Category: Featured Article

Articles that are featured on the homepage

  • The Carvalho Boom and the Stages of Quadcopter Flight

    The Carvalho Boom and the Stages of Quadcopter Flight

    The Hypothesis

    The results of a recent herbicide deposition study performed with the DJI T100 led us to observe that after ~13 m/s, swath width and drift were no longer directly related to travel speed; They appeared unaffected. The result was completely unexpected as it was counter to several years of prior study with smaller drones. This led to a hypothesis that the aerodynamics of this new generation of quadcopters might be similar to that of a helicopter, and it was impacting spray deposition in a similar fashion.

    Let’s use the stages of quadcopter flight to set up the premise.

    1. Hover

    When a drone hovers, each rotor draws air from above and accelerates it downward in a high-velocity blast. The cumulative effect is a vertical component referred to as the “downwash” and the turbulent splash of air that hits the ground and spreads laterally is the “outwash”.

    The initial strength of the downwash depends on the degree of “disc loading” which is the weight of the drone divided by the rotor area. The intensity of the downwash wanes with distance from the rotor, spreading out in three dimensions until it impacts the ground and becomes the outwash.

    During hover, the drone recycles some of its downwash. This turbulence affects the stability of the drone, requiring a great deal of power to stay aloft, especially when it’s full.

    2. Low-speed flight

    A helicopter achieves forward thrust by changing the pitch of its rotor blades. Most drones have fixed-pitch rotors, so the entire drone must tilt forward to enter low-speed flight. This causes the column of downwash to tilt backward.

    While the downwash is created by lift, “wake turbulence” is created at the tips of the rotors as high-pressure air beneath the rotor wraps around to the low-pressure area above. As the drone flies at low speed (~<3 m/s) the wake is visualized by a pair of counter-rotating, cylindrical vortices that trail behind. Some journal articles suggest the downwash for medium-sized drones (e.g. < 50 L capacity) detach from the ground at speeds as low as 3 m/s.

    3. Effective Translational Lift (EFT)

    As the drone accelerates it continues to angle forward, likely not exceeding 30°. At some point (~15 m/s?), we suggest it enters a state of “effective translational lift”, becoming more stable and therefore more energy efficient. This speed is notably slower than is commonly reported for a helicopter.

    During the transition, the drone behaves more like a wing as it essentially outruns its downwash, moving undisturbed air over the rotors. This horizontal air provides some lift, making flight more energy efficient, at least until drag begins to pull on the drone.

    The Possible Effect of Flight Stage on Spray Behaviour

    Droplets released beneath a drone at hover are completely entrained by the downwash. The majority get driven to the ground and then laterally along the outwash, while some small portion (likely smaller droplets) recirculate back up through the rotors.

    At low-speed flight, the downwash begins to tip backwards and the downwash trails behind and at some point detaches from the ground. Spray released beneath the drone is still entrained and will trail on a downward and rearward vector in that downwash. However, a portion will get caught in the wake. We can sometimes see this spray separation occur when lighting conditions are just right.

    As speed continues to increase, much of the spray would still be entrained in the downwash, but a greater portion would get caught in the wake, appearing as spray curling at the extremes of the swath. At some point, perhaps if and when the drone enters EFT, the the downwash might be less chaotic and behave more like laminar air. In which case some spray would still curl in the wake, but much of it would fall in a more stable sheet. Further increases in speed would not affect spray behaviour appreciably.

    Taking Advantage of ETL

    If this is the case, it is conceivable that rotary atomizers positioned under the front rotors could fling some droplets beyond the leading edge of the downwash. What if instead, it were a horizontal boom positioned out in front of the rotors, transecting the chord line?

    As the drone tipped forward during high-speed flight, so too would the boom, bringing it closer to the ground and releasing droplets ahead of, and below, the leading edge of the downwash. This should produce a more uniform swath, perhaps subsequently pushed down as the drone passed over.

    It’s an interesting idea that is only made possible when drones are capable of high-speed flight.

    Reception

    In January 2026 I presented this concept during a lecture at the 4th annual Drone End-User meeting in Kansas City. The response was polite, but skeptical. I then shopped the idea around the trade show floor where drone manufacturers suggested a front-mounted boom would interfere with obstacle avoidance sensors, or shift the centre of gravity, making the drone difficult to fly and to land. And what about the impact of wind speed and direction? All good points. Then, Nino Carvalho introduced himself.

    The Carvalho Boom

    Nino Carvalho and his son, Emilio, own and operate NC Ag Spraying in the Central Valley of California, USA. Emilio was inspired to modify his drone after discussing matters with his mentors; one who owns and operates a fixed wing aerial business, and another that pilots a Huey helicopter. In late 2025, they designed and built a horizontal boom which I’ve dubbed “The Carvalho Boom”.

