Category: Boom Sprayers

Main category for sprayers with horizontal booms

  • Biobeds for Pesticide Waste Disposal

    Biobeds for Pesticide Waste Disposal

    One of the most challenging aspects of a spray operation is the disposal of leftovers or rinsate containing pesticides. Let’s be honest, too much of it is drained onto the ground in a corner of the yard or the field. Nobody’s happy about that, nobody’s proud of it, but what are the alternatives?

    Waste disposal is a skeleton in the closet of the pesticide industry. One of the problems is the time-consuming nature of sprayer cleaning, and the lack of clear guidelines on product labels that pass the buck.  Too often, the applicator is asked to “act in accordance with provincial or state guidelines”, which is essentially a dead end.

    Figure 1: Sprayer fill station

    At Sprayers101.com, we’ve tried to tackle the problem by finding ways to generate less waste (Express End Caps, Accu-Volume), by disposing of the rinsate by spraying it out, or by installing an efficient continuous rinsing system. We’d now like to talk about another component, biobeds.

    What is a biobed?

    Simply put, a biobed is a place where it’s safe and acceptable to dump dilute pesticide waste. First implemented in Sweden about 20 years ago, a biobed typically consists of a 1-m deep pit measuring about 3 m x 6 m or so. The pit is filled with a biomix, a mixture of cereal straw, compost or peat, and soil. The biomix, when properly prepared, acts to absorb a large amount of moisture, adsorb the pesticide molecules, and provide an environment in which microbes break down the residues.

    Figure 2: Canada’s first commercial biobed installation at Indian Head, SK, 2009 (Source: Murray Belyk, Bayer CropScience (retired)).

    The effluent from a properly constructed biobed system contains 90 to 99% less pesticide than what was introduced, depending on the pesticide.

    Biobeds have been extensively studied and are now found throughout Europe and many parts of Central and South America. Canada currently has 6 research biobed sites in the West, and a further 17 in Quebec. The systems have been researched by Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) in recent years, with promising results.

    Figure 3: European biobed installations, 2016 (Source: Jens Husby, Biobeds.org).

    Figure 4: Global biobed installations, 2016 (Source: Jens Husby, Biobeds.org).

    Constructing a biobed

    There are many possible variations of biobeds, some relatively simple and others engineered to address certain specific needs. A great deal of creativity can be used to customize a biobed for any operation.

    A simple biobed

    The following is a variation of the simplest biobeds, and these are the types first tested by AAFC in Saskatoon and Indian Head, Saskatchewan about 10 years ago. This design is based on the biobeds established in Sweden and the UK, and is a good way to learn about the system.

    Note that this biobed has an impermeable liner, so it’s a closed system. Excess water that leaches to the bottom must be removed and cycled back to the top of the biobed.

    • Create the biomix by blending two parts, by volume, chopped cereal straw or wood chips (not cedar), one part mature plant-sourced compost or peat and one part relatively coarse-textured soil (for optimal drainage). Add water as necessary as if making compost. Allow to sit for four to six weeks.

    Figure 5: Biomix preparation.

    • During this waiting time, the biomix will warm and form a white-mold complex. This is the microbial basis for its ability to break down pesticide residues. White mold will be visible on the cellulose portions of the biomix.

    Figure 6: white mold (Source: AAFC).

    • Identify a well-drained site easily accessible by spray equipment. Avoid low spots as water management becomes problematic.

    Figure 7: Site selection and/or biobed covering are essential to avoid waterlogging (Source: Murray Belyk, Bayer CropScience (retired)).

    • Dig a pit sized to suit your requirements. As a rule of thumb, 1 m3 can process about 1000 L of liquid in a season. Rainfall is included in this amount.

    Figure 8: A nice looking pit.

    • Line the pit with a geomembrane liner. 40 mil is plenty thick; any thicker and it gets hard to handle. Include a raised berm at the edge.

    Figure 9: Liner creates a closed system that will require a way to remove leached water.

