and-forth, he clarified that the clogs were a problem, but restricted flow was worse. An operator will stop to clean or replace a plugged nozzle, but may not notice reduced flow. This has the potential to affect several rows as well as leave unsprayed product in the tank.
My first proposal was to increase nozzle size. An ’01 tip is very, very small and even with slotted strainers (as opposed to mesh), that’s a lot of restriction. I suggested recalibrating for larger tip orifices. This is a rather involved process, but options included using every second nozzle (as long as there were no gaps in coverage), and/or dropping pressure, and/or increasing travel speed (as long as the spray still reached the tree top and canopy centre). I shared this Excel outputcalculator to help with the process.
Failing that, we discussed a plumbing project. Section 5.2.1 of Airblast101 describes a way to create a self-cleaning line filter that replaces nozzle strainers. That means instead of climbing a ladder to pull tips off a tower to reach the strainers, all filtration is conveniently located at ground level for easier (and more frequent) cleaning.
The outcome
The grower felt the numbers worked best running orange 02 TXR’s in every second position. He ordered new 50 mesh slotted nozzle strainers. His new operating parameters would be 5 nozzles/side, at 8.2 bar (120 psi) and 5.1 km/h (3.2 mph) for a total 51.5 L/ha (55 gpa). He noted some incompatibility issues running Braglia nozzle bodies (spec on his Rears sprayer), TeeJet TXR’s, TeeJet slotted strainers and TeeJet CP20230 caps. That was an important observation, and you can learn more about it here.
We felt good about this, but while there was an improvement, it didn’t solve the problem. There was still strainer clogging after the first tankload. So, he added inline filters and removed the tip strainers. The result:
“Yesterday I sprayed over 350 pounds (over 1,000 gal) of Surround WP and had no issues. I’m really excited about this new setup – it looks very promising. I’ve attached more pics if you’re interested (I don’t spend a lot of time scrubbing sprayers until after Surround season). Thanks again for all your help in this matter. – Joe Fahey, Peck & Bushel Fruit Company”
A 50 mesh inline filter assembly with a 1/4 turn ball valve for quick flushes.New filter plumbed and secured. Note the anti-rub wrap on the line – always a good idea.The new loadout. 02’s in every second position, with no tip strainers, and a new inline filter on each side of the sprayer.
Fantastic. Thanks to Joe for letting me share this story. Hopefully his experience will help you diagnose and solve any flow or nozzle plugging issues in your own operation.
Happy Spraying.
Epilogue
This article elicited some interesting comments. I’ll share two:
One grower proposed switching from a low profile axial sprayer to an air-shear system (there are a few examples here). In this case, the grower had a European make with hydraulic agitation. The grower re-plumbed theirs by installing a bigger pump and swapping the sparge system with a 3/4″ pipe oriented toward the bottom to sweep it out. When mixing, the agitation valve is left wide open. He says he doesn’t even bother with a tank basket; he dumps the Surround (as much as 2 x 50 pound bags in 1,000 litres) and has no plugging issues.
Another grower with considerable boom-sprayer experience was genuinely surprised this was even an issue. Self-cleaning filters have been commercially available for more than 30 years and most boom sprayers have them. This is a comment on the stagnation of the North American low-profile radial airblast design. Perhaps the long life of these sprayers (sometimes 40 years of service) makes iterative change slow, or perhaps most operators aren’t aware of new features, or perhaps change is a risky proposition in such high-value crops. This is a shame given that the first optic sensors were installed on airblast, not broad acre field sprayers. That comes as a surprise to many. But it seems to have been the exception and not the rule.
Editor’s note: This article originally appeared in the Winter, 2025 ONCore newsletter (Volume 29, Issue 1). We thought it was an excellent description of the integrated pest management process and where fungicide spraying fits in. It’s been modified from the original version.
Part One: Know Your Enemy
There is no denying that product efficacy and rotational partners are critical components of effective pest management. A pest is causing damage; we need as many tools as possible to control it. Let’s consider the basics of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The first step in effective management is understanding the pest biology.
Figure 1. Foundations of integrated pest management
Let’s use apple scab as a case study for the IPM process. We’ll start with a deep dive into apple scab 101 by referring to its typical life cycle. Apple scab overwinters in infected leaves on the orchard floor. During the winter and early spring, immature ascospores (primary inoculum) are protected in specialized spore sacs, called pseudothecia.