    Their first attempt was with a DJI T50, but the boom mount interfered with the stacked rotors, and the atomizer cables were difficult to extend. The XAG P150 had fewer cables and only top-mounted rotors, so it was a better fit. After experimenting with various materials (PVC was too flimsy, steel too heavy) they mounted a length of ½ inch metal conduit directly under the drone.

    In California, aircraft booms must be limited to 90% of the rotor width (because of rotor tip vortices). The greatest span of the rotors was 312 cm (122.8 in), so they made the boom 275 cm (~9 ft) long. They spaced the rotary atomizers evenly along the boom every 69 cm (~ 2 ft 3 in), extended the original 30.5 cm (12 in) nozzle cables to 305 cm (10 ft) to reach their respective electronic speed controllers, and plumbed them using 1.25 cm (0.5 in) diameter tubing.

    They flew this first prototype over water sensitive papers. Dropping from a 3 m (10 ft) altitude to 2 m (6.6 ft) improved coverage uniformity and resulted in a 10.3 m (34 ft) effective swath width. They could see the downwash was interfering with deposition, and while increasing to a larger droplet size helped, it didn’t help enough. Then they made some design changes, extending the boom 30.5 cm (12 in) beyond the rotors, and they saw they had something. They reached out to Agri-Spray Consulting (Nebraska) and arranged to run a series of Operation S.A.F.E. fly-ins.

    There were more than 25 flights that day, so we’ll focus on three specific load-outs. The critical parameters are listed in the following table in the order that they flew them. The first load-out (N7696-01) was deemed the best, and was the only one with the boom extended out front, beyond the rotor tips. This information is italicized. The other two are included here for interest. N7696-03 attempted to shift the boom back under the drone for cosmetic reasons, but also for ease of transportation. N7696-04 was the same configuration as the last, but with coarser droplets in an attempt to battle the downwash. The first fly-in report (N7696-01) is shown below, but all three reports can be downloaded by clicking the links above.

    Load-OutBoom PositionVolume Speed Droplet Size (µm)Altitude Wind VelocityEffective Swath WidthC.V. (Race Track / Back & Forth)
    N7696-01Beyond Rotors50 L/ha
    (5 gpa)    		16 m/s
    (36 mph)    		2302.75 m
    (9 ft)    		10.7 kmh
    (6.7 mph)    		10 m
    (33 ft)    		10%/10%
    N7696-03Beneath Rotors50 L/ha
    (5 gpa)    		16.5 m/s
    (37 mph)    		2302.75 m
    (9 ft)    		12.5 kmh (7.7 mph)7.6 m
    (25 ft)    		9%/11%
    N7696-04Beneath Rotors50 L/ha
    (5 gpa)    		14.3 m/s
    (32 mph)    		4002.75 m
    (9 ft)    		8.5 kmh
    (5.3 mph)    		8.5 m
    (28 ft)    		18%/11%

    Observers said it looked like the swath was rolled with a paintbrush and that there were no observable vortices – just a sheet of spray. The following videos show some of the passes from that day. Actually, you can see vortices, but only in the passes where the boom is positioned beneath the rotors and not when it’s extended out front.

    A 10% CV is spectacular, and the profile of each pass (even before averaging) was far flatter than any drone deposition I’ve seen previously. This design has not yet been used for custom application because there are still questions about how flight speed and pump flow will affect performance. But, the Carvalhos are already discussing the next design, constructed with carbon fibre tubes.

    Impacts and Musings

    Perhaps our description of how the air is moving over the drone is correct, or perhaps it isn’t quite right. Dr. Fernando Kassis Carvalho (no relation to Nino and Emilio) (AgroEfetiva, Sao Paulo, Brazil) recently shared that he also observed swath width no longer changed at speeds exceeding 13 or 14 m/s (personal communication). So, whatever the aerodynamic cause, the result seems clear.

    Does this mean we’ll see a new generation of quadcopters with front mounted booms? It’s certainly possible, and kind of poetic as some early drone designs featured a centrally-mounted boom that extended beyond the rotor tips. Emilio wondered aloud about possible wear on the front motors, and likely there will be other issues as they experiment, but it’s early days and they’re enthusiastic about pursuing the design.

    Nozzle Design

    Should we also consider a return to hydraulic nozzles? The rotary atomizers on a drone currently leave a lot to be desired. Dr. Ulisses Antuniassi (Prof., Sao Paulo State University) studied the spray quality produced by rotary atomizers. He ran atomizers from a DJI T40 and from a XAG P60 in a wind tunnel spraying WG and SL formulations with either MSO or NIS adjuvants and found no logical trends in VMD, relative span or DV 0.1

    Further, work by Dr. Steven Fredericks (Land O’Lakes) showed that the rotary atomizer from a DJI T40 created droplets roughly one ASABE category smaller than the software indicated. Conversely, common knowledge is that the XAG P100 version produces a coarser spray quality than anticipated, and slow motion video produced by Mark Ledebuhr (Application Insight LLC) and Dr. Michael Reinke (Michigan State University) clearly showed the flooding issue reported by Dr. Andrew Hewitt (University of Queensland), where excessive flow to the disc interferes with its ability produce a uniform droplet size.

