Category: Spray Basics

Grandpa used pesticides on my property 50 years ago. Should I be concerned about contamination of my well?
Occasionally, I receive a question or concern about impacts from the previous use of pesticides on a property. These concerns could be categorized as historical or legacy concerns from the use of pesticides over 40 or 50 years ago. This article provides some context for these past concerns and some options for follow up for the current property owner.
There are several good sources of information that can help a farmer minimize the risks associated with current use of pesticides. While the current use of pesticides is not the focus of this article, a list of some of these resources can be found in the appendix for further reading. These are specific to Ontario, Canada, but your region should have similar resources.
How common is pesticide contamination of well water?
In an extensive project that collected water samples from 1,290 private wells throughout Ontario in the 1990s, University of Guelph and Waterloo University researchers found that most of the problems with well water were related to bacteria; approximately 1/3^rd of well water did not meet the standard for coliforms and E. coli followed by nitrates (14% exceeded guidelines). It important to state that these problems are NOT related to previous or current pesticide management! Of the 1,290 wells sampled, water samples from six of the wells did show pesticide residue levels above the interim maximum level established at the time of publication for this study. The text below is copied from the published scientific article that discusses the findings for bacteria, nitrates, pesticides, and petroleum derivatives in the water well sample for this study.
“About 40% of the nearly 1,300 wells tested contained one or more of the target contaminants above the maximum acceptable concentration (Table 4). Bacteria were the most widespread form of contamination with about 34% of wells having more than the maximum number of coliform bacteria (faecal coliforms, or E. coli, or total coliforms) permissible in drinking water. Some 14% of the wells contained NO -N concentrations above the 10 mg/L limit and about 7% of the wells were contaminated both with bacteria and nitrate. Six wells contained pesticide residues above the interim maximum acceptable concentration (IMAC). One contained alachlor, one contained metolachlor, and the remainder contained more than 5 µg/L of atrazine, or the total concentration of atrazine plus deethylatrazine exceeded 5µg/L . Records -1 showed that a spill caused the one well to be contaminated with metolachlor. None of the wells tested contained detectable petroleum derivatives.”
-Goss, M.J, Barry, D.A.J. and Rudolph, D.L. Contamination in Ontario Farmstead Domestic Wells and its Association with Agriculture 1. Results from Drinking Water Wells. 1998.
While this study is almost 30 years old, there are a couple of key takeaway messages here that are still valid today. For all Ontarians that rely on private wells for their drinking water, samples should be taken for free testing through your local Health Unit for bacterial contamination. This should be done regularly, at least once or twice per year. Based on the study results, other contaminants are less likely to be found in your drinking water but water samples can be tested for these other potential contaminates including pesticides for a fee; see section below on “where can I send my water samples to test for pesticides”.
What are some other sources of information about previous pesticide use on a property?
The best source of information is likely the person who was responsible for previous pesticide management on the property; typically, this is the farmer. The farmer may be able to recall the type of pesticide products used or at least give an indication of previous cropping practices and livestock husbandry which can provide some indication to the type of products that may have been used. In addition, the farmer may be able to provide an indication where/how products were stored and mixed and application practices. But a word of caution here: some farmers might be hesitant to answer questions “out of the blue” about the past management practices with pesticides because of liability concerns.
In some cases, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) may be helpful with this type of inquiry. MECP oversees the Pesticides Act in Ontario and as such they might be aware if there are any local legacy or historical issues with pesticides spills or pesticide contamination of groundwater in your area. Some lawyers involved in real estate transactions will query the local District MECP office to see if there have been any environmental orders filed related to a specific property prior to finalizing a sale.
What are some additional considerations when thinking about the historical use of pesticides on a property?
Based on the information from the 1990 water well study mentioned above, pesticide contamination appears to be a rare occurrence; 6 samples out 1,290 indicated some presence of pesticide residual in the samples. If there were problems with previous management, it may relate:
1. Improper storage of pesticides
2. Poor techniques with the mixing or handling of pesticides
3. Disposal of empty pesticide containers, or
4. Equipment malfunction such as improperly closed valve on a sprayer
Concerns related to storage or mixing and handing can help to focus in on a specific area(s) on the farm. For example, if it is known or there is a strong belief that the pesticides were stored in “the old shed” or that pesticides were routinely mixed in the sprayer while filling from the tap beside the barn and there is a well near this area, then testing of a water sample for pesticides may provide some peace of mind.
If we test our well water for pesticides, what pesticides do we test for?
Because there are many different chemical formulations for current and past pesticides, the lab will ask which class or type of chemicals that you want the water analyzed for. Asking for the lab to analyze for many different types of pesticides will increase the lab cost substantially.
Having some background on the property can be helpful here. For example, if the concern is from the 1960s and 70s and the crop rotation on the property at time was hay-cereals-corn, then a couple of the commonly used pesticides at that time were atrazine (corn) and 2,4-D (cereals).
While this background information may help to narrow down the focus to fewer pesticides and save money on lab analysis, it should be noted that there were multiple pesticide formulations used 50 years ago so if the testing is narrowed too much, you might miss the pesticide(s) that was actually used on the farm at that time. There is a trade-off here by narrowing down the number of pesticides and keeping lab costs lower versus an increased risk of not analyzing for right pesticide.
Where can I send my water samples to test for pesticides?
There are several private labs that can analyze water samples for pesticide residues for a fee. Depending on the number of parameters (i.e. the number of pesticides) that you ask to be analyzed for will be a major factor in how much the analysis cost.
The Ontario Groundwater Association, the association that represents well drillers in Ontario, has a link to a water testing program called “My Water Quality” and one of its water testing packages will test for approximately 20 different pesticide residues in water. The cost for this testing package is $998 per sample at the time of writing this article in the winter of 2025.
Some concluding thoughts
It is understandable that rural residents relying on wells for their drinking water may be concerned about the quality of the water coming out of their taps. Bacteria contamination is the most common problem found with private well water and fortunately, you can test your private well water for free through your local health unit.
There is limited data on pesticide contamination of water well in Ontario and based on this limited information, it appears to be a rare problem, thankfully! However, if you are still concerned about the impacts of pesticide use and management in the past on your property, there are private laboratories that will test your water for a fee. For some people, paying the fee for this type of testing may allow them more peace-of-mind the next time that they turn on the tap.
Appendix
The following links will help Ontario farmers and landowners understand and manage the risk associated with current pesticide use and management on their properties. Again, for readers outside Ontario, there should be similar resources in your area.
Ontario.ca and search “Pesticide contamination of farm water sources”
Learn how to avoid contaminating any well or surface water source by properly mixing, loading or applying pesticides and what to do if a spill should occur. This technical information is for Ontario producers.
Ontario.ca and search “Assessing the potential for ground water contamination on your farm”
Learn about a risk assessment procedure to select best management practices to reduce groundwater contamination. This technical information is for Ontario producers.
Ontario Pesticide Education Program and Grower Pesticide Safety Course
The Ontario Pesticide Education Program supports Ontario farmers and pesticide vendors to achieve pesticide safety certification and training. Renewal is every 5 years.
January 30, 2025

