Category: Boom Sprayers

Main category for sprayers with horizontal booms

Comparing Water Sensitive Paper Brands
Introduction
Spray coverage describes the degree of contact between spray droplets and the target surface area. This metric can be used to predict the success of an application. One of the easiest methods for visualizing coverage is to use water sensitive paper (WSP), which is a passive, artificial collector that turns from yellow to blue when contacted by water.
WSP is often used to evaluate iterative changes to a spray program. Placed strategically throughout a target canopy, or directly on the ground, achieving uniform, threshold coverage translates into improved efficacy, reduced waste, reduced off-target contamination and reduced risk of pesticide resistance development. WSP were also used to develop a system that measures the area covered by the effective radial distance in an attempt to relate the area covered by a stain to a larger area where sufficient pesticide activity is taking place.
WSP tends to underestimate the spreading effect that can occur on plant surfaces (especially when surfactants are used), but they are effective as a relative index.
A brief history of WSP
In 1970, a journal article described a new method for sampling and assessing spray droplets. Photographic paper treated with bromoethyl blue created a yellow surface that changed colour when it encountered moisture. The pH-based reaction was fast and irreversible, leaving a distinct blue stain to mark the deposition.
Ciba-Geigy Ltd. made water sensitive paper commercially available in 1985 (later as Novartis in 1996 and as Syngenta since 2000). It is produced in several formats, but aluminum foil packages of 50, 76 x 22 mm (1 x 3 in.) papers are the most popular. Odds are if you’ve ever used water sensitive paper, it originated from Syngenta in Switzerland. In 2023 I noticed that the papers now say “made in Germany.”
Change of manufacturing location?
In recent years, two new options have been made commercially available: Innoquest’s SpotOn Paper (United States) and WSPaper (Brazil). At the time of writing, there has been no impartial comparative evaluation of these three products.
Once dry, the blue stains on WSP are irreversible and papers can be stored for long periods of time. However unstained portions will continue to react to moisture from humidity, dew, or fingerprints, so care must be taken in their handling and storage.
Comparing WSP brands
The three commercially-available brands of WSP were subjected to a series of comparisons. The intention was not to rank these products, but to determine if they performed in a similar fashion and to alert users to any significant differences.
Packaging and Appearance
Each package was donated for the study. The SpotOn (SO) papers had a “sell-by” date of November 2023, the Syngenta (SY) papers (provided via Spraying Systems Co.) were dated February 2021 and the WSPaper (WS) was their newest formulation (white package, not silver), received June 2021. The comparison was performed on July 5, 2021.
WSP packages.
Each product was a foil or plasticized bag of 50, 26 x 76 mm papers. SO and WS had a re-sealing feature similar to that of a sandwich bag. SO also included a package of silica gel desiccant to capture moisture and a pair of plastic forceps to facilitate handling.
Users are encouraged to label papers to ensure they know their relative position and sprayer pass for later analysis. It was possible to write in ink on the faces of the SY and SO papers, but not WS. It was possible to write on the back of all brands.
The three papers were different shades of yellow. Further, in the author’s experience, the colour can be visibly different between batches of the same brand. In the case of larger experiments where more than 50 papers are required, it would be prudent to ensure papers are not only from the same manufacturer, but the same production batch. This would not be an issue when subjectively comparing papers, but when using software that employs colour thresholding to identify deposits, it could create artifacts. Presently, only Syngenta has a batch number (found on a sticker on the back of the bag).
Bleed-through
WSP is often placed in foliar canopies which are subject to dew and transpiration that can cause the papers to react prematurely. This can be particularly limiting when moisture soaks through the backs of papers. Each brand of paper was placed face-up on a drop of water to see if the water would bleed through.
Three brands were placed on a single drop of water. Within five minutes, WSPaper and Syngenta brands wicked the water through, causing a colour reaction. SpotOn did not, although the yellow surface darkened. When a drop of water was applied to the face, the SpotOn paper still produced a blue stain.
WS quickly curled as the water wicked in from the edges. Within five minutes the water soaked through from the back as well. Within five minutes SY also curled, but the colour reaction was entirely due to water soaking through and not wicking along the edges of the paper. SO did not curl and there was no colour reaction save a minor wicking reaction at one edge. It did however produce a dark yellow patch. In order to see if a colour reaction was still possible, a single drop of water was placed on the face and the colour reaction was distinct and instantaneous.
Note: Others have since replicated this experiment and reported that the response depends on the amount of water used and how long you leave it. We repeated our experiment with higher volumes and longer wait times (see image below). Ultimately, no brand of WSP is water proof from the back. Nevertheless, with small volumes of water (such as from dew) the original assessment of each brand is still valid.
A replication of the bleed-through experiment with the same batch of papers was performed with higher water volumes and a longer duration. Eventually, all three brands bled through. (SpotOn left, WSPaper middle, Syngenta right).
Deformation and drying time
Users of water sensitive paper may be familiar with its occasional tendency to curl when one side is sprayed. In extreme cases, this movement could create smears if the paper contacted other wetted surfaces in dense foliage. The degree of curling was significantly different by brand, with SY becoming convex when wet and then flexing back into a concave form once dry. WS deformed as well, but only to a minor degree. SO did not appear to deform at all. Syngenta has noted that the degree to which their papers curl depends on the batch. Their manufacturing process has changed over the years in response to regulatory requirements and minor adjustments are still occasionally made.