    I photographed no less than nine different rotary atomizer designs while at the End-User meeting. So, perhaps we should embrace a standardized design, or perhaps hydraulic nozzles should make a comeback. If the later, it would be a great opportunity to include PWM to increase their flow range.

    Acceleration and Flight Pattern

    And what of kinematics? A drone’s “acceleration time” is calculated by dividing the change in velocity by the acceleration rate. We’ve seen that a DJI T100 must travel up to 100 m before it reaches target velocity. Admittedly, it was full and attempting to fly at high speed. Kevin Falk (Corteva Agriscience) noted a 25 m acceleration distance and a 15 m deceleration distance for a T50 flying mostly-full at 6 m/s. That’s a not-insignificant distance to achieve target flight speed.

    What happens to the spray from a quadcopter drone with a front mounted boom as it transitions through the stages of flight? We don’t know for sure, but we can infer an inconsistent swath. Perhaps the prolonged acceleration time is sufficient reason for drones to start flying racetrack flight patterns like planes and helicopters, where they reach sufficient speed before passing over and spraying the target area. Current software does not allow that practice.

    All this to say that as drone design continues to evolve, we must continue to challenge and test assumptions surrounding best practices. It has been fascinating to see how spray drones are finding their place in Western crop protection systems.

    Acknowledgements

    Thanks to Mark Ledebuhr (Application Insight LLC), Dr. Michael Reinke (Michigan State University), Kevin Falk (Corteva Agriscience), Dr. Tom Wolf (Application Research & Training), Adrian Rivard (Drone Spray Canada), and Adam Pfeffer (Bayer Crop Science) for insightful discussions.

    Special thanks to Nino and Emilio Carvalho (NC Ag Spraying) for sharing their experience and practical approach to improving drone spray deposition.

    Additional Resource

    In early February, 2026, I gave a short interview with RealAgriculture. We discussed the state of spray application by drone in Canada as well as some of the possible impacts of higher speeds.

  • Wanted: A New Technology for Assessing Spray Coverage – The Spray Doctor

    Wanted: A New Technology for Assessing Spray Coverage – The Spray Doctor

    “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it”. While the source is nebulous (Peter Drucker, Lord Kelvin, or Antoine-Augustin Cournot), the sentiment is clear.

    The status quo

    In the world of crop protection, considerable resources are expended to distribute a pesticide over a target. And yet, sprayer operational settings and spray coverage are rarely assessed. As a result, too much time elapses between the application and observing the biological results to evaluate and correct equipment performance. The damage (be it waste or an inconsistent and sub-lethal dose) is done. All sprayer operators know this to be true, so why do precious few perform these assessments?

    Perhaps, dear reader, you have personal experience assessing coverage and already know the answer. Perhaps you’ve performed the iterative dance that is placing, spraying, retrieving, assessing and re-placing water sensitive paper (WSP). Perhaps you’ve sprayed fluorescent tracers and hunted for faint glows at twilight using UV lights. Perhaps you’ve looked for residue from diatomaceous earth or fungicides. Or, perhaps, you’ve trusted in the falsely-comforting “shoulder check” and assumed dripping must mean you’ve hit the target.

    Existing methods are complicated, subjective, messy and time-consuming. We need an alternative.

    The alternative

    Consider a permanent, solar-powered sensor that supplies real-time spray coverage data to your smartphone via a cellular connection. The output could be visualised in a simple and intuitive way, and immediately available to both sprayer operators and farm managers. If the sensor was relatively inexpensive, sufficiently hardy, and easy to deploy, its utility would only be limited by your imagination:

    • Stakeholders could confirm the correct functioning of their equipment before committing to the application. Decisions could be made to change operational settings, repair equipment, or delay until conditions improved.
    • The sensors would provide coverage data specific to their location and orientation. Units could be installed in difficult-to-spray regions such as treetops, or canopy-centres, or fruiting zones. Sensors could be placed where pest/disease pressure has been historically high, or where wind is a known issue.
    • Large operations could install them in a test-row, where sprayer operators would perform a gauntlet-style calibration run prior to a day of spraying.
    • Spray records could inform compliance audits, supplement insurance or CanadaGAP traceability requirements, or be used in agronomic assessments.

    In 2025 I was approached by an Australian developer who claimed he had a device that did all of this. And, if that weren’t enough, it could also monitor certain meteorological factors such as pre-spray moisture levels and temperature and report post-spray evaporation rates. I could barely contain my excitement. A prototype was in my hands a few weeks later.