Tank Mix Compatibility

Tank mixing is the practice of combining multiple registered agricultural products in the sprayer tank for application in a single pass.

The Pros of Tank Mixing

Efficiency: If the timing makes sense, a single pass saves time and reduces trample/compaction. E.g. A “weed-and-feed” application of fertilizer and herbicide in corn.
Resistance management: Multiple modes of action help prevent resistance development and combat existing problems.
Improved performance: Labels may require adjuvants to condition carrier water or reduce drift (utility adjuvants) or to improve the degree of contact between droplets and the plant surface, or enhance product uptake or rainfastness (activator adjuvants).

Prowl meets Roundup – A beautiful photo by Peter Smith, University of Guelph

The Cons of Tank Mixing

Tank mixing requires caution and careful investigation. Should tank mix partners prove to be incompatible, the consequences can be subtle or dramatic, but are always negative. There are two kinds of incompatibility.

1. Biological or Chemical Incompatibility

This form of incompatibility may not be immediately apparent following an application. Some level of crop damage or impaired efficacy occurs, which may impact yield or warrant an additional “clean-up” application. This is the result of product synergism or antagonism.

Synergism (Crop damage)

When products synergize, the application becomes too potent. For example, an adjuvant could affect crop retention or uptake, exposing it to more active ingredient or overwhelming crop metabolism. The result is damage to the crop we are trying to protect.