Once dry, each brand of WSP tended to curl to different degrees. Syngenta curled the most and SpotOn the least if at all.
There was no appreciable difference in the time it took for any brand to dry. This is based on attempts to smear papers every 30 seconds. All were dry in under five minutes.
Experimental design
While there is considerable variability inherent to spraying, every effort was made to maintain consistent conditions. Papers were sprayed in a closed room with no appreciable air currents (21.5 °C and 64% RH). Papers were paired randomly, side-by-side on a plastic sled. The sled was pulled at 2.5 kmh (~1.5 mph) through the centre of a spray swath produced by a TeeJet XR80015 positioned 50 cm (20 in.) above the targets. The nozzle operated at 2.75 bar (40 psi) to produce ~270 L/ha (~29 gpa) with Fine spray quality. Six passes were made, producing four sprayed papers for each brand.
All papers were dry to the touch after two minutes. They were removed to a cooler, low humidity space and were digitized and analyzed using the SprayX DropScope (v.2.3.0) within an hour of spraying. We noted that while WS and SO fit easily into the DropScope port, the SY papers were sometimes slightly wider and had to be forced. Learn more about how to digitize and analyze WSP in this series of articles.
Screen capture from DropScope’s smartphone app.
The “ground” option was selected, and each brand of paper was processed using its specific spread factor. DropScope has a detection threshold of 35 µm. This is appropriate as the smallest droplet diameter that can be resolved by any brand of WSP is ~30 µm (Syngenta, Innoquest, SprayX – Personal Communication).
Percent surface covered
The average percent surface covered was calculated with standard error of the mean for each paper. WS and SO produced similar values between 30 and 35%. While all three brands exhibited similar variability, SY approached saturation at approximately 80% coverage. Therefore, WSPaper exhibited a slightly higher degree of spread than SpotOn, while the Syngenta paper exhibited a significantly higher degree of spread.
For reference, it can be difficult to determine if a stain represents a single deposit or is the result of multiple overlapping deposits. This becomes a problem when the surface of the WSP exceeds 20% total coverage. Further, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish a stain from the background, unstained surface when papers exceed 50% total coverage.
Average percent surface coverage by brand.
DropScope-digitized images of three brands of WSP. The Syngenta and SpotOn papers were sprayed simultaneously while the WSPaper was sprayed in a subsequent pass. WSPaper exhibited a slightly higher degree of spread than SpotOn, while the Syngenta paper exhibited a significantly higher degree of spread.
Deposit density
The average deposit density is a count of discrete objects (i.e. stains) per cm². WS appeared to resolve the highest count, followed by SY and then SO. The process for determining what is a discrete object, and not the result of anomalies such as overlapping deposits, elliptical deposits or imperfections in the paper itself is complicated and computationally heavy. The algorithms employed by DropScope treated each paper consistently. So, while some differences are attributed to variations in spraying, they also reflect the paper’s innate ability to resolve individual deposits.
Average deposit density was highest for WSPaper, then Syngenta, then SpotOn. Variability was similar in all cases.
Droplet diameter
It is not the intent of this article to determine if WSP should be used to extrapolate the original droplet size. The many assumptions and inconsistencies inherent to this process are well known. Nevertheless, some researchers do use WSP in this manner, so a comparison was warranted.
DropScope bins deposit diameters by size to produce histograms of deposit size by count. These stain diameters are used to extrapolate DV_0.1, DV_0.5 (VMD), DV_0.9 and NMD, which describe the population of droplets that produced the stains. DV_0.5 is the Volume Median Diameter, or the droplet diameter where half the volume is composed of finer droplets and the other half by coarser droplets. Number Median Diameter (NMD) is the droplet diameter where half the total droplets are finer, and half the total droplets are coarser.
Each brand of WSP will permit a certain degree of spread when a droplet of water contacts the surface. This spread factor is specific to the brand of paper. Further, the spread factor is not constant for all droplet sizes; Finer droplets will spread less than coarser droplets.
When processing data using DropScope, selecting the appropriate spread factor makes a significant difference to the output. For example, here are the same four SY papers processed using the Syngenta-specific spread factor as well as the spread factors intended for SpotOn and WSPaper.
The same four Syngenta papers were processed by DropScope using the Syngenta-specific spread factor as well as the SpotOn and WSPaper spread factors. The resulting VMD and NMD were very different.
Therefore, each brand of water sensitive paper was analyzed using its brand-specific spread factor (according to DropScope), to produce the following graph.
Three brands of WSP processed by DropScope using their specific spread factors. VMD differed by as much as 30%.
SY produced a VMD higher than that of WS, and both were higher than SO. There was less variability in the NMD, but this was expected given the high droplet count on the finer side of a hydraulic nozzle’s droplet size spectrum.
Conclusion
Water sensitive paper has immeasurable value in agricultural spraying. It is far more important to encourage its use than to quibble over brands. However, when these tools are used for more rigorous evaluations of spray coverage, brand-specific variability must be addressed.