    Prototype, 8-sided sensor located in a blueberry bush.
    Solar panel powering three, 8-sided prototype sensors spanning 10 meters of highbush blueberry.

    Benchmarking the sensor

    The Spray Doctor (working name for the prototype) started its life as a leaf wetness sensor, evolving into a spray coverage sensor piloted in 2023/24 in Australian and New Zealand grape production. The history of earlier iterations and company schisms is convoluted, and fortunately immaterial to our purposes. All I needed to know was that we weren’t starting from scratch. Several of the questions regarding how accurately the surface could detect spray deposition were already addressed by independent research.

    The sensing surface is impregnated with an array of capacitive wetness sensors. The sensor responds to the surface area covered and not deposit density. Researchers reported a reliable response range between ~10% and 50% surface coverage. Given the arguable “ideal” coverage standard of 10-15% surface area, this includes the range of interest for most sprays.

    Benchmarking against WSP was part of the foundational assessment. A droplet of water deposited on WSP produces a high angle of contact and very little spread, while the same droplet deposited on plant tissue tends to produce a lower angle of contact and more spread. This means the stain produced on WSP is smaller than would be produced on plant tissue, depending on how smooth, vertical or waxy the tissue surface was.

    It was therefore surprising that WSP were found to report a higher degree of spray coverage during water-only sprays than the sensor. It seemed droplets more easily coalesced and ran off the sensor surface. This was ultimately interpreted as an advantage, because the sensor would better emulate how a leaf surface would respond to the influence of surfactants and spray quality.

    Adding a surfactant to a spray solution improves droplet adherence, and/or reduces surface tension, improving the degree of contact on plant surfaces. Likewise, it was found that surfactants increased the degree of coverage reported by the sensor, and when actual chemistry was sprayed (e.g. sulphur powder or copper sulfate) there was an effect on the degree of coverage reported. This is unlike WSP, where adjuvants and chemistry do little to increase the spread.

    And so, like every method for assessing spray coverage, the sensor has limitations and caveats. If you have some doubt as to the sensor’s accuracy, do not get distracted by the fine detail. Remember, most operators currently have no feedback whatsoever; even a binary response (e.g. hit or miss) would be welcome. The sensor is sufficiently sensitive and consistent to resolve coverage in a range relevant to most sprays, and therefore worth field testing.

    The experiment

    My role in this story was to work with a grower to evaluate the sensor’s ability to report coverage information in a clear and actionable way. There were three questions:

    • Does data from the sensor influence a sprayer operator’s behaviour?
    • Does that change in behaviour lead to improved spray coverage (implying more efficient and effective crop protection).
    • Could we “dial in” the hardware and the interface based on the grower’s feedback?

    In part two, we share our experience installing and using the Spray Doctor, as well as supply answers to these questions. Stay tuned.

    Thanks to Brandon Falcon (Falcon Blueberries) for volunteering his time and farm for this evaluation, and the developer for the in kind donation of the prototype Spray Doctor.

  • Evaluating the return on investment of optical sprayers for horticulture

    Evaluating the return on investment of optical sprayers for horticulture

    Investing in an optical sprayer for horticulture is not a straightforward financial decision. Compared with a conventional boom sprayer, the upfront capital cost is substantially higher, often by an order of magnitude, and most commercial systems require an annual software or service subscription to operate. Despite these barriers, adoption is accelerating, and many growers who have made the investment report very positive outcomes.

    To help clarify when and where this technology makes financial sense, I developed a calculator to estimate the return on investment (ROI) of optical sprayers under a range of production scenarios. The goal of this tool is not to promote the technology, but to provide growers and advisors with a structured way to evaluate whether it fits their specific operation.

    Note: This calculator was designed for onion and carrot production in Ontario, Canada. Model parameters can easily be adjusted reflect other production systems. However, if you need assistance making these changes you can contact me by email.

    New versions may be uploaded as the calculator evolves through experience and based on user feedback, so check back. You can download Version 1.1 (April, 2026), HERE.

    How to use the calculator

    At first glance, the calculator may appear overwhelming because it requires a fair amount of information to be entered. This is the minimum data required to reflect real-world conditions while avoiding an oversimplification that could lead to misleading conclusions. Cells shaded in yellow are meant for user input. All other values are calculated automatically based on those inputs.

    For convenience, the calculator is pre-filled with generic values derived from grower discussions and informal benchmarks. These default numbers are meant only as placeholders and to provide general reference. They are not sufficiently accurate on their own to support financial decisions.

    Users should replace all default values with operation-specific data whenever possible. As with any economic model, the quality of the output depends entirely on the quality of the inputs.

    The calculator is organized into three spreadsheets (see tabs at bottom).

    1. Introduction

    This tab provides general instructions and contact information. No data entry is required.