Antagonism (Reduced efficacy)

When products antagonize, the application becomes less potent. There are several examples:

pH adjusters in one product may reduce the half-life of another product (e.g. The fungicide Captan has a half-life of 3 hours at a pH of 7.1 and only 10 minutes at a pH of 8.2.)
Active ingredients may get tied-up on the clay-based adjuvants in other products (e.g. glyphosate tied up by Metribuzin).
One product changes the uptake/retention of another. For example, a contact herbicide burns weed foliage beyond its ability to take up a lethal dose of systemic herbicide.

2. Physical Incompatibility

Physical incompatibility affects work rate and efficacy. Products form solids that interfere with, or halt, spraying. It can also make sprayer clean-up more difficult. For example, weak-acid herbicides lower the pH of the spray mix, reducing the solubility of Group 2 herbicides (i.e. imidazolinones, sulfonylureas, sulfonanilides). The oily formulation then adheres to plastic and rubber surfaces in tanks, connectors and hoses.

There are many forms of physical incompatibility:

Liquids can curdle into pastes and gels that clog plumbing to such an extent that flushing cannot clear it and a manual tear down is required.

Dry formulations don’t hydrate or disperse, becoming sediment that clogs screens and nozzles. Even if they are small enough to spray, they reduce coverage uniformity. For example, a dry product added behind an oil gets coated, preventing it from hydrating.
Certain product combinations may cause settling, or one partner is more prone to settling. If the sprayer sits without agitation, settled products may or may not resuspend. Even if they do resuspend in the tank, they may remain as sediment in lines.

Residue in hoses – Photo courtesy of Fred Whitford, Purdue University

Clay-based products may or may not resuspend easily in a tank. Even then, they may not resuspend in plumbing lines.

Certain product combinations may cause foaming, or one partner may be prone to foaming, causing overflows or breaking pump suction. When products foam, dry products added through the foam may swell, preventing hydration.

Phase separation occurs when products layer in the tank. Consider oil and water. Even with agitation, the active ingredients may not be uniformly suspended in the tank and coverage uniformity will be reduced during spraying.

Salad dressing left to rest is a great example of separation and stratification (left). Agitation helps emulsify it (right)

Due Diligence – Preventing Tank Mixing Errors

Incompatibility is often a function of the inert ingredients in pesticide formulations (e.g. thickeners, adjuvants, defoamers, stabilizers, solvents, etc.) and not the active ingredients. The more products you add to the tank, the more likely you’ll encounter an issue. It is prudent to perform a jar test to confirm physical compatibility. Remember, even if registered tank mix partners support mixing, your pace, mixing order, and water quality/temperature could cause issues.

Do not decide to try a new-to-you registered tank mix during loading. Even if you’ve used these products successfully in the past, formulations change without notice. Plan as much as possible off season when there is time to do the following:

Consult the pesticide labels

Pesticide labels are always the first point of reference. They should be obeyed even if they contradict conventional practices. Booklet-style labels that come with the products are long, difficult to search and may not be up-to-date.

In Canada, it is faster and easier to go to the PMRA Label Search website and search labels in PDF format. In other countries, consult the manufacturer’s website for label information. For each tank mix partner, use <CTRL>+F to find the following keywords:

Do Not Mix
Mix
Hours
Agitation
Fertilizers

Consult manufacturer and crop advisors

You’re likely not the first to consider a certain tank mix. Learn from those that have been there already:

Consult your chemical sales representative. They know their products best and want to see you succeed. They may have insight that is not found on the product label.
Consult local government or academic extension programs for an unbiased opinion.
Enlist the help of a professional crop advisor.

It is a good practice to get tank mix recommendations in writing. If something should go wrong, liability is an important concern.

If you’ve made a mess – The Reverse Jar Test

It happens. We’ll use this real-world situation as an example:

“I mixed up a batch of MCPA 500 A and Glyphosate at ¾ recommended label rate, but then got delayed on application with a stuck drill. I came back to the sprayer and found a nasty chemical precipitate – like waxy chunks. Agitation didn’t break them down. I dumped the tank out as I didn’t want to pump it through the booms. How do I clean up the chunks in the system?”

We forwarded this question to ag chemists Dr. Eric Spandl (Land of Lakes) and Dr. Jim Reiss (Precision Laboratories) and developed this response:

“Wearing appropriate personal protective equipment, physically remove the “chunky” material. A lot of time can be wasted (and rinsate water created) by experimenting with various concoctions, but if you do choose to try a compatibility agent, first try it in a mason jar. If it works to dissolve the material, it can be added to the tank with water and agitated. If not, you are down to manual cleaning: hot water under pressure.”