The differences in how each brand responds to moisture (i.e. discolouration and deformation) may factor into which brand is most appropriate for a given situation. Further, there appear to be significant differences in how each brand resolves coverage. Once again, this may be irrelevant for those spray operators who occasionally use WSP to inform their spraying practices, but for consultants and researchers it is suggested that they use a single brand for an experiment, with papers produced in the same batch run. Learn more about methods for digitizing and analyzing WSP in this series of three articles.
Syngenta, Spraying Systems Co., SprayX, WSPaper and Innoquest are gratefully acknowledged for their contribution of materials and time informing this article.
July 7, 2021
Optical Spot Spraying and AI Scouting
Listen to the Audio article here
Site-specific treatments have long been a goal in agriculture. It makes sense to provide inputs or treatments at rates that reflect the local situation. And to a large degree, those capabilities have been available for fertility and seed inputs for some time, with input zones reflecting soil types or topography.
Typical prescription map for nutrients (Source: Field Crop News)
But the sprayer world has not seen as much site-specific treatment. One reason is that pest maps are time-consuming to generate and their usefulness may be short-lived. Or perhaps weeds are fairly ubiquitous, and it usually makes sense to treat an entire field. Another reason could be that sprays are relatively inexpensive compared to fertilizer or seed.
For spraying, we need to re-define site-specific.
While traditional zone maps (corresponding to, say soil type and/or elevation or slope position) allow unique treatments on a scale of acres, new sensors have allowed sprayers to basically leapfrog this approach and treat each square foot uniquely. These sensors identify plants directly and create an immediate treatment response.
Optical Spot Spray(OSS) principle (adapted from WEEDit)
The idea, and technology, has and been around agriculture since the early 1990s, with the Concord DetectSpray and later the Trimble WeedSeeker. For various reasons, these two never became widespread in North America, although a significant market formed in Australia and New Zealand. New cutting edge technologies are about to change this.
Green on Brown
Two main manufacturers have occupied the traditional Green on Brown Optical Spot Spraying (OSS) space, the Trimble WeedSeeker and WEEDit. Both have been available for over 10 years and are well established and proven reliable. WeedSeeker uses the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) principle to detect green on a non-green background. It employs one sensor per nozzle and the nozzle is either on-or off based on what the sensor detects. The WEEDit system is manufactured in the Netherlands by Rometron (https://www.weed-it.com/), and is widely adopted for use in Australia and South America. It is now making inroads into North America. The most recent version is named Quadro.
WEEDit spray booms contain sensors placed at 1 m intervals. These scan the ground ahead of the boom, identify the presence of plants, and trigger the nozzle in line with the plant. The newest Quadro sensor contains four channels so that its resolution is actually 25 cm (10″) wide. The boom therefore contains a nozzle every 25 cm, and this nozzle has a correspondingly narrow fan angle that treats just this space.
Hypro even spray (banding) nozzle with 30 degree fan angle. 30 and 40 degree nozzles are currently installed on WEEDit on 10″ spacing.
30 degree fan achieves approximately 8″ to 10″ band at target height. Boom stability is important
The detection principle is based on the quality of light that is reflected from living plant tissue compared to everything else. A red (older generation) or blue (newest generation, Quadro) light is emitted, and chlorophyll-containing plants reflect a unique wavelength that differentiates them from ground or dead plant material.
Older generation WEEDit sensors were placed at 1 m intervals and had five channels, each covering a 20 cm band. There were 180 nozzles on a 36 m (120′) boom.
The response time of the system is very fast. Triggered by small solenoids, a sprayer travel speed of up to 15 mph is possible when the sensor looks 1 m ahead. Furthermore, the software allows the user two important controls: first, the sprayed distance before and after a detected plant can be buffered between 5 and 20 cm, resulting in a sprayed patch between 10 and 40 cm long. This could be useful when boom heights fluctuate and placement of the sprayed patch shifts accordingly. Second, the user can select from among four sensitivity settings. Higher sensitivity can detect smaller weeds but will also result in more false results.
WEEDit Quadro sensor
One reason the system has been successful in the southern hemisphere is the long growing season that may require multiple spray passes outside of the crop each year, and in which the weeds are relatively large at treatment time and therefore easier to detect.
Water sensitive paper can be used to show whether a target has been detected (and therefore sprayed).
In North America, the pre-seed spray window is relatively narrow and weeds may be very small or just be emerging. The risk of a miss due to non-detection is therefore greater. Fortunately, the WEEDit system has a feature that addresses this risk.
PWM valve for WEEDit, capable of instantaneous response at 10 to 50 Hz
The solenoids that trigger an individual nozzle are pulse-width modulated (PWM). This means that the application rate is adjusted according to travel speed via a duty cycle. And it offers an innovative capability: The entire boom can be programmed to spray a defined fraction of the full dose, to a maximum of 50%, as a background broadcast rate (called “Dual Mode” or “Bias”). The smallest weeds that escape detection are likely to be susceptible to this lower dose. Larger weeds are then detected and sprayed with an individual spot spray at the full dose. Dual Mode is typically set to about 25%; overall savings are less, but control is improved for those very early season situations.
A WEEDit Quadro boom can also be operated in “Cover Mode” for broadcast spraying where it functions as a full PWM system with turn compensation.