    • Install weeping tile at bottom of pit, and extend it to ground level. This will be useful to determine water status and remove water if necessary.

    Figure 10: Weeping tile to collect excess water.

    • Cover weeping tile with pea gravel and a silt trap. This serves to make leached water freely available for removal.

    Figure 11: Pea gravel over weeping tile.

    • Fill pit with biomix, anticipating significant settling. Top up as necessary over next few weeks. Use extra biomix to create a slope away from berm.

    Figure 12: Filled biobed.

    • Establish a bromegrass cover by transplanting or sodding. This is an important way to remove excess water via evapotranspiration.

    Figure 13: Early sod growth on biobed at Indian Head, SK.

    • Introduce pesticide waste to biobed, managing moisture content to avoid waterlogging.

    Figure 14:  Pesticide waste entering biobed via drip irrigation.

    Introduction of pesticide waste to the biobed

    Moving pesticide waste from the sprayer to the biobed should be easy and trouble free. A simple pad built beside biobeds, either sealed with concrete or asphalt, or with a hardy geomembrane liner, works well. The sprayer is cleaned on this pad and rinsate flows into a drain. A sump pump lifts the rinsate to a storage tank from which it is introduced via gravity or pumped drip irrigation.

    Figure 15: Biobed system in Simpson, SK. Rinsate from sprayer is collected in a sump, which is pumped to the black storage tank in background. Rinsate is introduced into biobed (blue tub) as needed (Brian Caldwell in foreground, left, Larry Braul, right).

    When not in use, the sump drains freely to dispose of rain water.

    Others choose to pump or dump rinsate directly into a holding tank, from where it can be pumped onto the biobed.

    Figure 16: Holding tank at biobed in Outlook, SK.

    Some European systems include driving supports on the biobed so the sprayer can be parked directly over top.

    Figure 17: Steel beams can allow (light) sprayer access (Source: Eskil Nilsson via Biobeds.org).

    A two-stage biobed

    The same basic building principles apply as in the original simple biobed. However, instead of reintroducing the effluent to the top of the biomix as it collects on the bottom, it is instead pumped onto a second biobed. This biobed then degrades any remaining product. This system is more efficient at degrading persistent products, and allows for better water management.

    Figure 18: Two-stage biobed system at Outlook, SK.

    The principle has proven effective, helping degrade more difficult pesticides to acceptable levels.

    Above-ground biobeds

    One of the problems with below-ground biobeds in wet climates is the difficulty managing water. Above-ground biobeds can address this issue by eliminating the possibility of surface runoff being added to the biomix. Adding a rain cover would also be easier and more effective.

    Above-ground biobeds can be edged with plywood, or placed entirely into plastic tanks whose tops have been removed.

    Figure 19: Above ground biobed installation with plastic tub.

    One potential problem with above-ground biobeds is the later spring warming of this installation compared to below-ground types. Cold temperature reduces the effectiveness of biobeds due to the reliance on microbial activity. Heat tape has been tested by AAFC and shown to be very effective at warming the biomix and stimulating initial microbial activity. Passive solar systems have also been studied but are more difficult to install.

    Figure 20: Heat tape (Source: AAFC).

    Figure 21: Passive solar biomix heating system.

    Phytobac and Biofilters

    European designs have utilized plastic containers to form of various designs, including the commercial “Phytobac” systems from France and developed with the support of Bayer CropScience.

    Sequential biofilters have also been implemented. The leachate simply migrates through the biomix into the next container below. Eventually, adjacent biofilters containing plants act to remove the moisture.

    Figure 22: Phytobac installation, cross-section.

    Figure 23: Biofilter installation in Belgium (Source: Inge Mestdagh via Biobeds.org).

    Biomix longevity

    Swedish and UK research has suggested that biobeds require minimal maintenance aside from water management in closed systems. Biomix will settle over time and may need to be topped up. After five to eight years of use, it has been recommended to remove biomix and distribute it over a field with a manure spreader.