We dubbed this process “The Reverse Jar Test”. Do not add hot water, cleaners or compatibility agents until the reverse jar test confirms success. You may create a larger problem. Of course, the best advice is to not put yourself in this position to begin with. Once again, don’t make mixing decisions at the inductor bowl – make them before ordering product.

Tank mixing regulations in Canada (January, 2025 update)

The following legislative framework is specific to Canada, so readers in other countries should consult their own regulatory authorities.

Paragraph 6(5)(b) of the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) states that no person shall use a pest control product in a way that is inconsistent with the directions on the label. In 2020, a public consultation was held to consolidate and clarify tank mixing requirements. This led to Regulatory Proposal PRO2020-01 (Streamlined Category B Submissions and Tank Mix Labelling – July 3, 2020). Essentially, it stated that tank mixing would be allowed if there was text on the product label that specifically permitted it. This could be a specific tank mix combination, a general statement permitting mixing, or both.

A new general label statement that permits tank mixing was proposed to consolidate tank mixing information in one place on the label and allow greater flexibility in terms of tank mixing options. The prohibition against tank mixing products with the same mode of action was removed, and the reference to tank mixing with a fertilizer is now an optional component of that statement. The general label statement reads as follows:

“This product may be tank mixed with (a fertilizer, a supplement, or with) registered pest control products, whose labels also allow tank mixing, provided the entirety of both labels, including Directions For Use, Precautions, Restrictions, Environmental Precautions, and Spray Buffer Zones are followed for each product. In cases where these requirements differ between the tank mix partner labels, the most restrictive label must be followed. Do not tank mix products containing the same active ingredient unless specifically listed on this label.

In December of 2022, Health Canada released a guidance document describing the federal tank mixing policy. This document is not part of the PCPA, but is an administrative document intended to facilitate compliance by all stakeholders. Registrants have until December, 2025 to update their extension material to align with amended product labels and guidance documents. Similarly, users of pest control products will be provided the same transitional period to adjust their purchasing and production practices to align with the provisions of this document. This means the policy will be in full effect on December , 2025. After that, applicators in Canada can only apply tank mixes that appear specifically on a product label, or tank mixes of products whose labels include the new general tank mixing statement.

Summary of the guidance document

Tank mixing is not permitted when a potential tank mix partner’s label has some exclusionary statement, such as:

Forbidding mixing. E.g. “Do not mix or apply this product with any other additive, pesticide or fertilizer except as specifically recommended on this label.”
Limiting tank mixes to only those specifically listed on the product label.

During the label transition, guidance relating to tank mixing may be found under a section specific to tank mixing, and/or under other sections as in the following examples:

Directions for use: E.g. “When tank-mixes are permitted, read and observe all label directions, including rates and restrictions for each product used in the tank-mix. Follow the more stringent label precautionary measures for mixing, loading and applying stated on both product labels.”
Buffer Zones: E.g. “When tank mixes are permitted, consult the labels of the tank-mix partners and observe the largest (most restrictive) spray buffer zone of the products involved in the tank mixture and apply using the coarsest spray (ASABE) category indicated on the labels for those tank mix partners.”
Resistance Management: E.g. “Use tank mixtures with [fungicide/bactericides/insecticides/acaricides] from a different group that is effective on the target [pathogen/pest] when such use is permitted.”

If there are no directions on the labels, don’t tank mix them.

If your situation does not fit these examples, the following table (Appendix A at the bottom of the Guidance Document), lists several other examples examples of different tank mix wording scenarios for registered pest control products.