Figure 2. Life cycle of apple scab (Image: Cornell University)
Maturation of ascospores in the leaf litter on the orchard floor usually occurs at the same time the trees are emerging from dormancy. This means mature ascospores are present and ready to infect the first green tissue in spring. However, the percentage of mature ascospores in the orchard generally peaks when apples are at the late pink to petal fall stages of bud development.
Once the tree breaks dormancy and green tissue is present, a primary infection occurs if the following three conditions are met:
Mature ascospores are present in leaf litter in the orchard.
Weather conditions favour ascospore discharge and infection.
Fungicide protection is inadequate to prevent infections.
Mature ascospores are discharged from the pseudothecia by rain and splashed up to emerging green tissue by wind. Moisture – dew or rain – is necessary for ascospore discharge and germination, as well as subsequent infection of apple tissue. Olive green, velvety lesions appear 10-28 days after infection by an ascospore, depending on temperature. The lesions initiated by ascospores result in primary infections, and in turn, produce spores called conidia.
Conidia are spread from primary lesions by rain or wind and initiate further infections when the combination of temperature and leaf wetness enables them to germinate and become established. These are called secondary infections, and generally occur within a tree or between adjacent trees rather than at a long distance.
The secondary cycle can be repeated many times during the growing season, whereas primary infection only continues until all overwintering spores are depleted. With frequent rainfall, the control of apple scab becomes extremely difficult as the season progresses, particularly if the disease becomes established from primary infections in the spring.
Early season management (green tip to tight cluster) provides the greatest economic protection against loss from scab control failure. In other words, don’t wait to get fungicide protection on!
Figure 3. Risk of primary apple scab infection and the probability of economic loss from scab control failure. (Image: Cornell University)
Part Two: When To Strike
Just like how understanding the biology of the pest helps to determine appropriate intervention timings, understanding how fungicides work will help determine when best to apply them and ensure maximum efficacy (aka the most bang for your buck).
Fungicides can be divided into four categories, based on what they do:
Preventative
Curative
Eradicant
Antisporulant
Preventative
Before the plant is even infected
Before we can see any symptoms
Most fungicides work preventatively
If fungicides work in multiple ways, often they work best preventatively
Curative
Stops the mycelial growth inside the plant
Still can’t see any symptoms
Fungicides with “kickback”
Eradicant
Stops the pathogen during lesion formation
Ok, now we can see symptoms
Very few fungicides work this way, even though this is how we expect them to work
Antisporulant
Stops the pathogen from sporulating
We can see symptoms
Several fungicides work this way, but your crop is already infected
In addition to the timing of a fungicide, efficacy can be affected by residues (or lack of), rains and risky gaps. A general rule of thumb often used is that 1 inch (2.5 cm) of rain removes approximately 50% of protectant fungicide residue and over 2 inches (5 cm) of rain will remove most of the residue. While systemic fungicides tend to perform better than protectant (or contact) fungicides in rainy periods, they do still require a certain amount of time prior to a rain event to be taken into the leaves – which isn’t always as easy as it sounds (see Part three).
During conditions conducive to disease development, it is important to maintain tight intervals between fungicide applications. Most labels will have the minimum interval listed. For protectant fungicides, a tight interval program would be 5-7 days. Where possible, do not extend intervals beyond 14-21 days if there are any concerns of disease. As a fungicide application ages, the efficacy of that product is reduced.
Areas of the canopy that are often missed due to poor coverage are within the tree due to spray not reaching through or at the top of larger trees . Routine monitoring can miss early signs of scab infection in these parts of the tree if not done thoroughly. I saw numerous situations this year (2025) where scab lesions were overlooked.
Part Three: Fungicide Playbook
Let’s take a closer look at some common scab fungicides and what is meant by contact and systemic activity and how they might redistribute after application. The rest of this article refers to pesticide brands available in Canada. They may have different names in other countries.
Figure 4. Movement of fungicide in plant: (A) contact or protectant; (B) xylem-mobile or acropetal; (C) translaminar; (D) phloem-mobile. (Adapted from K. Goldenhar, BCMAF)
Contact (Protectant) Fungicides
These products remain on the surface of the plant tissue and provide preventative activity only. Examples of contact fungicides include fluazinam (Allegro, Vantana), coppers, sulphurs, mancozeb (Manzate, Penncozeb, Dithane), captan (Maestro, Supra Captan) and folpet (Folpan, Follow).
Unfortunately, because these products provide superficial coverage only, they can be prone to UV degradation or run-off and need frequent applications. Stickers/spreaders can help these stay on the plant but always refer to the label before using.