    Canadian research results

    Extensive analysis of pesticide degradation in five biobeds across Western Canada was conducted as part of a three-year study led by AAFC. Between eight and 51 products were analyzed per site, including herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides. Their results showed that single biobeds could remove about 90% of the introduced pesticide, and two in sequence usually removed more than 98%.

    Pesticides that tended not to degrade rapidly were removed to a greater degree in the second biobed.

    In the AAFC studies, three herbicides were more difficult to remove in the tested biobeds: clopyralid (e.g., Lontrel, Stinger), bentazon (Basagran, Storm) and imazethapyr (Pursuit, Arsenal). For these three, roughly 60% was removed in a two-biobed system.

    Concentrated pesticides should not be introduced to a biobed as this will kill the microbial populations.

    Some fungicides were shown to depress microbial populations but only temporarily. Microbial breakdown still occurred.

    Biobed manual

    AAFC has authored a comprehensive manual on biobed operation and installation based on research experience in Canada and elsewhere. It will be available here in late June 2018.

    The future of biobeds

    Research into biobeds remains active around the world. Different substrates for the biomix are being studied to suit local availabilities. Various systems, ranging from simple to highly engineered are being studied. Degradation effectiveness for various influents remains a topic of significant interest. Producer adoption and implementation are being reported.

    Thanks to funded research projects, biobeds are up and working at Canadian institutional sites such as government research centres, and there are opportunities for county and municipal government sites. For biobeds to be a viable option on North American farms, their design needs to remain simple and their integration into established practices needs to be seamless. Producer experience and feedback are essential

    Learn more

    Valuable information on biobeds can be obtained from these two websites:

    Voluntary Initiative (UK industry)

    Biobeds.org (International research)

    Note: Brian Caldwell and I first learned about biobeds from Eskil Nilsson (website) during a visit to Sweden in 2001, and obtained support for initial studies in Saskatoon and Indian Head from the Pest Management Centre as well as Bayer CropScience. Brian took a lead in our creative and technical efforts over many years. Dean Ngombe, under the co-supervision of Diane Knight at the U of S and myself, produced the first M.Sc. thesis, and with significant input from Allan Cessna, the first scientific publications in Canada on biobeds. Thanks for Larry Braul and many collaborators for leading the most recent AAFC study and generously sharing resources, and Erl Svendsen, Bruce Gossen, and Claudia Sheedy for editorial input.

  • Plot Sprayer Calibration Worksheet

    Plot Sprayer Calibration Worksheet

    Need a worksheet for calibrating a plot sprayer? Well, we just so happen to have one here:

    Plot Sprayer Calibration (May 15, 2018)

  • Spraying in Dusty Conditions

    Spraying in Dusty Conditions

    Dusty conditions are common in spraying, and in dry springs they are often associated with a further challenge, drought-stressed plants. There is no magic cure for these problems, but here are a few guidelines:

    1. Most products are not strongly affected by dust. But two important products are very dust-sensitive, glyphosate and Reglone. The active ingredients in both products are very “charged”, therefore they bind readily and strongly to soil particles, which includes not only dust on plant surfaces, but also suspended soil in spray water that gives the “turbid” appearance.

    2. Dust can be viewed as similar to hard water cations, as a game of relative concentration. We try to get the herbicide concentration to be higher, essentially over-powering the antagonist. For glyphosate, two approaches are common: (a) reduce water volume; (b) increase herbicide rate. Reduced volume is tricky if the glyphosate spray contains a tank mix partner such as a Group 6, 14, or 15 to combat resistance. Those products require more water. For Reglone, low water is a bad idea for the same reason.

    3. Some specialists recommend the use of higher water volumes to reduce the effects of dust. Although spray volumes are usually too low to actually wash dust off surfaces, the higher water volumes permit the use of larger droplets which may have better absorption characteristics in the presence of dust.