    2. Sections Explained

    This is a reference tab that explains each section of the calculator in detail. It is intended to help users understand how different inputs affect the results and the intention of each section (small table) withing the sheet. No values should be entered here.

    3. Calculation Sheet

    This is the main working tab. All data entry occurs here. To prevent accidental changes that could break formulas, the sheet is protected. For most input fields, a brief explanation is provided immediately to the right of the cell. In the results section, short interpretations are often included, such as: “Decrease of 36% ($101,250/year) in hand-weeding cost with optical sprayer.” Within this tab, scenario tables are also provided. These tables are designed to illustrate how different acreages of the two crops analyzed affect each of the calculated financial indicators.

    Insights from scenario testing

    Even using rough approximations, several consistent patterns emerge from adjusting the calculator inputs:

    Herbicide savings alone rarely justify the investment

    In high-value horticultural crops, herbicide costs are often a relatively small portion of total production costs compared with labor, equipment, and the overall value of the crop. In many cases, any reduction in herbicide expenditure is largely offset by increased tractor hours resulting from slower operating speeds and narrower effective spray widths typical of optical sprayers.

    Labor savings can be decisive

    When the technology results in meaningful reductions in hand-weeding, the financial impact can be substantial. This is especially true in crops such as onions, where hand-weeding is both costly and difficult to source reliably. In these situations, labour savings alone can drive a favorable ROI.

    Yield protection may outweigh cost savings

    Several growers report stand losses and weakening associated with herbicide phytotoxicity as a major production risk. By limiting spray exposure to crop plants, optical sprayers can significantly reduce or even eliminate this issue. In high-value systems, relatively small yield gains resulting from improved crop safety can translate into revenue increases large enough to justify the technology, even if other savings are modest.

    Scale matters

    When evaluating advanced sprayer technologies, scale becomes a decisive factor. The high capital investment and ongoing service fees may be difficult to justify for small, and in some cases, even medium-sized operations.

    What about herbicide resistance?

    The long-term implications of optical sprayers for herbicide resistance management are still uncertain. Recent research from the University of Arkansas has raised concerns in field crop systems, suggesting that poorly optimized optical spraying can result in short term gains, but these can be outweighed over time by higher weed escape rates compared with broadcast applications. If these escapes are allowed to grow and set seed, rapid seedbank replenishment and accelerated resistance development may occur.

    This highlights an important limitation of short-term ROI calculations. A single-year economic benefit may look attractive, but if the system allows even a small number of weeds to consistently escape and reproduce, the long-term consequences can be severe.

    On the other hand, optical sprayers may eventually enable new resistance-management strategies. It is possible that new active ingredients, higher labelled rates, or novel use patterns could be registered specifically for targeted spraying in horticultural crops that would not be feasible with broadcast applications. Such developments could significantly improve resistance management tools. As always, it is essential to remember that the label is the law: only registered products and rates may be used, regardless of perceived crop safety.

    ROI implications beyond herbicide spraying

    Optical sprayers can deliver value beyond herbicide applications, even though weed control is their primary use. These additional uses may improve overall ROI. However, because their economic impact is still difficult to quantify, they have not been included in the calculator.

    Depending on the model, additional value-generating capabilities can include:

    • Creation of weed maps: Some systems can generate weed maps automatically while spraying, at no additional operational cost. These maps can support future management decisions.
    • Application of fertilizers and other pesticides: Although optimized for herbicides, optical sprayers may also be used to apply other inputs, such as fertilizers or non-herbicide pesticides.
    • Crop thinning: Certain manufacturers have developed algorithms for automated crop thinning, particularly in crops like lettuce.

    Conclusion

    Even using approximate inputs, it is clear why optical sprayer adoption is expanding rapidly in Canada.

    • For medium to large-scale operations, the ROI can be highly attractive, and the range of potential benefits continues to grow.
    • As the technology matures, more equipment options are emerging to serve a wider diversity of crops and farm sizes.
    • Manufacturers are introducing wider and more flexible platforms, and Ontario-based companies are actively developing alternative machines and service-based business models that may better suit smaller operations.

    It is difficult to argue that optical spraying is a passing trend. While it’s not a universal solution and must be implemented carefully, the technology is clearly here to stay. It will reshape weed management and production economics over the long term.

  • The Micothon M2 – The Benefit of Air-assist Spraying in a Vegetable Greenhouse

    The Micothon M2 – The Benefit of Air-assist Spraying in a Vegetable Greenhouse

    I’ve experienced a few spectacular failures trying to build niche sprayers. Until now, I haven’t had a reason to write much about them. But I decided the contrast, and confession, would be a fun way to set the scene for a discussion about an excellent niche sprayer.