Currently, several hundred WEEDit sprayers are operating in Australia, and they’ve been available in Canada and the US since 2017. in 2019, Croplands, an Australian sprayer manufacturer owned by Nufarm, started representing WEEDit in Canada. It is available as a retrofit on existing booms, and can be ordered with a WEEDit Millennium aluminum boom that contains mounting brackets and wiring harness channels. Savings compared to broadcast spraying range from 65 to 85%.
In early 2021, John Deere announced its entry into the Green on Brown space with See & Spray Select™. This system is built around the ExactApply nozzle body and uses RGB cameras to differentiate green plants from non-green background colours. It will be in fields in 2022 according to John Deere. Similar RGB-based systems are in development by other manufacturers. Although their performance has not been compared side by side with WEEDit or WeedSeeker, initial specs suggest that the RGB systems are slower and are less able to detect small plants. Nonetheless, the future looks very promising.
In 2021, Hardi Australia announced a new product, called GeoSelect. This system does not have boom-mounted sensors, and instead sprays according to a prescription map developed by a drone. The advantage of this system is that the amount of herbicide needed is known in advance of spraying, and the knowledge of weed distribution in the field can allow for a more efficient coverage plan to be used. This system allows for spraying under any light condition, and adjusts for boom sway to ensure accurate placement. Drone map development is the responsibility of the applicator.
Green on Green
Green on Green spraying, which detects weeds within a crop and differentiates them from that crop, is advancing and the earliest commercial releases are now available in Australia, offered by a partnership between Bilberry and Agrifac (WeedSmart podcast here), as well as Bilberry and Goldacres with Swarmfarm. Others, notably the SmartSprayer from Amazone in partnership with Xarvio and Bosch and Greeneye Technology are entering field testing with commercial sized units in 2021 and 2022, respectively.
Opportunities for Optical Spot Spraying
Taken as a whole, optical spot spraying offers a number of opportunities for weed management.
Cost Savings: OSS has an appealing rate of return on investment. On a 5000 acre farm, a pre-seed treatment of glyphosate plus tank mix for resistance management may cost $10/acre, or $50,000 per year. At an average savings of 75%, that represents $37,500 per year. Add other non-crop uses, such as post-harvest, and savings increase. With eventual weed recognition in-crop, virtually all herbicide treatments are candidates for such savings.
Herbicide Resistance Management: Delaying the onset of herbicide resistance requires the use of multiple effective modes of action in a tank mix. Cost is a deterrent to this practice. With OSS, these tank mixes become affordable.
Efficiency: With 75% product savings, a tank of product will last longer. The time lost to hauling water and product, as well as filling the sprayer, will decrease. For example, WEEDit users are spraying a full day on a single load. Or they may choose to use a much smaller load, decreasing equipment weight.
Pre- and Post-Harvest: Whether for desiccation or weed control, site-specificity of late season sprays can also be based on living tissue. Only regions in the field requiring the desiccant are treated. Perennial or late-season weeds are selectively controlled pre-harvest. Since herbicide rates in these applications are typically higher, savings are significant.
High value crops: Row crops requiring multiple fungicide applications per season, such as potatoes, can benefit from OSS. Sprays applied prior to canopy closure can thus avoid gaps between plants, saving product.
Producer Innovation: One user of the WEEDit system in Saskatchewan developed an innovative use. Having missed a pre-seed spray, the applicator was faced with large weeds in a 1-leaf RoundupReady canola crop. By turning down the sensitivity of the system so the canola crop did not trigger the sensors and turning on Dual Mode, he was able to broadcast spray the field at a low glyphosate dose (sufficient to control the small weeds) and then apply a full dose to the larger weeds, triggered by the sensor.
Equipment Innovation: Since individual zones or weeds require unique doses or products, technologies like direct injection, remote nozzle switching, multiple smaller tanks and booms, and PWM will make more sense and grow. But the whole concept of detection and treatment can be moved away from pesticides to mechanical control or other techniques such as lasers, as does Carbon Robotics.
License to Farm: OSS makes intuitive sense not only to applicators, but also to the public at large. Showing and using these technologies demonstrates stewardship practices that are easy to communicate and understand.
Artificial Intelligence Scouting
Another approach is pioneered by several companies, for example Dronewerkers in the Netherlands (https://www.dronewerkers.nl/english/) Taranis (http://www.taranis.ag/), and Xarvio (https://www.xarvio.com). These companies have developed plant recognition algorithms that are currently able to identify over 100 different species. Each species can be divided into several growth stages. Taranis has launched a business in North America that scouts fields by high-resolution drone imagery, and then provides customers with maps that highlight potential agronomic issues such as weeds, disease, or insect damage.
Example of information available from artificial intelligence scouting. In this case, plant and foreign material information by species, relative abundance, and growth stage.
Resolution of the output can be species-specific (lambsquarters vs redroot pigweed), or by coarser resolution (broadleaf vs grass). The resulting output then shows the plant density at each location.
Weeds in a soybean crop (courtesy of Taranis)
Xarvio Scouting is a product in their Field Manager line (https://www.xarvio.com/en-CA/Scouting). App-based, the agronomist or producer takes pictures of their crops and the app is able to recognize weeds, diseases, insect feeding damage, as well as nitrogen status. The app is aware of other users in the area and basically crowd-sources emerging agronomic issues as they arise, communicating them back to the user.
