In this installment, Dr. Tom Wolf, intrepid reporter, braves the unforgiving wilds of Saskatoon as he investigates claims of mysterious devices popping up all over the city. Colloquially referred to as “nozzles” these items are imprinted with obscure codes that scientists are struggling to decipher. Be the first to learn how to read a nozzle and nozzle table in our newest installment.
We’ve had dire warnings about possible pesticide shortages and price hikes for 2022. Price hikes are one thing. But if the products we need simply won’t be available, we have a tougher challenge. It’s time to plan pesticide conservation.
But first, what’s behind the product shortage?
Emily Unglesby of dtnpf.com provided an excellent overview of the issue here and here. She said the reasons for the shortage are many-fold and came together in a perfect storm. Starting about 2017 or so, pesticide manufacturers tried to reduce the overall inventory of products to improve logistical efficiencies. That effort was rewarded in 2019 when a wet spring in the US dramatically reduced seeded area to a low of 165 M acres. The resulting lower demand again provided incentives to reduce inventories. At the same time, US trade sanctions against China in the form of tariffs impacted production and shipment of many active ingredients to US markets. When Covid-19 happened, it affected both production and shipping of many goods, including pesticides. Container shipment costs increased sharply, and the ability to move them to and from ports was hampered. This then coincided with record seeded area in the US of 180 M acres in 2021, creating higher than usual demand. By that time, very little buffer remained in the system. The growth of Enlist E3 and Xtend Flex has placed additional pressure on glufosinate.
Then two further events occurred. Hurricane Ida forced a shutdown of Bayer’s Louisiana glyphosate plant. And China, in late 2021, legislated a temporary 90% reduction of yellow phosphorus production in Yunnan Province in anticipation of the 2022 Olympic Winter Games. With phosphorus as a fundamental ingredient in glyphosate, glufosinate, and some fertilizers, this loss of production places significant strain on many products. The usual habit of returning unused pesticides to the retailer also became less common amidst shortage news, adding difficulty to planning inventories and demand.
Shortages of popular herbicides like glyphosate, glufosinate, and clethodim will put demand on alternatives. Spreading out risk by implementing pre-emergent products where possible will pay dividends. But the ability to ramp up production of minor products is just as dependent on the supply chain, and these alternatives may therefore not offer reprieve if ordering is left to the bitter end. Planning ahead and staying in touch with retailers about your plans and your own inventory will assist the entire system in managing production and redistributing existing stocks.
Safe to say products will be more expensive, and possibly impossible to obtain. Here are some things to consider to minimize the impact.
1.Grow crops that require less pesticides. Crops which have good genetic resistance to insects and disease will be more likely to cope without a protective spray. Some crops are inherently competitive early on and give less time and space for weeds to become established. Remember that the relative time of emergence is important for crop yield loss from weeds. If crops emerge before weeds, they have the upper hand and will maintain higher yield potential. Crops that can be seeded early will prevent weeds from occupying that niche.
A competitive crop is the best herbicide.
2. The most powerful herbicide is a competitive crop. Use agronomic tools that favour good seedling establishment. The usual advice of seeding into a warm, firm, moist seedbed, should we be fortunate enough for the weather to cooperate, applies here. There is value in higher seeding rates to help outcompete weeds. Use fertilizer placement that favours crops, not weeds, such as side banding.
3. Sample the spray water source and have it professionally tested. After a record drought in western North America, aquifers are low and surface waters have receded. Water quality will probably not be the same it has historically been. Use water conditioners to reduce effect of hard cations and bicarbonates. Ammonium Sulphate (21-0-0-24) at 1% w/v is a general treatment, harder water may require up to 3%.
Conduct a water test in 2022 and condition spray water if necessary.
4. Do not use untested mixes of pesticides with specialty foliar fertilizers. These may impact herbicide performance, or worse, result in an incompatible mix.
5. Use the lowest label rate of product that is relevant for the pest you’re trying to control. Many products have a range of rates depending on the weed species and stage. Scout your fields and take advantage of the lower rate option if you can.
Invest in logistics and be prepared to respond to a good spray day to get the timing right.
6. Spray herbicides early. It’s been shown that crop plants can sense the presence of weeds before they compete for resources, causing a physiological adjustment that results in irreversible yield loss. The shorter the time that weeds and crops co-exist, the better. Also, smaller weeds are easier to control. Weeds that escape this early application will need to compete with an established crop and won’t thrive or impact yield as much.