    Failed Attempts

    First, the ill-fated “Hops Sprayer”. We used an adjustable ladder to position 20 feet of arborist guns between hop rows. The nozzles could be raised and engaged to match the growing crop canopy. While it left decent coverage on the adaxial surfaces, we quickly realized it needed air-assist to get under the leaves and battle high winds at the top of the trellis. It’s since been cannibalized for parts, and the rusted remains haunt me whenever I drive by the outdoor storage area at our ag research station.

    The Hops Sprayer. A 3 point hitch, vertical boom that could adapt to match canopy height.

    Later, encouraged by a minor success ducting a backpack mist blower with PVC and Coroplast, I tried building an air-assisted spray cart for a floriculture operation. It featured commercial, high-volume radial fans paired with hollow cone nozzles positioned in front of the air outlets. With respect to GreenTech and Croplands Equipment in Australia, I tried to build a bargain-basement SARDI-style head.

    When it wasn’t threatening to tip over, it managed decent coverage over almost 2 meters. Almost.

    As it turns out there’s a very good reason engineers use computational fluid dynamics to design air-assisted sprayers. We were ultimately beaten by an uneven greenhouse floor crowded with obstacles, a stiff canopy of geraniums, and the inverse square law, which states: “The farther away an object is from an effect, the less change can be observed in the object”. This rig now has a new life circulating hot air in a boiler room.

    And I once built an air-assisted, tow-behind sprayer to spray troughs of tabletop, hoop house strawberries. That unit laid down an excellent, uniform spray on all foliar surfaces, but it was frustrating to use. There was almost no clearance in the hoop house, which changed height with the topography, and the alternator couldn’t keep the battery sufficiently charged to run the pump and fans. I felt we could overcome these small difficulties, but sadly the operator ended this experiment halfway through the season. I can only assume the sprayer is now an interesting piece of lawn sculpture.

    This sprayer had potential, but limited resources prevented it from getting beyond the beta stage.

    The Micothon M2

    Despite my inability to build a decent air-assisted sprayer, I have always maintained that air-assist is the secret sauce for efficient, uniform spray coverage. Lucky for me, Great Lakes Greenhouses (GLG) agreed. No stranger to innovation, the company recently purchased a first generation, air-assisted Micothon M2 greenhouse sprayer and invited me to come see it. This was a proper sprayer designed by engineers, and not a delusional plant physiologist, so I was excited to assess and calibrate it. This article will describe what we learned and perhaps in some small way, validate my failed attempts.

    A quick walk around before we got to spraying.

    The M2 features a vertical boom design supported by a portable tender unit, but that’s where the similarities to a classic “tree” sprayer end. Rather than riding on the hot water pipes, or tipping onto two wheels like a hand cart, this version rides on self-leveling wheels. It is drive-assisted but still has to be guided by an operator, like a self-propelled walk-behind lawn mower.

    Drive-assist, self-levelling wheels.

    The mast features 18, three-position nozzle turrets (nine to a side). GLG requested a bespoke spring-loaded break-away section at the top of the boom. This allowed the top nozzles to “duck” under an annoying section of greenhouse infrastructure that would have otherwise prevented it from being positioned between the rows.

    A spring-loaded, break-away boom section (with guard) to prevent impact damage.
    The break-away section in action.

    The air is generated by a centrifugal fan powered by a Honda motor. The air travels up the ducted mast to a manifold of narrow air outlets. When the sprayer is moving, the air outlets precede the nozzles, which initially seemed wrong as the spray would be released outside the air stream. But, upon closer inspection, we saw that the air outlets are not only angled up by 45 degrees but are also angled back so the air can transect the spray.

    Air outlets and nozzles – front view.
    Air outlets and nozzles – side view.

    It was suggested that the blade of air acts like an airfoil, creating an area of low pressure and sucking small droplets into the airstream. This is Bernoulli’s principle and it describes how wings create lift. Personally, I think it behaved more like a Venturi. I’m open to debate since, as evidenced by my attempts at building a sprayer, I’m no engineer. What matters is that we didn’t see any droplets hanging in the air as the sprayer passed. It works.

    Calibration and Optimization

    We followed the same greenhouse sprayer optimization protocol I’ve outlined in this article. Go give it a quick read and come back so I won’t have to reiterate why we took the steps we did.

    Travel speed and air settings

    The sprayer was set to speed “3” of a possible “5”, as recommended by Micothon. Travel speed dictates dwell time, which is the duration the air is focused on the target. Observers stood in the drive alley and in the two adjacent alleys to see how the air moved leaves. The upward angle of the outlets combined with the volume produced by the centrifugal fan wafted and twisted leaves on their petioles. This created sufficient movement throughout the canopy, but not so much that it caused the canopy to louver shut. It was a Goldilocks situation so there was no need to alter anything.

    Preparing to guide the Micothon M2 through the cucumbers under red LED lights. This image gives perspective of canopy height, density and the sprayer clearance.

