Celebrating 10 years of “thinking we’re funny”, Exploding Sprayer Myths is back with a new opening sequence!
Join cheesy game show host Wink Boomwobbly and his unsuspecting contestant Joe Mama as they discuss the factors that influence spray droplet fate. How do wind, travel speed, boom height and droplet size affect your pesticide application? Knowing how droplets respond to these forces makes the difference between coverage and drift. Brush up on your fundamentals in a fun way.
Long-suffering RealAgriculture editor Dr. Jay Strove has also hidden an Easter Egg photo so you can play along! Bonus points if you know where it was taken and who it is.
Thanks to our special guest from the UK, and be sure to stick around for the bloopers.
I work in agricultural extension and I’m always on the lookout for new methods to help me achieve my goals. A big part of my job is to research and teach efficient, effective and safe crop protection practices, so it follows that I have to be able to evaluate the quality of a spray application. Fundamentally, there are two ways to do it:
Wait to see if the pesticide did its job and protected the crop from weeds / bugs / disease.
Don’t wait. Confirm your spray is depositing where you want it before committing to the application.
Three guesses which approach I advocate. So, how do you check spray coverage in a way that’s quick, cheap, easy and informative? Again, there are choices, but rather than simply list them I’ll add a little insight in the form of pros and cons.
Reflects actual, whole-canopy coverage and off-target coverage at same time.
Expensive, hard to find, messy, time-consuming, hard to photograph, not repeatable, leaves unwanted residues (or can’t be used on edibles), may have to take place at night, may fade quickly… or is any of this actually true?
I’ve never been a proponent of spraying dyes because of the reasons I listed in the table. If I already have difficulty convincing a grower to leave the sprayer or tractor cab to place and retrieve water sensitive papers, what are the odds of them mixing a messy and expensive tank of dye and waiting until twilight to see the results?
On the other hand, dyes are compelling. Particularly if we change the perspective a little. What if we consider the use of dyes, not as a tool for a grower, but as a tool for agricultural extension or consultation (really, anyone that wants to research or teach the safe and effective use of crop inputs)? Several of the cons are minimized or even eliminated. Additionally, this new lens reveals several uses for dyes beyond spray coverage. This is not an exhaustive list:
Off-target (primarily drift) evaluation
Dermal exposure / PPE evaluation
Rinsate / sprayer cleanout evaluation
Sprayer loading / point source contamination evaluation
I decided to compare a few of these dyes. I enlisted the help of a local blueberry operation. Being October, all the berries have been picked so we could spray the bushes without any risk to the fruit. Plus the sprayer was clean and the growers were curious to evaluate their spray coverage.
Blueberry in Ontario in October.
Having secured a location, spray equipment, and operator, I needed dyes and some criteria for choosing them. First and foremost, I chose fluorescent dyes that glowed under UV (aka black lights). My thinking was that they would be more interesting in demos, and given that we might be spraying horticultural operations, I didn’t want obvious and persistent stains on the produce. At least not something easily seen in daylight before it broke down and/or was washed away.
My UV dye candidates had to be:
Moderately inexpensive.
Non-toxic (i.e. had an SDS that clearly permitted human exposure, were environmentally friendly and could be sprayed on edible crops).
Readily available in Ontario (e.g. quickly and cheaply shipped from within Canada or perhaps the US).
Available in formats that facilitated small volume batches (anywhere from 50 mL squirt bottles for indoor demos, up to 50 L volumes for field demos).
Clearly visible on plant tissue.
I found five likely prospects for the study. I won’t list prices, but none of them were over $100.00 CAD. Number 3 was a free sample and number 5 was gifted to me by a colleague more than 15 years ago. I looked up the SDS for that last one and was surprised that it was relatively inert. So, I used it.
I also purchased UV lights. When I was bequeathed the phosphor powder it came with heavy, ancient, black lights. They made an unsettling humming noise and required a power source, making them unwieldly for field work. I opted to try three battery powered versions instead. Again, I won’t list prices, but they weren’t unreasonable.
UV flashlight number
Name of light
Manufacturer
Wavelength / wattage
Batteries
1
Super Tac
Risk Reactor
395 NM / 850 µW/cm2 at 5 inches
Rechargeable battery provided
2
Mini Zoom
Risk Reactor
395 NM / 1 watt
1 AAA
3
V3 UV Flashlight with 68 LEDs
Amazon.ca
395 NM / 10 watts
3 AA
Regarding the recipes, one of my criteria was that the dyes could be mixed in relatively small batches. I chose 50 L as the high end because the airblast sprayer we were using (Turbo-Mist 30P) could still prime when only 50 L was added to the tank. This allowed us to mix as small a batch as possible, while still having enough to spray a row of berries from both sides. We left three rows between treatments to serve as buffers.
Turbo-Mist Model 30P before the dye-job.
I also had to consider the nature of the dyes. The Eco Pigment (Dye 3) is a hydrophobic powder and two colleagues warned me that it was notorious for plugging filters. So, it had to be mixed with a non-ionic surfactant (NIS) to help “wet” the powder prior to adding it to the tank. In fact, NIS seemed like a good idea for all my dye candidates, so I included Activate Plus (Sollio Agriculture, Winfield Solutions) in each recipe.