Smaller weeds are easier to control and may allow a lower label rate.
7. It’s not advisable to reduce product rates from the one recommended on the label. Although label rates contain a margin for poor conditions, the risk of selecting for polygenic resistance exists. Polygenic resistance occurs when some weeds happen to be slightly more tolerant to the herbicide than the rest of their cohort. These weeds may survive a lower rate, and go on to produce seeds. If these outcross with other survivors, their more tolerant offspring will increase in relative abundance. With further such selections in subsequent generations, weeds become even more tolerant and eventually dominate.
8. Apply the spray as uniformly as possible. Make sure the spray nozzles are within a 5% flow rate tolerance along the entire boom. If the set is older, consider a wholesale replacement. But the biggest enemy of uniform deposition seems to be turbulence created by wind and driving speed around the tractor unit. Slower wind and travel speeds help somewhat. Variable deposition means that some regions receive up to 50% more than intended, and others receive 50% less. This means weeds in the lower deposit regions may survive the application. The more variable the application, the higher the rate that is needed for acceptable control.
Slower travel speed reduces variability of the spray deposit, limiting escapes.
9. Use finer sprays whenever the tank mix contains a contact mode of action product (e.g., Group 1, 6, 10, 14, 15, 22, 27) or targets grassy weeds. Both situations require smaller droplets for best performance. The use of finer sprays may mean fewer hours in the day when drift is acceptable, and as a result, investment in efficient tendering and cleaning as well as overall time management pays dividends.
10. Make efficient use of the product in the tank, preventing waste. The amount of product being discarded can range to over 10% of the total needed to treat a field, but this can be reduced to 3% with the proper steps. The following are areas where improvement is possible:
(a) Prime the boom efficiently using sectional shutoffs or better yet, a recirculating boom. These can be primed without any spray leaving the nozzle or boom ends.
Conserve product by eliminating priming waste with a recirculating boom.
(b) Measure the spray mix of the last tank accurately, minimizing leftover. Consider the AccuVolume system that weighs the tank contents to the closest gallon. Tanks can be filled with the exact amount, and rates can be adjusted as the leftover becomes apparent on the last passes.
Accurate measurement of tank volumes prevents leftovers.
(c) Invest in individual nozzle shutoffs to improve sectional control resolution. These are part of any Pulse Width Modulation system but can also be obtained as air-actuated valves that are very affordable. Such capability is necessary for recirculating booms.
Nozzle sectional control can save 4 to 5% product use.
14. Consider an optical spot spray system such as the WEEDit Quadro, the Trimble WeedSeeker, or the John Deere See & Spray Select, available for 2022. These systems are “Green on Brown”, meaning they selectively spray just weeds in a burnoff or chem-fallow. This can save about 70% of the spray depending on weed density. More such systems are on the way, some even offering “Green on Green” that selectively identifies weeds among a crop. The return on investment of these systems is directly related to the pesticide cost, meaning in a year with high pesticide prices they pay off faster. If shortages of product become a reality, a spot sprayer may be the only way that some fields get treated at all.
Pesticide shortages will not be fun. Unfortunately, their appearance coincides with higher fertilizer prices, meaning crop establishment will need to overcome that factor as well. But there are tools to minimize the impact if we’re willing to implement them. Just as necessity is the mother of invention, scarcity is the father of conservation.
We’ve heard it often: calibrate your nozzles to be sure your boom output is uniform across its entire width. The downside of poor uniformity is obvious: strips of over- or under-application causing problems with pest control or crop tolerance. A graduated cylinder held for 30 s under each nozzle is the approach of choice. Several electronic versions exist to make the job easier, for example the Spot On.
But there’s more to the story. Nozzle calibration only ensures volumetric uniformity from nozzle to nozzle. It serves to identify worn, plugged, or damaged nozzles, and little else.
After release, the spray is atomized and distributed across a wider area with a properly developed pattern. An operator adjusts boom height or spray pressure to generate proper overlap for a given fan angle at the target height. Unfortunately, the uniformity of this pattern can’t be measured with a graduated cylinder, so we’ve traditionally used a “patternator”, a flat collector placed under a few nozzles that uses a series of channels to show the peaks and valleys of the volumetric distribution. Both calibration and patternation are done with a stationary spray boom. Nozzle manufacturers employ both methods to ensure their products meet international uniformity standards before marketing.