The Xarvio Scouting app can identify certain weeds, diseases, and insect feeding damage from pictures taken while scouting (Screenshot from Xarvio.com).
The agronomic value of this information is clearly very high. Imagine knowing the distribution of weeds by species before and after treatment. Although we can already assess this when we walk fields, by conducting the task via drone we are measuring on a wide scale, permitting an accurate quantification of the treatment effect so its value can be assessed. This level of measurement intensity was not possible before. Yield loss models for time of removal of certain weeds at certain growth stages can be applied across the entire field, and economic analyses allows follow-up treatments to be tailored to specific portions of the field.
Green-Eye Technology artificial intelligence can differentiate these ragweed plants from the pea crop. (Courtesy Green Eye Technology).
Or imagine following specific patches of weeds over time, to monitor the effectiveness of a certain cultural practice, or be alerted to the establishment of a resistant population while it’s still feasible to contain it.
Heat maps can be generated to document weed patches, and perhaps monitor their size over time. (Courtesy Green Eye Technology).
When this information is converted to a prescription map, rate and tank mix composition (or cultural controls) could be varied as necessary by zone, or weeds could, in the future, be sprayed individually. Perhaps future autonomous robots could be deployed more efficiently.
Identification of plant symptoms in canola (Courtesy of Taranis)
Development and improvement of these technologies is ongoing rapidly. Finally, we may have all the pieces that can bring site specific weed, disease, and insect management to market.
June 8, 2021
Ten Tips for Spraying in the Wind
Choosing the right time to spray can be tricky. Our gut tells us that spraying when it’s windy is wrong. The experts tell us that spraying when it’s calm is wrong. So when can you actually spray?
I’ve always advised my clients to spray in some wind, because it has a few advantages. The main one is that wind helps disperse the spray upward and downward, diluting the spray cloud fairly rapidly. Another advantage is that winds tend to be reasonably steady in their direction and velocity (or at least that can be forecast), so downwind areas can be identified and potential impacts are known or predictable. It helps if it’s sunny, because that improves the dispersion of the cloud even more.
First, let’s define “windy”. The classic wind scale is the Beaufort Scale, intended for the sea, but also used on land. The upper limit for spraying is probably Force 3 or Force 4, with upper limits of 20 – 25 km/h or so. The Beaufort Scale calls these “Gentle or Moderate Breezes” (they had to save the alarming words for hurricanes), and the scale provides good visual clues such as what wind does to flags, leaves, or dust.
Spraying under breezy conditions can be done fairly safely if you follow specific steps. The idea is to understand what the risks are and to manage them.
The cornerstone is to use a low-drift spray and match it to a pesticide that will work well with larger droplets. But there are other important aspects to consider. Below are the top ten to think about:
- Choose a herbicide that can handle large droplets. Glyphosate products are well suited to coarse droplets. But glyphosate commonly has contact actives in the mix, members of Group 6, 14, and 15, and these are less likely to perform well with big droplets than those that contain Group 2 and 4 mixes. Actives with soil activity also have more tolerance for larger droplets.
- Use a low-drift nozzle and operate it so it produces a Coarse (C) to Very Coarse (VC) spray quality, as described by the manufacturer. Dicamba labels call for Extremely Coarse (XC) to Ultra-Coarse (UC) sprays, and Enlist requires at least Coarse. To achieve these you may need to purchase new nozzles. Low-pressure air-induced nozzles operated at about 50 – 60 psi will generally be very low-drift, but lower drift models are available. If you need a finer spray, produce it either by increasing the pressure or moving to a finer tip. Do this when the weather improves, for contact modes of action.
The name, symbol and range of droplet sizes used to describe the median droplet diameter produced by nozzles according to ASABE S572.3
- Keep your boom low. Lowering the boom ranks as the second-most effective way to reduce drift, after coarser sprays. But there’s a limit. For low-drift sprays, you need at least 100% overlap (more for PWM), which is for the edge of one nozzle pattern to spray into the centre of the adjacent pattern. In other words, the spray pattern should be twice as wide as your nozzle spacing at target height. For most nozzles, a boom height of close to 20 inches is enough to achieve this overlap. That’s pretty low by current standards from suspended booms on self-propelled sprayers, so being too low for a good pattern will only happen due to boom sway.
- Maintain reasonably slow travel speeds. These reduce the amount of fine droplets that hang behind the spray boom, reduce turbulence from sprayer wheels, and they also make low booms more practical. An added bonus is less dust generation.
- Know what’s downwind and what harms it. Survey the fields on all sides of the parcel you’re treating. When you have a choice, avoid spraying fields that have sensitive areas downwind such as water, shelterbelts, pastures, people, etc. If you can’t avoid being upwind of these areas, make sure you check and obey the buffer zone restrictions on the label. These will also give you an idea if the product can cause harm in water or on land, or both.
- Let the weather help you.
  1. Take the wind from the side if you can. Going straight into the wind creates a lot of extra drift.
  2. Spray when the sun shines if you have a choice. Early morning, late evening, or cloudy days increase the distance that drift moves. When it’s sunny, the drift cloud disperses quickly and causes less damage.