    4. Another remedy is to increase the application rate in the spray swath where dust is most severe, usually behind the wheel tracks. Slightly larger nozzles in those regions are widely used by sprayer operators.

    5. Even when dust is not a problem, roadside field edges may contain dust from traffic. Higher rates may be justified on the outside rounds for that reason.

    6. A report in No-Till Farmer makes the following useful statements:  “Greenhouse research conducted by researchers at North Dakota State University in 2006 found that control of nightshade species with glyphosate was reduced when dust was deposited on the leaf surfaces before, or within 15 minutes after, glyphosate application. If the dust was deposited later than 15 minutes after application, phytotoxicity was not reduced.  Dust generated from silty clay soil tended to reduce glyphosate phytotoxicity more than dust generated from loamy sand soil.”

    7. Several additional management opportunities exist for dusty conditions. Slowing down tends to reduce turbulence and dust generation. Although front-mounted booms apply the spray before the dust is generated, it will deposit before the spray is dry, limiting the benefit, as indicated by the NDSU study.

    8. Don’t mistake aerodynamic turbulence for dust. Weed control may be lower behind the tractor unit or near the wheels because the spray is displaced by air currents. The use of water-sensitive paper can help identify if this is part of the problem.

    One of the better references on dust and wheel tracks was produced by the GRDC in Australia, and can be found here.

  • “Bee” Responsible with Pesticide Sprays

    “Bee” Responsible with Pesticide Sprays

    Horticultural crops cannot be produced commercially without the use of pesticides to manage the impacts of insects and pathogens. Growers recognize the importance of pollinators and in some cases, rely on bees for pollination. Growers are practicing due-diligence to try to minimize the effects of necessary pest management activities on bees. There’s a fine balance between managing pests effectively and economically and minimizing the effects of pesticides on pollinators. Impact on pollinators is a major consideration for the registration of pesticides.

    Not all pesticides are toxic to honeybees.

    Not a honeybee, but a great photo of a pollinator on a spray boom near some nozzles. Too good not to use.

    Growers use IPM practices which means that they are spraying only when necessary (monitoring for pest levels) rather than following a calendar-based program. Because each droplet of spray that does not land on the target (the crop) is wasted money, growers are more conscious of drift and are using technology to reduce off-target drift.

    The Ontario Bees Act states “No person shall spray or dust fruit trees during the period within which the trees are in bloom with a mixture containing any poisonous substance injurious to bees unless almost all the blossoms have fallen from the trees.” While some crops, like grapes and peaches, do not rely on insects for pollination, bees may still visit their flowers and they are still present in vineyards and orchards before and after bloom, foraging for nectar and pollen on flowering plants in row middles and surrounding vegetation areas. We have been promoting row middle management with flowering plants to encourage the presence of beneficial insects. Honey bees are also attracted to these plants. For this reason, it’s important to recognize that sprays applied to manage pests may have adverse effects on honey bees as well.

    One of the most important things to do is to maintain communication between growers/custom operators and beekeepers. While it’s common sense to not allow insecticides to drift directly onto bee hives, bees will usually forage up to 3 km from a hive and when food sources are scarce, they are known to fly as far as 12 km (8 miles) (Download reference).

    BeeConnected is an app connecting registered beekeepers with registered farmers and spray contractors, enabling anonymous communication on the location of hives and crop protection product activities. The app is available free of charge through a web browser, the Apple App Store and Google Play.

    Here are a few others things you can do:

    Read the pesticide label:

    Carefully follow listed precautions with regard to bee safety. In some cases a product may not be used while bees are actively foraging.

    Product selection:

    Pesticides (insecticides and fungicides) are not all equally toxic to honey bees. It is also important to be familiar with the relative toxicity of pest control products to bees. In Publication 360, Fruit Crop Protection Guide, the relative honeybee toxicity is now listed in the fungicide and insecticide activity tables of each chapter. The impact of products that are moderately toxic to bees can be can be minimized if dosage, timing and method of application are correct. Highly toxic products may cause severe losses if used when bees are present at treatment time or within a few days thereafter.