The candidates.
I added the dye, NIS, and a small amount of water to a Pyrex measuring cup on a digital scale, then rinsed the cup into a final volume of 50 L while filling the tank. I didn’t always follow the advice I received, so I’ll show you the ratios I was told and (right or wrong) what I ultimately did.
Dye number
Manufacturer- or colleague-suggested ratio
Amount of dye
Amount of NIS
Amount of water
1
1 part dye : 10,000 parts water
125 mL
65 mL
310 mL
2
1 part dye : 10,000 parts water
125 mL
65 mL
310 mL
3
1 gram dye : 1 mL NIS : 200 L water
65 grams
65 mL
425 mL
4
1 part paint : 100 parts water
500 mL
65 mL
0 mL
5
1 gram dye : 1.25 L water
65 grams
65 mL
425 mL
It took roughly 15 minutes to fill, prime, spray, and rinse out each dye. We started at 5:00 p.m., were done at 6:15, and then waited for sunset at 7:30.
50 L tank mixes going through circulation and paddle agitation.Draining the remains and rinsing the tank. It looks terrible, but these dyes are intended for environmental projects like tracing water courses.
We used a smartphone (Google Pixel 9a – 48 megapixel camera) to photograph each combination of dye and flashlight. It was tricky to find an angle where the black light illuminated the residue, but didn’t wash out the photo. In those cases where the dye was evident, it was always far more vibrant in person than through the lens of a camera. As for the results?
Lets start with the lights. We found that the high wattage of Light 3 showed dye more easily. This also happened to be the cheapest light, which was a pleasant surprise.
Dye 1 and 2 were disappointing. We couldn’t see anything on the plants. This dye is intended for monitoring plumbing and water courses, and the manufacturer states that the colour will disappear if the solution is mixed with chlorine. Perhaps mixing it with city water caused it to fade, but that’s likely to happen, so these dyes failed.
Dye 1 – Light 1, 2 and 3. A sad, single drop showed up for Light 3.Dye 2 – Light 1, 2 and 3. Again, a solitary deposit illuminated under Light 3.
Dye 3 was spectacular. Not only was it evident with every light source (including day light to some extent), but we were able to find it several rows downwind, on the sprayer nozzles, all over the tires and on the floor of the cab (which surprised the operator). I may have mixed this one too strong; It seemed to clump on the leaves, but perhaps that’s because they were exceptionally waxy.
Dye 3 – Light 1, 2 and 3.Dye 3 showed up everywhere… whether we wanted it there or not.A nice close up of Dye 3 on a leaf.A close up of Dye 3 on the boom.
Dye 4 came in second place. It wasn’t amazing, but it was visible. This is children’s tempera paint, used in daycares for finger painting and at universities for raves. I’ve used it in the past with mixed results, not only to spray canopies, but in classroom demos on cabbage leaves and as a surrogate tracer to hunt down where pesticide hides in sprayer plumbing. It’s OK in a pinch if you mix it at least 2x more concentrated than I did here.
Dye 4 – Light 1, 2 and 3.A nice close up of Dye 4 on a leaf.
Dye 5, like dyes 1 and 2, was a disappointment. I’ve seen it used in powder-form to demonstrate how dermal exposure can spread as you touch clothing, doorknobs, your face, and places where the occasional adjustment is required. But in a liquid solution, it wasn’t any good at all.
Dye 5 – Light 1, 2 and 3
Persistence
We followed up after the application to see if the dyes would persist. Twenty four hours after application, Dye 4 (our runner-up) was gone. This was no surprise given it was a water soluble paint and wasn’t terribly showy to begin with. However, Dye 3 (our winner) was still clearly in evidence. This is a hydrophobic, micro ground powder (~0.1 micron). That’s one reason it had to be mixed with a non-ionic surfactant. The following photos shows little or no change after 24 hours and a respectable dew:
Dye 3 after 24 hours.
Three days after application (DAA), we had a rain event. Four DAA this (blurry, sorry) image was taken:
Dye 3 after 96 hours and a heavy rain.
We see that the deposits did redistribute to drip points and the overall coverage was reduced, but it was still holding on. This means it likely shouldn’t be used on any horticultural crop that isn’t going to be washed. Or at least used long before any fruit, leafy green or vegetable contacted by the powder will be harvested. Not because it is unsafe (see safety data sheet) but because of the optics to buyers.
Conclusion
And so, I hope you have been inspired by this process. I’ve learned that the use of dyes for education and research is potentially powerful, relatively cheap, and more accessible than I originally thought. Certainly the growers were impressed by what they could suddenly see and it’s led them to reassess some of their practices. Just bear in mind the possible persistence, and remember to wear gloves when mixing.
Wear gloves. Trust me.
Thanks to Mark Ledebuhr, Helmut Spieser, David Manktelow, and Ben Werling for the helpful advice. Thanks to Brandon and Jordan Falcon for use of their spray equipment and their blueberry operation.
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.