- Consider a dicamba tip for special situations, even if you don’t use dicamba. If you’re in a situation where quitting and waiting is a poor option, these tips allow you to finish the job with minimal drift risk and with only slight reductions in product performance due to poor coverage.
- Use a low-drift adjuvant. Specific products such as Interlock or Valid have been shown to reduce driftable fines (<150 microns) by between 40 – 60%, without adding significant volume in coarser droplets. The response will depend on the nozzle and the tank mix, but can be very noticeable.
- Study drift and how it forms and moves. It’s about more than wind speed and droplet size. Knowledge in this area can help you work out the best strategies.
- Invest in productivity. You may not need it every day, but on occasions when you have a small window to avoid bad weather, it pays dividends.
- If you feel that drift is unavoidable and someone might be impacted by it, talk to those people first. It’s one of the most important things you can do.
Keeping pesticide sprays on target continues to be one of our top responsibilities.
June 8, 2021
Spraying Asparagus in Fern
This research was performed in 2012 and since then there have been considerable advances in application technology for asparagus in fern that should be considered. Be sure to read the epilogue at the end of this article.
Introduction
Diseases such as purple spot can have major economic impacts for asparagus growers, and the best line of defence is spraying the appropriate control products. The good news is that asparagus growers know this. The bad news is that there are few things harder to spray than asparagus in fern.
Asparagus infected with purple spot.
Asparagus in fern can stand 1.5 m (5 ft) high by 1.0 m (3 ft) diameter and is typically planted on 1.2 m (4 ft) centres. Asparagus in fern has a very dense canopy full of needle-shaped leaves. This dense canopy slows air movement, making conditions still, humid and very difficult for a spray droplet to penetrate.
Spraying asparagus in fern.
Spray coverage is a combination of two factors: the area of the target contacted by spray droplets, and the distribution of spray droplets over that target. For most insecticide and fungicide applications, reasonable coverage is reflected by 10-15% surface area covered paired with an even distribution of approximately 85 medium sized droplets per square centimeter. This is not a rule, but a guideline.
In order to determine the best way to spray, we have to be able to compare the coverage achieved. To do this, we used water sensitive paper, which is yellow until contact with spray turns it blue. Three sets of three targets were placed in approximately the same location for each pass.
Water sensitive paper arranged on stands, ready to be placed in the fern.
Water sensitive paper orientation and location in asparagus canopy relative to sprayer direction.
We tested five popular nozzle types, at two ground speeds using three carrier volumes to answer three questions:
1. Does spray volume impact spray coverage?
2. Which nozzle style gives the best coverage?
3. Does travel speed impact spray coverage?
Does spray volume impact spray coverage?
Five different nozzle types were used to spray three volumes onto the targets at 16 kmh (10 mph). This was repeated three times and target coverage was determined both as droplet deposits per cm² (see Figure 1) and total % covered (see Figure 2).
Figure 1. Average deposits per cm^2 for five different nozzle types at 187 L/ha (20 US gpa), 234 L/ha (25 US gpa) and 280 L/ha (30 US gpa) at a ground speed of 16 kmh (10 mph).
Figure 2. Combined average percent coverage for five different nozzle types at 187 L/ha (20 US gpa), 234 L/ha (25 US gpa) and 280 L/ha (30 US gpa) at a ground speed of 16 kmh (10 mph).
Cards in each position consistently received a significantly higher average deposit per cm² and significantly higher average percent coverage at higher spray volumes. The relatively low coverage in the middle position was anticipated given the orientation of the targets to the sprayer.
Therefore, it would appear higher volumes result in better coverage, at least up to 280 L/ha (30 gpa). Generally, there is a threshold where exceeding a given carrier volume results in a diminishing return.
Which nozzle gives the best coverage?
Coverage from five different nozzles was compared: the Hollow cone, Flat fan, Dual flat fan, Guardian Air and Air-induced hollow cone. Given that 280 L/ha (30 gpa) resulted in the best coverage, the following figures illustrate droplet deposits per cm² (see Figure 3) and total % covered (see Figure 4) at 280 L/ha (30 gpa).
Figure 3. Average deposits per cm^2 for five different nozzle types at 280 L/ha (30 US gpa) and 16 kmh (10 mph).
Figure 4. Average percent coverage for five different nozzle types at 280 L/ha (30 US gpa) and 16 kmh (10 mph).
The graphs show that each nozzle followed a similar trend, with more droplets at the top of the canopy, less or par at the bottom of the canopy, and considerably less in the middle of the canopy (which is not surprising given the orientation of the target around the stem).
The trend in droplet density from highest to least coverage is:
1. Hollow Cone
2. XR flat Fan
3. Guardian Air
4. Dual Flat Fan
5. Air Induced Hollow Cone
The percent coverage data was less clear. The top two nozzles for each position were:
Top Target:
1. Guardian Air
2. All other nozzles approximately the same
Middle Target (around the stem):
1. XR flat Fan
2. Hollow Cone
Bottom Target:
1. XR flat Fan
2. Hollow Cone
It can be argued that the target at the top of the canopy is easiest to spray, and therefore does not have as much importance as the middle and bottom targets. As such, it would appear that the XR flat fan and Hollow cone nozzles give the best overall coverage. It is debatable whether the higher droplet count from the Hollow cone is more important than the higher percent coverage of the XR flat fan.