Table 1: Permissibility of tank mixing based on various combinations of label statements related to tank mixing

Product X label says	Product Y label says	Can I tank mix? (Y/N)
Nothing (silent on tank mixing)	Nothing (silent on tank mixing)	N
General tank mix statement	Nothing (silent on tank mixing)	N
Nothing (silent on tank mixing)	General tank mix statement	N
General tank mix statement	General tank mix statement	Y
General tank mix statement	Tank mix with Product X	Y
Tank mix with Product Y	General tank mix statement	Y
Tank mix with Product Y	Nothing (silent on tank mixing)	Y
Nothing (silent on tank mixing)	Tank mix with Product X	Y
Tank mix with Product Y	Tank mix with Product X	Y
Tank mix with Product Y	Exclusionary statement (and label does not include a specific Product X tank mix)	N*
Exclusionary statement (and label does not include a specific Product Y tank mix)	Tank mix with Product X	N*

*There may be registered labels that have tank mix scenarios like this. Note that this is not allowed for new tank mix label amendments. Further, any product labels that have tank mix scenarios like this must be amended to alleviate the contradictory scenario. To do this, using the last scenario in Table 1 as an example, one of the following must occur: 1) remove the Product X tank mix from the Product Y label, 2) remove the exclusionary statement from the Product X label, or 3) add a specific tank mix for Product Y on the Product X label. Source: PMRA Guidance Document Tank Mix Labelling 2023

Tank mixing adjuvants

According to the PMRA, the rules surrounding the tank mixing of adjuvants remain the same as they have been since 2009, and are not included under the new guidance document. While the PCPA does not reference adjuvants specifically, they are prescribed to be pest control products in the regulations (Pest Control Products Regulations s.2(b)). The general reference in the PCPA that applies is s.6(5)(b).

Therefore, in the case of activator adjuvants, the label for at least one tank mix partner must specify the use of an adjuvant, and only registered adjuvants labeled for the crop and for tank mixing are permitted. For example, tank mixing the herbicide Reflex with a registered soybean oil adjuvant not labelled for the use, or with an unregistered food grade activator adjuvant, would not be acceptable. Utility adjuvants have registration numbers, but their use is not prescribed or specified on pesticide labels, leaving their use to the discretion of the operator.

For more information on Canada’s Tank Mixing Policy

For more information, please contact Health Canada’s Pest Management Information Service.

Academic Resources

Even when products are potentially compatible, issues can arise from errors in mixing order, pace, carrier volume, carrier quality and agitation. These are discussed in our article on sprayer loading and jar testing.

In 2018, Purdue University published “Avoid Tank Mixing Errors”. It is an excellent reference.

In late 2022, Australia’s GRDC released a comprehensive guide on pesticide mixing and batching (within the context of the Australian agronomic environment, of course), which can be downloaded for free, here.

Finally, you can watch a 2021 presentation on tank mixing (below). It was delivered to a grape growing audience, but much of the content applies across agriculture. There are a few “oops” moments where I didn’t say quite what I meant. I misread the Sencor dissolution / filtration work. And, I really didn’t answer the last question about mixing herbicides. The answer should have been to consult labels and local resources, such as OMAFRA’s Crop Protection Hub. Note that any discussion of Canadian regulatory policy may have changed in light of the new 2022 Guidance Document.

This article was co-written with Mike Cowbrough, OMAFRA Weed Management Specialist – Field Crops

January 27, 2025

Airblast Productivity and Work Rate Calculator
There are many factors that affect the work rate of an airblast application. If an operator can improve their work rate, without compromising spray efficacy or safety, they improve operational efficiency and save money.
But how does each variable factor in? Is it worth the cost of a tender truck and operator to fill more efficiently? Should you upgrade to a multi-row sprayer? Should your next planting have longer rows? We have a simple calculator that can help you make these decisions. You can build and compare multiple scenarios to explore the relative impact of small changes to your typical spray program. We recommend making only one change for each scenario so you can better understand the results. Print the comparison page for your records.
Whether you’re a sprayer operator, or a manager of sprayer operators, this exercise will help you see your spray program in a whole new light. Download a copy of the Airblast Budget and Work Rate Calculator and explore your productivity. You must have Excel to run the spreadsheet, and you must permit the use of macros (you’ll be prompted to accept).
Spoiler: It’s amazing how changes to travel speed have only a marginal impact on work rate. Often less than 60% of the total spray job is spent actually spraying!
If you’d like to see just how productive you can be, check out this rare (possibly unique) sprayer from Ed Oxley Farms in Michigan. Built on an OXBO 7550, this sprayer is the fourth iteration of a concept developed over the last 20 years by Ed Oxley Farms and ag engineers from Michigan State University.
Capable of spraying five rows at a time, this self-propelled beast is a hybrid wrap-around and targeting-tower system that uses CurTec spray heads equipped with tangential fans and wire-mesh basket rotary atomizers.
That’s not dribbling – that’s purging the boom prior to spraying.
It sprays a mere 150 L/ha (~ 15 gallons/acre) at a ripping 13 km/h (~8 mph), as seen on the Ag Leader monitor below.
When row spacing and turn time are accounted for, that means it’s capable of covering almost 15 hectares (~40 acres) per hour.
And, when not spraying grapes, the boom can be swapped to make it a high-clearance corn sprayer. It doesn’t get much more efficient than this.
The following videos will show the view from inside and outside the cab. Note that the row that’s straddled is sprayed from an overhead spray head mounted to the centre rack behind the sprayer. The two adjacent rows are covered from one side from vertical spray heads mounted on the chassis. Finally, the boom holds two more overhead spray heads for the outer-most rows.