Systemic Fungicides
Systemic fungicides get taken up into the plant. Unlike contact fungicides, systemic fungicides tend to have longer duration and are rainfast once absorbed. However, sufficient tissue is needed for absorption so these products are best used after tight cluster in apples. How systemic fungicides move within the plant can vary:
Xylem-Mobile
Xylem-mobile, or acropetal fungicides move to the actively growing tips of expanding foliage and protect new growth. Examples of xylem-mobile fungicides include most Group 3 and 11s, as well as some Group 7s (e.g., fluopyram).
Translaminar
Translaminar fungicides move from the top of the leaf to the underside. Because of this limited movement, coverage matters. Examples of translaminar fungicides include most Group 7s as well as Cevya and Inspire Super.
Phloem-Mobile
Phloem-mobile, or “true” systemic fungicides move into the tissue and are carried to the roots to protect against root rots. There are no examples of phloem-mobile fungicides for apple scab. However, this group includes products such as Aliette and Phostrol which are registered for other diseases of apples. Unlike other systemic fungicides, this group has a short duration of activity (i.e., they move fast).
Resistance Management
Fungicides are grouped based on their mode of action, or how the product affects the disease. For example, all products in Group 3 have the same mode of action, so using one product is virtually the same as using all other products within that group. In pre-mix fungicides, both groups need to be considered in all rotation decisions.
Figure 5. Systemic fungicides registered for apple scab in FRAC Groups 3, 7, 9 and 11
One key strategy to good resistance management is rotating between products of different chemical groups. Figure 5 shows which fungicides belong to Groups 3, 7, 9 and 11. For instance, since Aprovia Top belongs to Group 3 and 7, it should not be followed by other Group 3 (Cevya, Fullback, Nova), Group 3+9 (Inspire Super), Group 7 (Excalia, Fontelis, Kenja, Sercadis), Group 7+9 (Luna Tranquility) or Group 7+11 (Merivon, Pristine).
For resistance management:
Where possible, include at least half rate protectant fungicide.
Do not use products containing the same chemical group in consecutive applications.
Limit number of applications per group per season, where possible.
Apply preventatively; do not rely on systemic fungicides for post-infection activity
Do not use Group 3 (Nova, Fullback, Inspire Super) or Group 11 (Flint, Pristine, Merivon) fungicides after bloom for scab management as they are weak on fruit scab. Trials with Cevya have indicated good efficacy on fruit scab.
Research from northeastern US indicates Group 7 fungicides may be weaker on fruit scab as well.
Part Four: Final Considerations
In conclusion, take some time to consider the following:
Early intervention remains the cornerstone of effective disease management!
Use weather monitoring tools to time fungicide applications
Adjust spray schedules and product choice according to the weather
Dedicate time for regular orchard inspections
Train your team to identify symptoms early, accurately and consistently
Optimize your spray program
Protectant AND systemic fungicides
Rotate classes to prevent resistance
Select for broad-spectrum efficacy
Reduce overwintering inoculum
The author gratefully acknowledges Katie Goldenhar, OMAFA Pathologist (Horticulture) for providing source material for this article.
Alternate Row (aka Alternate Row Middle [ARM]) spraying is an application method where the air-assist sprayer does not pass down every alley during an application. The sprayer operator is relying on the spray to pass through one or more rows and provide acceptable coverage to the entire canopy (or canopies) on a single pass.
Some state agencies promote this spraying strategy to various degrees, and many sprayer operators (whether they admit it or not) have used this method of spraying. I have advised it myself for very young and/or very sparse vineyard and orchard plantings, but never without confirming coverage. When I tell operators that I have serious reservations about alternate row spraying, they defend it. Here are the most common justifications I’ve heard over the years, and my response:
Justification
Reply
“I do not have enough spray capacity to spray every row when time is short.”
You need more sprayer capacity. Get another sprayer so you can get spray on in time or invest in a multi-row sprayer is possible.
“ARM spraying saves money and reduces environmental impact because I use less pesticide.”
Technically, if you travel every second row with a sprayer calibrated to travel every row, you have indiscriminately reduced your carrier and chemical inputs by half (or more). Without close monitoring you may compromise your efficacy.
“I only perform ARM spraying early in the season when canopies are empty, or only on young plantings.”
I grudgingly grant this one as long as coverage is closely monitored. I’ve prescribed it myself in young or sparse plantings where I couldn’t get the sprayer output low enough to prevent drenching the targets.
“The spray plume in the alley beyond the target row must mean the spray is providing adequate coverage. More is better!”