Does travel speed impact spray coverage?
Hollow cone nozzles and XR flat fan nozzles were used to spray targets at two travel speeds and three volumes. Target coverage was determined both as droplet deposits per cm² (see Figure 5) and total % covered (see Figure 6).
Figure 5. Average deposits per cm^2 for Hollow cone and XR flat fan nozzles at 280 L/ha (30 US gpa) and either 8 kmh (5 mph) or 16 kmh (10 mph).
Figure 6. Average percent coverage for Hollow cone and XR Flat fan nozzles at 280 L/ha (30 US gpa) and either 8 kmh (5 mph) or 16 kmh (10 mph).
The variability in deposit density and percent coverage from medium/fine droplets created by the hollow cone nozzles make it difficult to determine statistical significance, but the trend suggests that higher ground speeds improve coverage in the middle and bottom of the canopy. This is likely due to the wake of the sprayer and the vortices created by its passage stirring fine droplets into the canopy.
Overall recommendations
The data suggest that coverage was improved when the sprayer travels at 16 kmh (10 mph) rather than 8 kmh (5 mph). Coverage was also improved at higher spray volumes, where 280 L/ha (30 US g/ac) provided the best overall coverage for all nozzles. As for the best nozzle, this depends on the application; the hollow cone created higher droplet densities than the XR flat fan, but the XR Flat fan created higher percent coverage. Higher droplet densities may be preferred when controlling disease with contact products, but spray drift becomes a significant concern. Higher percent coverage might be preferred with locally systemic products where complete coverage is less of a concern and preventing spray drift is a priority.
Epilogue
This work was performed in 2012. Since then there have been significant advances in sprayer design for spraying asparagus in fern. Dr. Torsten Balz (Bayer Application Technology Manager) kindly provided an example of such a sprayer (see below) and a video link to watch it in action. Drop arms that bring the nozzles closer to the target at all canopy depths are an ideal solution as long as the row spacing allows clearance without snagging the drops. Further, there have been developments regarding the use of hollow cones in an overhead broadcast application. Over- and under-laps in the hollow cone swath lead to double-dosing and gaps respectively that are referred to as “Technical Strip Disease”. Combined with considerable drift potential, hollow cones are not recommended.
Air-assisted drop arms greatly improve coverage uniformity in asparagus in fern. Photo kindly provided by Dr. Torsten Balz.
Special thanks to Max Underhill Farm Supply (Vienna, Ontario) for use of their sprayer and their assistance both spraying and placing water sensitive papers in the field. Thanks to Mr. Ken Wall of Sandy Shore Farms Ltd. (Port Burwell, Ontario) for providing the site and hosting the associated workshop, and thanks to TeeJet Technologies for their donation of parts and supplies.
June 3, 2021
Fundamentals of Spray Drift
The year 1989 marked my first spray drift trial under the watchful eye of Dr. Raj Grover and John Maybank. We evaluated the performance of several spray shrouds, Flexi-Coil, AgShield, Brandt, and Rogers, and wanted to measure just how effective they were. But in my heart I wasn’t interested in drift. I wanted to study herbicide efficacy. Anyway, I thought, we’ll do this trial and I’m pretty sure we won’t have to revisit the topic.
It’s now thirty-two years later and spray drift has interwoven itself into all my projects, remains one of the most powerful drivers of regulatory activity, is likely the most visible consequence of poor stewardship, and will stay as one of the dominant creators of public opinion around modern agricultural practice.
Drift has not gone away. And yet our understanding of it is far from complete.
Spray drift is defined as the wind-induced movement of the spray cloud away from the treated swath. Droplet drift can occur for all sprays, and it happens within minutes of the spray pass. Its cousin, vapour drift, is limited to active ingredients that are volatile, that is, they can evaporate from dry deposits after application. Vapour drift happens after the spray application is complete and can last several days.
Droplet Drift
Droplet drift can be divided into two phases that are separated by about 1 second and that are measured differently. “Initial drift” happens first and refers to the product that leaves the treated area immediately after atomization. It is airborne and can be measured by placing air-samplers (any device that can capture droplets in air) close to the downwind edge of the spray swath.
Figure 1: Initial vs Secondary drift. Once the drift cloud leaves the treated swath, the relative strengths of turbulence and sedimentation determine the amount that remains airborne and the amount that lands downwind.
Secondary drift describes the airborne spray cloud that continues to move downwind from the swath edge, where it either remains aloft or deposits on the surface below it. It is typically measured using samplers placed on the ground that capture sedimenting spray droplets. The difference in method is important because it goes to the heart of the problem of understanding spray drift.
Figure 2: Droplet drift occurs when displacement energy exceeds droplet energy. The droplet’s combination of mass and velocity cannot withstand the energy presented by moving air.
Initial drift is actually quite easy to understand because its creation is intuitive. The displacement of droplets from the spray plume is a function of balancing two types of energy. The first, droplet energy, is the product of droplet diameter and velocity. The more energy in the droplets, the more difficult they are to displace, and that’s why larger, heavier droplets or fast-moving air assist are useful drift reducing tools. The second, displacement energy, comes from relative air movement, either from forward travel speed or wind and the associated turbulence. More wind or turbulence means more power to displace.