    Pressure and nozzles

    The tender system regulator was set to 41.5 bar (600 psi) and that pressure dropped to 5.5 bar (80 psi) according to the gauge on the sprayer. While we didn’t test it, I’m certain the pressure at the furthest (aka highest) nozzle would have been closer to 5 bar (~70 psi). With observers in place, we started spraying water using the Albuz 025 (lilac) hollow cone tips.

    We saw the highest nozzle positions were spraying over the canopies and did not need to be on. We also saw drip points form at the tips of the leaves and the bottom of the cucumbers. There was evidence of yellowed (possibly damaged) tissue at the leaf tips, suggesting they were often sprayed to drip. This is wasteful and tends to redistribute deposits in undesirable ways. While it’s hard to avoid on the waxy, vertical cucumbers, it can be prevented on the leaves.

    Note the drip point formed at the bottom of the fruit. This is hard to avoid, but can at least be minimized.

    We turned off the top nozzles, swapped to Albuz 02 (yellow) hollow cones, moved to an unsprayed canopy and tried again. Effectively this was a 20% cut in water and product, but there were no more drips on leaves and less evidence of coalescing deposits. The cucumbers still had drip points, but without an adjuvant that was the best we could do. That’s assuming there would be value in spraying the fruit in the first place – these sprays were targeting the foliage.

    Coverage

    With the subjective part of the assessment complete, it was time to quantify spray coverage. Water sensitive papers were oriented co-planar with the leaves and essentially parallel to the ground. We clipped them 2-3 cm below the leaves by affixing them to the petioles. This way they would move with the leaf and represent a very challenging target (reminiscent of a sucking insect on the abaxial leaf surface).

    This is a difficult target to hit. The spray must get up between the leaf and upper side of the water sensitive paper, which is not in line-of-sight of the nozzle.

    We divided the canopy into quarters, placing one target in each section. This spanned the height of the canopy, but we also positioned them along the canopy depth: One on each of the four plants in the row. This left us with a diagonal cross-section. Read it again – you’ll get it.

    Then we sprayed the row from one side and inspected the results. We saw excellent coverage on the abaxial surfaces of the two plants closest to the sprayer. We expected that. But we were pleasantly surprised to see the spray got in under the umbrella-like leaves and deposited on the adaxial surfaces. This was not line-of-sight for the nozzles, and there wasn’t much room between the paper and the underside of the leaves, so this was clearly the result of air-assisted droplets.

    There was also respectable coverage on the two plants on the far side of the row. These targets were greatly improved once we travelled down that alley and saw the cumulative coverage. This is why you should (almost) never perform alternate row spraying.

    Abaxial side of the water sensitive papers. From left to right, papers ascended from the lower quarter of the nearest plant to the upper quarter of the farthest plant in the row.
    Adaxial side of the water sensitive papers. From left to right, papers ascended from the lower quarter of the nearest plant to the upper quarter of the farthest plant in the row.

    Compared to a tree

    Since I was in the neighbourhood, we decided to see what a conventional, hydraulic tree could do by way of comparison. Frankly, there was none.

    A typical greenhouse tree. Note the 1/4 turn drain near the pressure gauge, the lack of check valves, and the uneven distribution of the nozzle positions (i.e. more at the top) likely intended to direct more flow higher in the canopy.

    The tree was nozzled with Albuz 04 (red) hollow cones angled upwards. There were only a few check valves, so it leaked when it was turned off and had to be drained at the end of each row using a quarter turn valve. Coverage was generally excessive (i.e. coalesced droplets and lots of run-off) and non-uniform (we randomly missed both adaxial and abaxial surfaces).

    Run-off was so pronounced that it washed the dye off the water sensitive papers.

    We re-nozzled to my favourite load out: TeeJet TwinJet fans alternating back and forth by 45 degrees from centre. Using 03’s (blue), we observed improved uniformity, but still saw misses and suspected we were still using too much water. When leaves are drenched they get heavy, causing them to hang lower and obscure the other parts of the plant. This is the contradiction that limits a strictly hydraulic system: Pressure motivates droplet movement, so you need slightly larger drops and more volume. However, too much water causes run-off and weighs leaves down, obscuring the rest of the canopy. Catch 22.

    I proposed getting a set of 02 (yellow) tips in the hopes there would still be enough spray for better uniformity. I hope they tried it.

    A few beefs about the M2

    There’s always room for improvement. Before you think I’m selling these sprayers, here are a few observations from the owners and from what we saw that day. No deal breakers, just some nice-to-haves:

    • The diesel exhaust from both the sprayer and the tender cart is not ideal. Applicators wear respirators, and the greenhouse fans tend to dilute the exhaust, but a battery system (perhaps like a drone) would be preferable to power the drive electrically.
    • There was a latency with the self-leveling wheels and with air build-up in the tower portion of the sprayer. You simply need to be patient before you start down a row.
    • The tower section gets hot to the touch, likely because of the position of the exhaust pipe.
    • The alternator on board recharges the battery, but if you let it sit the battery is depleted (sounds like the same trouble I had with my sprayer, which is somehow gratifying).