A spray patternator determines the uniformity of a stationary boom’s spray distribution (Photo: TeeJet)
Burt even that isn’t enough. We can have good volumetric distribution but still have inconsistent coverage in places. To identify those regions, we need a way to measure small amounts of spray deposit under a moving boom, ideally in the canopy we intend to treat. Here we have a few options. We can place a tracer (dye, salt, etc.) in the tank, and collect spray on small collectors placed throughout the area to be treated. We collect the samples, wash them, and analyze the solvent for the tracer. This requires special equipment and takes time. It’s useful, but only measures dose, not droplet size or density.
Plastic straws can act as collectors of sprays under field conditions.
Monofilament strings can be used to collect spray over long distances.
A faster way is to use water-sensitive paper, about which we’ve written here and here. Using WSP is fast and easy, and it can provide additional information such as the number of droplets per unit area, or the total percent of the area covered, or even the size of the deposits, with the right equipment. We call this “coverage”, and believe this to be one of the two components of good pest control (the other being “dose”, the total amount of material deposited). Because the world isn’t fair, WSP isn’t great at quantifying dose.
Water-Sensitive paper provides a quick visual indication of the deposit, not just amount but also qualitative aspects such as droplet size and distribution.
The industry has done a good job of identifying the dose required for good control, and this is reflected in the rate recommendations on a label. But there are a few gaps. They don’t tell us, for example, what “good coverage” is, despite often telling us to “ensure” it.
Back to Deposit Uniformity
We quantify deposit uniformity by calculating the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of a series of measurements. The CV is defined as the standard deviation of these measurements, expressed as a percent of the mean value.
Because it’s hard to measure, it’s easy to ignore. But here are a few basics our research has told us: (In the first three examples, deposits were measured under a spray boom using petri plate or drinking straw samplers. There was no interference from a canopy. The last example was taken from within a canopy.)
When measuring the deposited dose, the CV under a boom tended to rise with increased wind speed. This is no surprise, as it reflects that more wind has a greater chance to displace spray from its intended destination.
Spray deposit uniformity, observed during various spray drift studies, tended to decrease with higher wind speeds.
Higher booms and increased travel speed also tended to increase deposit CV.
Faster travel speeds during spray drift studies tended to decrease uniformity.
Finer sprays tended to increase deposit CV. This makes sense, as the finer droplets are more easily displaced by air movement.
Coarser sprays created more uniform deposits possibly because they were more resistant to turbulent displacement.
Deposits were reduced and became more variable deeper in a broadleaf canopy. Again this makes sense, as there are a lot of obstacles to clear and canopies themselves are by no means uniform.
Deposit amount was lower in the canopy, as expected. But the lower deposit was also more variable.
Also note that the CV in the canopy was quite a bit higher (40 – 60%) than for the exposed targets (10 – 20%). That’s another challenge.
To recap, the best uniformity was achieved with low booms (as long as patterns overlap sufficiently), slow speeds, low winds, and coarser sprays. It’s easy to see that current spray practice isn’t always conducive to uniform deposits.
Deposit variability as captured by a 2 mm diameter string with two sprayer configurations.
So What?
Why does uniformity matter? It matters because more variable deposits are less efficient. They require higher doses for the same effect as uniform deposits. Here’s why:
The figure below shows a typical dose response curve for a herbicide. On the y-axis, we see weed biomass, on the x-axis herbicide dose. At low pesticide doses, not much happens. (In fact, we often see a slight increase in biomass with very low herbicide doses.) As we increase dose, biomass begins to decline, and as dose increases further, the effect begins to taper off. At a certain dose, no further biological response is possible.
A typical dose response curve for a herbicide.
In the next figure, we see that application of a uniform dose “a” results in biomass “y”, about 20% of untreated.
A dose response curve represents the weed biomass that resulted from any applied dose.
Next, we apply the same average dose, but we do it non-uniformly. At some locations under the boom, the deposit may be 40% higher or lower than average. The result is response “z”. Weed control is worse, as bad as it would have been at a lower uniformly applied dose (effective dose “b”).
A variable dose across a field results in many individual weed biomasses because of deposit variation. The net result is lower control.
This effect only happens when the effective dose is near the lower inflection point of the dose response curve. Perhaps we’re shaving rates. Perhaps the weather is challenging the herbicide’s performance. Or perhaps the weed is difficult to control. Under those conditions, any gain in performance with a higher dose is less than the penalty from a lower dose.