    Choose the least hazardous insecticide formulation. Emulsifiable formulations normally have a shorter residual toxicity to bees than wettable powders and flowables which, in addition to having residual characteristics can be more easily picked up from the flowering plant while bees are gathering pollen.

    Spray timing:

    Whenever possible, apply products with toxicity to bees in late evening, night or early morning while bees are not foraging (generally between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.). Evening applications are less hazardous to bees than early morning applications. Warm days and nights can extend the foraging period; therefore applications may be necessary later in the evening or earlier in the morning under unusually warm conditions. Do not apply insecticides when cool temperatures are expected after treatment. Residues will remain toxic to bees for a much longer time under cool conditions. Do not apply insecticides that are toxic to bees on crops in bloom, including crops containing weeds or cover crops in bloom. Avoid treating during hot evenings if beehives are very close to the target field and honey bees are clustered on the outside of the hives.

    Remove alternate pollen sources:

    Where feasible, eliminate weeds or flowers in row middles by mowing at least 2 days before a pesticide with toxicity to bees is to be applied.

    Minimize off-target drift:

    Drift of spray applications can cause significant bee poisoning problems, particularly when drift reaches colonies or adjacent flowering weeds. In general, sprays should not be applied if wind speed exceeds 10 mph and favors drift towards colonies. Give careful attention to position of bee colonies relative to wind speed and direction. Ensure that there are no colonies directly in the orchard at the time of spray. Select drift-reducing spray nozzle technology, whenever possible. Since fine droplets tend to drift farther, apply spray at lower pressures or choose low-drift nozzles that reduce drift by producing a medium to coarse droplet size.

    Calibrate spray equipment often. Air-blast sprayers can produce finer droplets with greater drift potential. When using an air-blast sprayer, consider redirecting or turning off nozzles, or use technologies that reduce drift (for example, towers, multirow, tunnel and target-sensing sprayers). Shut off sprayer when making turns at field ends or gardens, near large puddles, ponds and other sources of water that may be used by pollinators and other wildlife.

    There is a precaution to nighttime spraying: you must be aware of inversions. When you spray during an inversion, the larger drops fall quickly (per normal), but smaller lighter droplets fall very slowly (a few centimetres per second). They do not disperse. Instead, they move with the air they were released into, evaporating very slowly, over great distances. These small particles, as well as vapours from volatilizing products, are capable of moving for kilometers and are therefore subject to drift.

    The only sure way to know if you are in an inversion is to take two air temperature readings: the first about 10 cm from the ground, and the second about three metres off the ground. If the surface air temperature is cooler, you are in an inversion. The magnitude of the difference indicates how strong the inversion is. Accurate measurements are difficult to manage with conventional thermometers (Although the new Spot-On Inversion Detector makes it possible). It is generally easier for sprayer operators to watch for the following cues:

    • Large temperature swings between daytime and the previous night.
    • Calm (e.g. less than 3 km/h wind) and clear conditions when the sun is low.
    • Intense high pressure systems (usually associated with clear skies) and low humidity where you intend to spray.
    • Dew or frost indicating cooler air near the ground (fog may be too late).
    • Smoke or dust hanging in the air or moving laterally.
    • Odours travelling large distances and seeming more intense.
    • Daytime cumulus clouds collapse toward the evening.
    • Overnight cloud cover is 25% or less.

    If you suspect a strong inversion, don’t spray. Postpone the application if possible.

    Reducing pesticide injury to honey bees requires communication and cooperation between beekeepers and growers and applicators. It is important that beekeepers understand cropping practices and pest management practices used by farmers in the vicinity of their apiaries. Likewise, pesticide applicators should be sensitive to locations of apiaries, obtain a basic understanding of honey bee behavior, and learn which materials and application practices are the most hazardous to bees.