If the spray is blowing through the canopy, it isn’t landing in the canopy. Further, if the air speed/volume is too high, droplets can ‘slipstream’ past the target without impinging on them. I’ve removed water-sensitive paper from canopies with barely any spray on them despite the plume in the downwind alleys. It looks like a magic trick, albeit an unhappy one.
“Uncooperative weather doesn’t always leave me enough time to spray the entire crop, and it is the lesser of two evils to spray alternate rows than not at all. I’ll make sure I come back to spray the other rows later.”
Choosing to do half a job requires an understanding of the products’ mode of action. If you are spraying an insect at a particular stage of development, there’s no “coming back later” to get that generation – if you missed, your window has closed. If it’s a protective fungicide that offers no kick-back, then once the disease has infected tissue, the damage is done. Get the spray on as best you can, but if it washes away before it has a chance to dry sufficiently, be prepared to reapply at the earliest opportunity as long as the label allows it.
“ARM has always worked in the past.”
Would you mind picking my lotto numbers for me? You’re a very lucky person!
My reservations about ARM spraying come from published research and personal experience that show that coverage is almost always compromised when spraying from one side of a canopy. The spray must pass through the canopy to reach the far side, and the canopy filters droplets from the air as it passes through. This reduces the number of droplets available to cover the far side. In addition, high velocity spray will create “shadows” where any targets on the immediate far side of a leaf or branch become shielded and receive little if any coverage. Further still, fine droplets slow quickly as they leave the nozzle and take a long time to settle. As the entraining air slows and becomes erratic, the droplets float and change course, making their behaviour hard to predict.
The cumulative impact can be seen in this infographic I built in 2016. The orchardist was a dyed-in-the-wool ARM applicator and he was resistant to driving every row because it took so much time. I wanted to show that he could claw back some of the lost time by spraying less pesticide every row versus his current volume every second row. He would need fewer refills, and save a LOT of unnecessary pesticide. The water sensitive paper does the talking, and while I’d like to think I’ve convinced him, I’ll bet he’s still out there dicing with fate.
A very popular argument in favour of ARM spraying comes from orchardists that are shifting from semi dwarf to high-density plantings. They ask “How it is different to spray a four foot diameter tree from one side compared to an eight foot diameter tree from both sides”?
Well, we know coverage is reduced as a factor of distance. Spraying from one side gives a single opportunity to cover the middle and far side of a canopy, whereas spraying from both sides provides an opportunity for an overlap in coverage. Essentially, the centre of a canopy receives the cumulative benefit of two sprays. Coverage is therefore always improved when spraying from both sides, period.
Spraying from one side gives a single opportunity to cover the far side of a canopy. However, spraying from both sides provides an opportunity for an overlap in coverage. In other words, the centre of a canopy receives less spray than the outside, but is essentially sprayed twice resulting in a compounding effect.
Why, then, do some sprayer operators claim that alternate row applications work? Because sometimes, they do! Just because coverage is reduced doesn’t mean it isn’t sufficient to protect the crop. It simply means that the potential for poor coverage and reduced dose is dramatically increased by alternate row applications. A sprayer operator might perform alternate applications successfully for years before conditions conspire to defeat the application: unfavourable wind, poor timing, increased pest pressure, poor pruning practices, excessive ground speed, high temperatures, low humidity, insufficient spray volume, and several other factors might occur simultaneously and reduce coverage below a minimal threshold for control. This confluence of bad luck may not happen the first year, or the second, but eventually…
Product failure isn’t the only concern. Repeated reduced dosages may play a role in developing resistance. In those situations where the operator recognizes insufficient coverage, they may have to spray more often to compensate, negating any savings in time or product. Reduced dosage is a common error when a sprayer operator elects to use ARM.
If you still aren’t convinced, at least perform alternate row spraying the “right” way. Here are three situations that I’ve heard operators refer to as alternate row spraying. Situation 1 is most common, but to my mind only Situation 2 would be considered acceptable. Even then, confirming coverage is a must.
Situation 1:
The sprayer has a typical calibration for spraying every row, but only drives alternate rows. The first application (solid line) covers different rows from the second application (broken line). The operator will claim to spray more frequently, but generally does not perform the second application unless there is high pest pressure. The result is half-a-dose per hectare per application.
The sprayer has a typical calibration for spraying every row, but only drives alternate rows. The first application (solid line) covers different rows from the second application (broken line). The operator will claim to spray more frequently, but generally does not perform the second application unless there is high pest pressure. The result is half-a-dose per hectare per application.
Situation 2:
The sprayer is calibrated for double output compared to a typical every-row situation, and the operator drives alternate rows. The result is that the hectare gets the whole dose per application, but coverage is always inconsistent.