There are two ways to correct this performance loss. One is to apply a higher herbicide rate. It’s commonly done, as insurance against – you guessed it – variability, and it’s one reason why label rates have some flexibility. The second way is to improve deposit uniformity. In effect, better uniformity allows for rate reductions.
Label rates are typically in the flat region of the dose response curve to allow for variable conditions in weed susceptibility, weed growth stage, growing conditions, and deposit variability.
Take Home Message
Uniform spray deposition improves overall control. Our examples used herbicides, but the same is true for fungicides and insecticides. It’s true for field crops as well as fruit and vegetable sprays.
Uniformity is especially important when the application is done under adverse conditions in which the pesticide performance is challenged. It’s a fundamental part of good application practice.
It’s not always easy to improve uniformity. But at least it should be measured. Without measuring it, an applicator may never know how much product is being wasted. Have a look at the Crop Adapted Spraying approach Jason is using, it’s a template for all sorts of applications.
What can you do? The easiest task is to record the flow from each nozzle. The results might be surprising. Ensuring proper and consistent boom height is also important. Using water-sensitive paper to visualize the quality of the job would be icing on the cake. And adjusting application method, with uniformity as a goal…that gets you a gold star.
When we consult a nozzle catalogue we are interested in the flow and droplet sizes produced at a given pressure. Perhaps we should also consider the effect of pressure on spray angle. We have several articles discussing the collective impact of spray overlap, nozzle spacing and boom height on coverage uniformity (Check here and here for example). However, we don’t really address the fact that fan angle is not a constant. This may be more relevant with the growing adoption of spot sprayers.
To illustrate the potential for fan angle variation, we assembled a collection of red, flat fan nozzles (‘04s) from several manufacturers. We plugged each nozzle into a spray pattern table, set the regulator at a given pressure, and photographed the spray angle and flow distribution. This process was repeated for each nozzle at seven different pressures within the manufacturer’s approved range of 20-80 psi. After digitizing the photos, we measured the spray angle using a digital protractor.
We anticipated a concomitant increase in spray angle as the pressure increased. This is not news. Anyone who has operated a sprayer has seen the spray pattern open up as the boom fills and pressurizes. Bear in mind this was only performed once (i.e. n=1), so while it illustrates trends it shouldn’t be mistaken for a rigorous scientific comparison. Further, this demonstrates a static situation and not a dynamic one where travel speed, wind conditions and the vortices from the sprayer it self will influence matters.
We saw similar trends with nozzles other than 110˚ fans, but let’s focus on 110˚s due to their current popularity.
Fan angles for five common 110 degree AI flat fans over their manufacturer-recommended pressure range
The spray angle for 110˚ nozzles ranged from 75˚ at 20 psi to approximately 143˚ at 80 psi. One nozzle failed to reach 110˚ at any pressure. Conversely, there was another that was over 110˚ at nearly all pressures. Ideally, spray nozzles should be operated around the middle of their manufacturer-recommended operating range. Three of the nozzles tested came close to 110˚ at that median pressure, but only the TeeJet AIC110-04 measured 110˚ at the middle of its recommended range (~50 psi).
Using that nozzle as an example, let’s look at the pressure, spray angle and subsequent distribution of flow along the swath at three different pressures. At 20 psi, the spray angle was 85˚. The yellow balls are floats that reflect flow as a series of cross sections of the swath. We see that aside from the tapered edges (which illustrate the need for 100% overlap between neighbouring nozzles) the distribution was fairly even. One of the priorities in nozzle design is to ensure a low coefficient of variability over the operating pressure range. In other words, the length of the swath may change, but the spray quality and uniformity in that swath is still within spec. At 50 psi the nozzle produced the expected 110˚ fan, and the spray distribution remained even. At 80 psi, the angle spread out to 125˚, spanning a greater distance, but it started to produce a less-even distribution.
Photographs of spray angle and distribution for the TeeJet AIC110-04 at the extreme low, middle and highest pressures of its recommended pressure range.
When fan angle changes with pressure, it can have significant implications. Nozzle spacing on a boom varies from sprayer to sprayer. Generally 50 cm (20 inch) centres are the standard in North America, but we’ve seen 15″ and even 10″. Nozzle spacing and boom height collectively determine the degree of spray overlap. Excessive overlap isn’t a problem, although additional nozzles do mean added expense, cleaning time and potential for plugging. Conversely, gaps in the pattern could lead to sub-lethal applications or flat-out misses. For example, in this soybean demo plot (below) we sprayed a contact herbicide at low pressure to collapse the spray pattern. You can see the alternating stripes of hits and misses that resulted from an incomplete overlap of spray.