Figure 3: Initial drift follows an expected response to greater wind speeds and coarser sprays. Data from a pull-type sprayer travelling 13 km/h with 60 cm boom height.
Because initial drift is easier to understand, our most common advice for reducing drift is based on maximizing droplet energy and minimizing displacement energy. Lower booms, larger droplets, slower travel speeds, shrouds, or properly implemented air assist all help reduce initial drift. It makes sense that creating less initial drift will also reduce downwind deposition arising from secondary drift.
Figure 4: Management of initial drift is intuitive. We reduce drift by adding energy to the droplet and by protecting the droplet from exposure to moving air.
Downwind Deposition
After leaving the spray swath, the moving secondary drift cloud has two main options. It can deposit or it can remain airborne. Basic physics suggest that all objects eventually fall to the ground, and since smaller objects need more time, they drift further. But when atmospheric turbulence and topography are considered, it’s not quite that simple. These two complicating factors control what proportion of the drift cloud remains airborne, and what proportion deposits.
Drift trials show that about 20% of the initial drift amount returns to the surface within the first 100 m or so of the sprayer. The rest remains and rises in the atmosphere where it evaporates and gets mixed further.
Figure 5: The majority of secondary drift remains airborne. Data are for Medium spray quality from a pull-type sprayer with 60 cm boom height and 13 km/h travel speed
It happens quickly. Just 5 m downwind of the spray swath, the cloud is already 4 m tall. At 100 m downwind, we’ve measured its height to be 30 m.
The proportion of the spray that remains airborne depends on the spray quality and the nature of the atmosphere. If it’s windy and sunny, or if the spray is finer, turbulence sends more into the air. If it’s cloudy and the wind is low, we have little atmospheric mixing. As a result, a smaller proportion will remain airborne and more will sediment, and overall, we may actually have more potential to damage downwind areas.
When we graph spray drift deposit data from a windy day, the deposit amount decreases exponentially with downwind distance. Usually, drift damage follows the same pattern. The larger droplets that contain the majority of the dose deposit first. The smaller droplets go further and are more likely to mix in the atmosphere and rise with thermals.
Figure 6: Deposited drift decreases logarithmically with distance. Top, linear axes. Bottom, log axes.
Under temperature inversion conditions that are common on calm summer evenings, overnight, and early mornings, the damage from the drift cloud does not decrease the same way. The cloud containing the buoyant mist lingers over a large area. Without atmospheric mixing and its resulting dilution with time and distance, large areas can be damaged.
The Effect of Turbulence on Deposition
We’ve established that the more atmospheric mixing we have, the less spray will deposit on the ground, at least in the short term. How does this affect our thinking on the role of wind?
When we evaluated drift data from a number of trials, we always saw more initial drift with higher wind speeds, as expected. However, the downwind deposit did not usually increase significantly. We attributed this observation to turbulence generated by wind which lifted more of the initial drift higher into the atmosphere. To be clear, deposited drift did not go down with higher wind. It just didn’t rise as fast as initial drift.
Figure 7: The effect of wind speed on airborne drift (top line) vs deposited drift (bottom line) from a high clearance sprayer travelling 23 km/h and emitting a Very Coarse spray.
The effect of turbulence can be viewed as a good thing because it protects downwind objects. Rapid dilution reduces immediate drift damage. We can use turbulence to protect objects on the ground. It’s certainly better than the alternative, emitting sprays when the atmosphere can’t dilute them, such as in an inversion. In that case, downwind areas remain at risk for a long distance, and for a long time.
But we have to also consider what happens to airborne spray droplets. Some pesticides degrade in sunlight and stop being a problem. But others are more stable and may persist in the atmosphere for days or longer. During that time, they may move significant distances, ultimately returning to the earth’s surface in precipitation or in dust. Even though the atmosphere has diluted them, these deposits are measurable, and will show up in environmental monitoring of air, soil, and water. We may not be able to find out where they originate, but the public knows who to blame. Agriculture.
Vapour Drift
Vapour drift is another issue altogether. It occurs hours and days after application, as long as the volatile product remains on a surface and conditions that allow formation of vapours persist. Vapour pressure is related to surface temperature, and losses increase with warmer surfaces. Some products enter the vapour phase when in contact with water, and release vapour after a rainfall.
In situations where vapour is released for several days after application, it becomes impossible to control its subsequent movement. For droplet drift, if we know the wind direction at the time of spraying, we know where the impact is likely to be. But vapour movement depends on conditions that may occur between now and three days from now, and these could include high temperatures, various wind directions, and even inversions in which vapours accumulate. Ultimately, the best way to avoid off-target vapour movement is to avoid using volatile products.
The Public Good
Spray drift is one of agriculture’s most important stewardship challenges, and our industry needs to continue to improve its track record. Sprayers have a difficult task of converting a relatively small volume of liquid into a spray that offers good target coverage yet doesn’t move off the treated area. Favourable weather combined with droplet size management are at the heart of making this system work, but there isn’t a lot of wiggle room. Once again, an emphasis on sprayer productivity is one of the most fruitful areas to invest in, as this makes the best of the sometimes rare conditions in which spraying conditions are optimal.
May 19, 2021