    Furthermore a number of native pollinators such as bumblebees, leaf cutter bees, sweat bees and squash bees are also important pollinators in some crops and they too require consideration. While it is unlikely that all poisonings can be avoided, a balance must be struck between the effective use of insecticides, the preservation of pollinators and the rights of all — the beekeeper, farmer and applicator.

  • Smart Spraying Tips and Tricks

    Smart Spraying Tips and Tricks

    This 2018 article was written by Victoria Berry for the Ontario Grain Grower.

    In the era of social media and keyboard warriors, it’s easy to feel like someone is always watching and ready to force their opinion on the world. The “tweet first, think later” mentality often adds to misinformation, and worse, it can leave science as a bystander — especially when it comes to modern farming techniques.

    Farmers feed the world and they need to ensure they are growing high quality, high yielding crops. One of the most important elements of protecting high-quality crops is spraying. As farmers and custom applicators become more innovative and more knowledgeable about spraying techniques they have to strike a delicate balance, according to Jason Deveau, Application Technology Specialist with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).

    Deveau recently sat down for a Q&A session to discuss tips and tricks for smart spraying, understanding drift, and how important it is for farmers to share smart practices and be champions to others in the community.

    V.B.: WHAT ARE SOME OF THE KEY AREAS TO SPRAYING? WHAT ARE THE TOP MUST-DOS?
    J.D.: First and foremost, the laws of physics have never changed. We may present the facts in different ways to help people understand, or to make them more accessible, but when it comes to spray coverage and spay drift, there are three speaking points:

    1. We want farmers to use the largest droplet size they can without compromising coverage.
    2. We want the boom at the lowest practicable height to the field.
    3. We want farmers to adjust their spraying practices to match weather conditions, and know when spraying isn’t advisable.

    V.B.: OK. LET’S START FROM THE TOP. WHY AND HOW DO FARMERS CHOOSE THE LARGEST DROPLET SIZE?
    J.D.: Droplet size is an effective tool for combating physical drift. Larger droplets have more mass, which means they are more likely to fall rather than be carried away. But, for a given rate, the number of droplets a nozzle produces decreases as average droplet size increases. It’s the same amount of pie no matter how many slices.

    Fewer droplets might compromise spray coverage, particularly when targeting small weeds or when using a contact pesticide in a dense canopy. The answer is to use more volume to bring the droplet count back up, but that means more refills for the sprayer operator, which is time consuming. A good operator is always considering the balance between drift potential, coverage, and efficiency. Even with sophisticated technologies, these considerations always lead to nozzle choice.

    Traditionally, a grower would choose a nozzle based on the desired rate (e.g. gallons per minute) for a given pressure. As the sprayer changed speed, this would lead to over — or under — application. So, for convenience and consistency, most growers use rate controllers that monitor speed and auto-adjust the rate using pressure. But pressure also changes droplet size and spray pattern. Patterns can collapse at lower pressures (say <30 psi) and average droplet size decreases as pressures increase. You can see that droplet size wasn’t really on the radar. Pulse-width systems have changed this, but they are still few and far between.

    And even if a grower chooses a nozzle with a coarse spray quality, they may be surprised to learn it still produces some fine droplets, too. Look at a bell curve. That’s how a nozzle is rated for droplet size — a lot of average sizes in the middle, and then a few smaller or larger sizes. A coarse nozzle does not make you bullet proof; there will still be some drift. That is why we always observe weather and time-of-day restrictions and adhere to the buffer zones that appear on the pesticide label.

    V.B.: HOW DO LOW BOOMS IMPACT DRIFT AND WHY DO SOME FARMERS RESIST THIS ADVICE?
    J.D.: Imagine holding out your arm and dropping a feather. It will move a ways downwind before landing. Now climb a ladder and do the same thing — it goes considerably further. It’s exactly the same for water droplets. To add insult to injury, releasing spray from a higher point also prolongs evaporation, making it even smaller and exacerbating the problem. And if that weren’t enough incentive to lower booms, the high booms create inconsistent spray coverage, undermining the whole reason for spraying in the first place.