The sprayer is calibrated for double output compared to a typical every-row situation, and the operator drives alternate rows. The result is that the hectare gets the whole dose per application, but coverage is always inconsistent.
Situation 3:
Since the sprayer will only drive alternate rows, the operator mistakenly sets the sprayer to emit half the output compared to a typical every-row situation. The first application (solid line) covers different rows from the second application (broken line). The result is a quarter-dose per application, and if the operator chooses to spray a second time, the hectare will only ever get half-a-dose. Yes, this happens.
The sprayer has a typical calibration for spraying every row, but only drives alternate rows. The first application (solid line) covers different rows from the second application (broken line). The operator will claim to spray more frequently, but generally does not perform the second application unless there is high pest pressure. The result is half-a-dose per hectare per application.
So, my final word on alternate row applications is that they should be performed with extreme caution. I’ve used them myself in early season applications in new plantings, but never without confirming coverage with water-sensitive paper, and never in conditions that might further compromise coverage to the point that the application does not give control.
Caveat Emptor!
Well, I thought it was funny. My apologies to J. Luymes from British Columbia (pictured) and Obi Wan Kenobi (not pictured… or is he?)
Some springs are tougher than others. This article was originally written in 2019, which was particularly challenging. The frequency and duration of rain events left limited opportunity for orchard sprays. Even then, the periods between rains were transitions between warm and moist conditions and cold fronts, which makes wind gusty and changeable. These same periods leave wet alleys prone to rutting and compaction, and conditions that favour spraying may also favour pollinator activity.
In response, applicators get frustrated. Some may be tempted to spray in sub-optimal conditions and risk drift thinking even a little coverage is better than none. But the adage that “there is no wasted fungicide spray” does not apply here. Some may disagree, but spraying in wet and high-wind situations:
greatly reduces coverage and subsequently, crop protection.
may result in repeated sub-lethal doses that can encourage resistance.
greatly increases the degree of surface run-off and off-target drift, risking environmental, commercial and residential contamination.
The argument itself may be moot because the decision to
spray is not strictly a consideration of economics, productivity, and risk
tolerance. When environmental restrictions exist on a pesticide label they are
inviolate. That is, they are not suggestions but legal requirements. Statements
might include:
Not spraying when rain is forecast within 12 hours following application. This is, in part, to prevent water-soluble products from moving in surface or channel run-off.
Not spraying in calm conditions (generally <3 km/h, as measured at the top or outside of the orchard). This is to prevent airborne spray from moving in unpredictable directions during a thermal inversion, or downhill with stratified air.
Not spraying in gusting or windy conditions (generally >10 km/h, but there is no Canadian standard). This is to prevent airborne spray from moving with the wind. This is of particular import when there are sensitive downwind areas that can bring buffer zones into play
Technologies exist that extend the spray window, but they require
long-term planning and may not be economical (or even completely proven). They
are generally a combination of orchard architecture and sprayer design. Examples
include:
Tented orchards (more common in Australia) designed to exclude pests and insulate against hail, wind and inversions.
Shrouded vertical booms (e.g. Lipco) designed for trellised orchards.
Solid-set emitters (more common in Europe and still experimental in parts of the northern US) that reduce drift and can spray large areas quickly.
Vertical towers with downward-oriented fans (e.g. Curtec Proptec or Sardi sprayers) that rely on the orchard itself to filter lateral/downward-directed spray.
Assuming the pesticide label does not prohibit application, there are adjustments that can improve coverage and reduce drift in sub-optimal conditions, but only marginally. These are compromises that sacrifice time, money, effort and/or the level of crop protection. Further, they are only intended for sprayers with towers (i.e. not low-profile axial sprayers):
Convert to air induction nozzles (at least in the top two nozzle positions, and likely at one rate higher than you usually use).
Be certain to turn off any nozzles spraying excessively over the top of the canopy. A little can’t be helped and is actually a best practice to ensure spray reaches the treetop. Be reasonable.
Reduce fan speed to only reach just past the middle of the canopy on the upwind side.
Turn off the boom on the downwind side of the sprayer and adjust airspeed and nozzle rates for upwind alternate row spraying only. Especially on the last three downwind rows, which you may have to leave unsprayed entirely.
The best advice is unpopular: Park the sprayer until conditions improve. Like hail, there are environmental factors that are out of the farmer’s control. They are inconvenient and highly frustrating, but do not be tempted to takes risks on what might ultimately result in poor coverage and accusations of pesticide drift.