Ideally, the boom-mounted spray heads would be suspended vertically inside the row, but it makes for such a wide turn radius that it would take too long to turn… assuming there was enough headland to allow it. They’re also swept-back to minimize the turn radius and reduce the amount of airborne spray that deposits on the sprayer itself.
A clever design that makes a few compromises to ideal coverage in order to improve productivity. The balance works for them and this sprayer might be a sign of things to come in horticultural crop production systems. Want to see how your sprayer stacks up? Download the calculator and see where you might be able to make improvements.
August 12, 2024
Basic Sprayer Math Demystified
Sprayer math can be intimidating, but the effort gives solid value. When combined with a calibrated sprayer you reap the following benefits:
- Estimate how long a job will take.
- Estimate how much spray mix is required.
- Estimate how much crop protection product must be ordered for the season.
- Populate spray records which allow you to review practices, respond to enquiries and satisfy traceability requirements.
There are many ways to perform sprayer math, and you need only look to local pesticide safety courses, industrial catalogues, and extension resource centres for examples. If you’re already comfortable with your current method, don’t mix and match with others. Sprayer math is a series of related calculations that employ constants to keep the units straight. It’s all or none.
Walkthrough
Let’s start with the classic, US Imperial formula for calculating the required nozzle output. In other words, you want to know which nozzle size you need to get the volume-per-planted area you’re aiming for. This is the bread-and-butter formula that seems to be needed most often, so that’s why we list it first.
In order to determine nozzle size (gallons per minute), you’ll need to know your target volume (gallons per acre), your average travel speed (miles per hour) and your nozzle spacing (in inches). The number “5,940” is a constant that handles all the unit conversions. It is what it is.
GPM = [GPA x MPH x W] ÷ 5,940
Of course, this formula can be adjusted to allow you to solve for any factor, as long as you’re only missing one piece of information. Algebra is all about solving for X, or in other words, determining some unknown variable. I know, it’s been a long time since you learned this in school and it doesn’t come easily to most. I propose brushing up on the basics using a series of three great YouTube videos from “Mathantics“
As we noted earlier, you can do a lot more with sprayer math than just pick the ideal nozzle. But before we continue, a warning: If you live where units are strictly US Imperial, or strictly Metric, then Canada’s odd hybrid “Mock-tric” units can get a little confusing. The rest of this article attempts to be globally-relevant by including examples of both Metric and US Imperial formulae, but watch out for unit conversions. If at any time you don’t see the units you’re looking for, you can consult our exhaustive list of unit conversion tables.
Grab your calculator or favourite smart phone app – it’s math time!
Don’t be intimidated. With a little practice, sprayer math gets easier and it’s always worthwhile. The real trick is navigating unit conversions.
Step 1 – How large is the area you need to spray?
Multiply the length of the area you plan to spray times the width. If you are using metres, then divide the product by 10,000, which is the number of m² in a hectare (ha). For feet and acres, divide by 43,560 which is the number of ft² in an acre (ac):
Step 2 – How much product is needed to spray the area?
Consult the rate(s) shown on the label. In Canada, rates are often based on planted area (E.g. hectares). In Australia and New Zealand, they may be based on row length (not covered in this article). If you measure your area in acres, you’ll have to convert the rate by multiplying by a constant: 0.4.
Now multiply the area you want to spray (step 1) by the rate (step 2).
Step 3 – How far can you go on a full tank?
You know your sprayer output (determined through calibration) so you divide that into your tank size. Watch your units:
Step 4 – How much pesticide per tank?
Multiply the area that can be sprayed per tank (Step 3) by the pesticide rate (Step 2). Again, watch your units:
Step 5 – How much area is left to spray?
Just subtract what you’ve already sprayed from the total area.
Step 6 – How much pesticide in the last, partially-full tank?
Multiply the area you have left to spray (Step 5) by the pesticide rate (Step 2). Yes, watch your units:
Step 7 – How much spray mix will I need for the partial tank to finish spraying the total area?
Multiply the area you have left to spray (Step 5) by the sprayer output (determined through calibration). Guess what? Watch your units:
Sample problems
Time to test your knowledge. Let’s suppose you want to apply a product rate of 3 L/ha to your blueberries. You calibrate your sprayer and determine your output to be 50 L/ha. Your tank holds 400 L of spray mix. Your planting is 500 m long and 200 m wide.
Q1 – How large is the area you need to spray?
Q2 – How much product is needed to spray the area?
Q3- How much area can be sprayed on one tank?
Q4 – How much product should be added to a full tank?
Q5 – After the tank is empty, how much area is left to spray?
Q6 – How much product to add to the last, partially full tank?
Q7 – How much spray mix will be needed to finish spraying?
Exceptions
Certain situations aren’t covered in this article. If you are spraying a greenhouse, the math is different. If you are performing a banded application, the math is different. And, if you’re an airblast operator trying to reconcile why a pesticide label uses planted area rather than canopy volume for its rates, you’re in for a lot of additional reading. Some of that latter process can be summed up in this infographic:
When you find a method that works for you, write it down and keep it with your spray records. Happy spraying!
May 7, 2024
What’s a Ramsay Valve?
This article has been modified with kind permission from an article on Retrofit Parts.
Liquid pressure in an agricultural sprayer must be controlled so as to apply the correct volume of spray per hectare.
For sprayers that use positive-displacement pumps driven by the tractor’s power take-off, higher flow rates are produced than are actually required. Part of the pump’s output is therefore returned to the tank through a bypass line (aka return line), and spray pressure is controlled by a regulating or relief valve in this bypass line.
Ordinary regulators can maintain a constant pressure if the volume of liquid does not vary too much. But when it’s necessary to shut off part of the spray-boom in order to avoid double-spraying, (or in the case of an airblast sprayer, shut off one side), there is a large increase in the bypass flow and this causes the pressure to rise unless special compensating valves are fitted and correctly set.
Ramsay (or Ramsay Nocton) pressure-sets automatically maintain constant pressure over a far wider range of variation in flow-rate; for example the bypass flow through Retrofit’s model can increase from 1 to 100 L/min with an increase in pressure of only 0.2 bar (~3 psi). Lechler also offers 1 1/4″ and 2″ thread models called “AirPress” with different flow and pressure metrics. Each model allows the spray boom to be shut off with ordinary diaphragm check valves and also allows the operator to change gear (and so change the pump speed) without affecting the pressure.
Ramsay pressure-sets are non-electric, and the only moving part is a flexible diaphragm. The working pressure is set by inflating the pressure-set with air.
It is often desirable to vary the pressure while spraying, either automatically or manually. This can be done by a small electric air compressor and two valves which respectively increase or reduce the air pressure behind the diaphragm. These valves may be actuated by an electronic ground-speed-related system, or controlled manually by the operator.
How it Works
When the pressure in the IN chamber exceeds the air pressure it pushes the diaphragm away from the holes (as shown below) allowing some of the liquid to pass across to the OUT chamber, thus relieving the pressure (A backing plate, not shown in the diagram, prevents the diaphragm from being stretched too far).
A Ramsay valve with the diaphragm closed. Pressure in the IN chamber does not exceed the air pressure behind the diaphragm.
In practice, the diaphragm opens just as far as it needs to for the liquid pressure and the air pressure to come into equilibrium. When a boom is shut off and more flow needs to return to the tank, the diaphragm opens wider and remains in equilibrium in its new position.
A Ramsay valve with the diaphragm open. Pressure in the IN chamber exceeds the air pressure behind the diaphragm and can flow past to the OUT chamber.
Consequently, as long as there are no restrictions in the line back to the tank, the pressure remains constant even when there are large changes in pump speed or spray speed-boom demand. Pressure varies only slightly as the compression of the air in the air-reservoir varies with the movement of the diaphragm.
April 8, 2024