Soybean demo plot sprayed with a contact herbicide using 110˚ air induction flat fans at 20 psi. The collapsed spray pattern did not overlap sufficiently to burn the entire crop down, leaving a striped pattern and demonstrating the poor coverage.
Nozzle manufacturers generally recommend a 100% spray overlap for flat fans. This creates sufficient overlap when the boom sways low to the ground. It also increases the degree of droplet size homogeneity under the boom as coarser and fewer droplets are generally found at the “horns” or edges of the pattern compared to the centre. In order to ensure this degree of overlap, sprayer operators should observe and consider changes in fan angle over their typical pressure range. Otherwise, the cost of poor deposit uniformity under the boom could be high.
Operate nozzles around the middle of the manufacturer-recommended pressure range. However, just because a nozzle is rated over a range of pressures does not mean the angle is constant.
Lower pressures are a greater concern than higher pressures. 30 psi is the absolute lowest pressure for operating a 110˚ air induction flat fan; the ideal operating range for these nozzles is 50-70 psi.
If nozzles are not maintaining the recommended 100% overlap at your preferred pressure range, then consider switching nozzle rates, and adjusting pressure and boom height.
This work was performed with Victoria Radaukas, 2015 OMAFRA application technology summer student.
If you’re a sprayer operator with some experience behind you, you may have applied mercury arsenate, nicotine, Paris green, or perhaps even DDT. All of these historical pesticides were effective, but they were also toxic to both the applicators and the environment. Fortunately, today’s agrochemical manufacturers produce pesticides that are effective while being far less hazardous.
One important aspect of modern synthetic pesticides that enhances their efficacy is their ability to redistribute. Pesticide redistribution is the movement of a pesticide from its initial point of deposition to a different spot on or in the plant. Pesticides that can redistribute can improve pest control compared to those that must contact the target pest but cannot innately redistribute. This is especially true when spraying hard-to-wet plant tissues, such as flower clusters or fruit. Even when the immediate coverage of these tissues is insufficient, the subsequent relocation beyond the initial spray deposit can result in a more effective protective barrier. When plants are rapidly growing, many of these products can translocate through the plant tissues to protect newly emerged tissue that did not receive a direct deposit.
Some of the most difficult and persistent pests are more effectively controlled by redistributing pesticides. Materials that move within the plant after application provide improved control of piercing-sucking insects such as aphids and psyllids, as well as pests that feed in difficult-to-spray areas such as under leaves. These products can absorb into plant tissue, increasing their resistance to wash-off by rain or irrigation.
Five Types of Pesticide Redistribution
There are five significant types of pesticide redistribution: translaminar, vapor, xylem, phloem and redistribution via precipitation
Translaminar Redistribution
Translaminar redistribution (Figure 1) in its most literal sense is a compound moving from the side of the leaf that received spray, to the unsprayed opposite side. This results in protection on both sides. However, translaminar redistribution also involves limited radial movement providing a “halo” of protection around the initial deposition. The extent of this area of influence is product-dependent.
Figure 1. Schematic of translaminar redistribution, with small round dots indicating deposition of pesticide, arrows indicating the direction of redistribution, and the shading indicating the area of the plant protected by the pesticide.
Vapor Redistribution
Vapor redistribution (Figure 2A) occurs when surface depositions volatilize and move laterally along a plant surface, re-adsorbing to the plant surface in new locations as they move. Again, the extent of vapor activity is product specific, but also condition specific requiring an optimal combination of temperature, relative humidity, wind, and solar radiation to facilitate volatilization. When pesticides are referred to as “locally systemic,” it often implies that they exhibit translaminar and/or vapor redistribution properties.
Figure 2. Pesticide redistribution type schematics (A) vapor, (B) xylem, (C) phloem. The small colored groups of dots indicate deposition of pesticide, while arrows indicate the direction of redistribution, with shading representing the area of the plant protected by the pesticide.