    The resistance to low booms comes from the desire to drive fast. North American booms sway and yaw, even with boom leveling systems. Higher speeds may get the job done faster, but it requires most farmers to raise the boom to prevent it hitting the ground. It may seem counter-intuitive, but there are several ways a farmer can slow down, drop the boom, and spray more acres in a day — it just requires them to look at their spray operation differently. A great deal of time is spent filling, idling, turning, and travelling between jobs. It’s been demonstrated that saving time on sprayer-related tasks has a big impact on efficiency — more than simply driving faster.

    V.B.: HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE WEATHER IS RIGHT FOR SPRAYING?
    J.D.: Everyone knows the obvious cues. If your hat blows off, it’s probably not the time to spray. But, we’re learning that calm conditions may contribute to chemical trespass even more than wind. There’s no hard and fast rule, but three kilometres an hour to 10 kilometres an hour winds are a good range.

    In calm weather, you may find yourself in a thermal inversion, which does not allow fine particles (or volatiles) to disperse and ground. Instead, they hang in a layer of undisturbed air, either moving downhill like water, or eventually moving in an unpredictable direction when the wind picks back up. It’s suspected that this phenomenon has played a significant role in the off target crop damage issues in the U.S. in 2016 and 2017.

    In a very telling demonstration, an Ontario agrichemical rep showed that the smoke from a smoke bomb (representing pesticide vapour) travelled 1.7 kilometres during an inversion. In another demo, he showed it moving back and forth across the same field for hours after the application. Learning how to recognize a strong inversion, and knowing when there is too much or too little wind will require a different way of thinking, but will greatly reduce the potential for chemical trespass.

    V.B.: WHAT OTHER PRACTICES SHOULD FARMERS BE AWARE OF TO COUNTER DRIFT?
    J.D.: There are a lot of other considerations, but let’s highlight two.

    First – Downwind neighbours (residential and agricultural) can take actions based on your spraying schedule. If there’s a possibility of chemical trespass, it’s a courtesy to let them know your plans, or at least make spray records available and be prepared to answer questions. Quite often explaining what’s happening prevents them getting misinformation elsewhere. It may sometimes be a nuisance, but educating others is part of maintaining the public trust. Ontario farmers are experienced and certified and, frankly, the industry needs them to help educate people on all the good work being done.

    Second – Night spraying. Please stop. Time is short and weather can force us to take opportunities where we find them, but calm, clear nights represent the highest potential for a strong thermal inversion. Knowing the weather conditions that affect product performance (for better or for worse), minding pollinator presence, knowing what’s downwind, and STILL following integrated pest management means there seem to be fewer hours left to spray. But, it’s really a matter of understanding which of those factors trumps the others in the decision to spray, or wait. It requires today’s farmer to play an active role when it comes to spraying.

    V.B.: YOU MENTIONED PUBLIC TRUST. HOW WILL SPRAYING AND PUBLIC TRUST IMPACT FARMERS’ BUSINESSES?
    J.D.: We talk about soil, stewardship, and environmental sustainability. But at the core of all those important considerations is the customer driving those agendas. We are getting close to the day (if we’re not there already) where the grocery store dictates farm practices.

    Many broad acre farms are still self-regulating to a large degree. They do their best to maintain high standards for safety, transparency, and record-keeping. But, as specialty crop and livestock operations already know, we are moving towards tracing the history of a farm product from the customer all the way back to the seed. Farmers should adopt best practices proactively, before they become mandatory.

    So, the level of attention on field crops is more acute than ever before. Many are not used to being under the public microscope. Customers are asking when, how, and what was it sprayed, and they want to know the weather and cleaning practices that were followed. We need to have those answers ready to show what we’ve always known — that farmers are self-aware, are stewards, and are responsible partners in public health and safety.

    So spray like everybody’s watching… because they are.