Xylem and Phloem Redistribution
Xylem redistribution (Figure 2B), also called xylem systemic, refers to the absorption of a pesticide and subsequent systemic movement of the pesticide through the xylem vessels of a plant. Xylem vessels move water and minerals in an upward and outward direction in plants. There is very little movement of water and nutrients downwards or backwards along branches or leaves in xylem vessels. Xylem redistribution can help protect growing tissues from damage by pests or diseases when the pesticide redistributes from the point of application to the newly developing tissues. Most systemic fungicides and insecticides redistribute via the xylem.
Phloem redistribution (Figure 2C), also called phloem systemic, is the bi-directional movement of pesticides in the phloem vessels of a plant. Phloem vessels transport sugars and other nutrients both to the roots of plants and upwards and outwards to shoots and fruits/seeds. Phloem systemic pesticides are sometimes called “true systemic,” because they can translocate throughout the entire plant.
Some pesticides that redistribute via the xylem or phloem can be applied to the soil substrate to be absorbed by the roots and redistributed throughout the plant. The process of plant nutrients or pesticides being transported from one place to another within the plant is called translocation.
Soil-Applied Systemics
Several factors affect a pesticide’s ability to redistribute. These factors affect the speed of uptake, the duration and extent of translocation, and the amount of accumulation in plant tissue relative to the initial dose. For pesticides labeled for soil application, their uptake by plant roots and redistribution via xylem or phloem can lead to long residual efficacy of the product; Up to eight weeks or more depending on the product, plant, and soil. This is in contrast to foliar-applied products, where good residual efficacy could be expected to last two to three weeks depending on the product. However, foliar-applied products tend to provide a more rapid kill of target pests and a more rapid absorption and translocation of active ingredients.
For soil-applied systemic pesticides, the composition of the soil substrate can affect the uptake of the pesticide by the plant. Growing media high in organic matter (>30% bark or peat moss) can bind pesticides, making it difficult for plants to absorb them through roots and subsequently translocate via the plants vascular system. Soil applications of systemic materials should take place one to six weeks prior to the onset of the insect pest or pathogen. This allows sufficient time for the pesticide to translocate to, and accumulate in, target tissues. The more water-soluble pesticides (e.g. Thiamethoxam) are taken up more rapidly than the less water-soluble pesticides (e.g. Imidacloprid).
Redistribution via Precipitation
In contrast to systemic pesticides, contact pesticides cannot redistribute on their own. However, rain or irrigation can spread the deposit to some degree, increasing coverage area. This effect should not be relied upon, as it depends on the product formulation, the intensity of the precipitation, and the interval following application. In the case of prolonged precipitation, the residual activity of contact products can be greatly reduced as they are diluted and washed off plant tissues.
Plant Morphology
The status of the plant to which they are being applied is a significant consideration when applying redistributing pesticides. Both soil-applied and foliar-applied pesticides are more rapidly absorbed and redistributed when applied to young plants or juvenile plant tissue. In general, when plants are actively growing, have a strong root system, or are actively transpiring, they tend to absorb and translocate pesticides more rapidly than when plants are growing slowly. In addition, plants with difficult to wet leaves or surfaces due to thick cuticles or waxy layers tend to not absorb pesticides as readily. Penetration into plants with difficult to wet surfaces can be improved by adding adjuvants such as surfactants to tank mixes.
Multiple Modes of Redistribution
The extent to which each product can redistribute can be thought of as a continuum. Generally, when a product exhibits some form of redistribution, it can also redistribute via a different method. A good example of this is xylem and translaminar redistribution. When a product can redistribute via the xylem it generally can move through the leaf via the translaminar pathway as well. Some products can redistribute via the xylem, translaminar, and vapor pathways all at the same time. Others, while technically able to redistribute via more than one mechanism, are only biologically effective via one mechanism.
Consult the Pesticide Label and Other Reputable Sources
The best way to determine how a pesticide product redistributes is to consult the manufacturer’s label, as well as technical information from reputable sources such as government or academia. If a manufacturer provides a technical information bulletin it is generally available on their website on the pesticide product page along with the label. However, because there are no standardized metrics to rate pesticide redistribution, there can be significant disparity between products. Some products that are advertised as being xylem systemic for example, are actually less systemic than products that are not even advertised as being systemic. Additional information on the efficacy and redistributing characteristics of specific products can be obtained from extension agents or crop consultants.
Conclusion
In summary, when selecting a pesticide remember to consider the four different pathways of redistribution (xylem, phloem, translaminar, and vapor) and how these methods may improve the efficacy of your application, allowing you to get more out of every drop.