    I’m sure you’re asking “How much?”

    Well, at the time of writing, it was almost $70,000.00 CDN, but don’t judge it too harshly! Bear in mind that our assessment saw a reduction of 20% water and crop protection product that would otherwise have ended up on the greenhouse floor. Not only is that a big savings in water and inputs, but it’s fewer refills and it produced far better spray coverage that a hydraulic system. While improved coverage is not always linked to improved efficacy, they certainly go hand in hand. And when we’re considering “softer”, biorational greenhouse chemistries, improved coverage is the best bet we have for pest control.

    All in all, this was an excellent sprayer that I hope is the first of many to grace Ontario’s greenhouses.

    Thanks to Great Lakes Greenhouses for the invitation, and thanks to all the other grower cooperators (names withheld to protect the innocent) that took a risk on building budget, niche sprayers with me. Sometimes, you just have to throw money at it.

  • Comparing Fluorescent Dyes for Spray Coverage Evaluation

    Comparing Fluorescent Dyes for Spray Coverage Evaluation

    I work in agricultural extension and I’m always on the lookout for new methods to help me achieve my goals. A big part of my job is to research and teach efficient, effective and safe crop protection practices, so it follows that I have to be able to evaluate the quality of a spray application. Fundamentally, there are two ways to do it:

    1. Wait to see if the pesticide did its job and protected the crop from weeds / bugs / disease.
    2. Don’t wait. Confirm your spray is depositing where you want it before committing to the application.

    Three guesses which approach I advocate. So, how do you check spray coverage in a way that’s quick, cheap, easy and informative? Again, there are choices, but rather than simply list them I’ll add a little insight in the form of pros and cons.

    MethodProsCons
    Water sensitive paperRelatively cheap, available, clean, easy, repeatable, supports a photographic record, simple to analyze.Does not accurately reflect coverage on plant surface, slow to place and retrieve, can be spoiled by dew, humidity and physical contact.
    Inspecting for residue / wetnessCheap and fast.Not proactive, too subjective, not repeatable, pesticide many not leave visible residue, requires re-entry soon after spraying.
    Inspecting spray pattern (e.g. shoulder check)Cheap and fast.Not proactive, not indicative of coverage, not repeatable.
    Watching for run-offJust don’t.Just don’t.
    Fluorescent dyesReflects actual, whole-canopy coverage and off-target coverage at same time.Expensive, hard to find, messy, time-consuming, hard to photograph, not repeatable, leaves unwanted residues (or can’t be used on edibles), may have to take place at night, may fade quickly… or is any of this actually true?

    I’ve never been a proponent of spraying dyes because of the reasons I listed in the table. If I already have difficulty convincing a grower to leave the sprayer or tractor cab to place and retrieve water sensitive papers, what are the odds of them mixing a messy and expensive tank of dye and waiting until twilight to see the results?

    On the other hand, dyes are compelling. Particularly if we change the perspective a little. What if we consider the use of dyes, not as a tool for a grower, but as a tool for agricultural extension or consultation (really, anyone that wants to research or teach the safe and effective use of crop inputs)? Several of the cons are minimized or even eliminated. Additionally, this new lens reveals several uses for dyes beyond spray coverage. This is not an exhaustive list:

    • Off-target (primarily drift) evaluation
    • Dermal exposure / PPE evaluation
    • Rinsate / sprayer cleanout evaluation
    • Sprayer loading / point source contamination evaluation

    I decided to compare a few of these dyes. I enlisted the help of a local blueberry operation. Being October, all the berries have been picked so we could spray the bushes without any risk to the fruit. Plus the sprayer was clean and the growers were curious to evaluate their spray coverage.

    Blueberry in Ontario in October.

    Having secured a location, spray equipment, and operator, I needed dyes and some criteria for choosing them. First and foremost, I chose fluorescent dyes that glowed under UV (aka black lights). My thinking was that they would be more interesting in demos, and given that we might be spraying horticultural operations, I didn’t want obvious and persistent stains on the produce. At least not something easily seen in daylight before it broke down and/or was washed away.

    My UV dye candidates had to be:

    • Moderately inexpensive.
    • Non-toxic (i.e. had an SDS that clearly permitted human exposure, were environmentally friendly and could be sprayed on edible crops).
    • Readily available in Ontario (e.g. quickly and cheaply shipped from within Canada or perhaps the US).
    • Available in formats that facilitated small volume batches (anywhere from 50 mL squirt bottles for indoor demos, up to 50 L volumes for field demos).
    • Clearly visible on plant tissue.

    I found five likely prospects for the study. I won’t list prices, but none of them were over $100.00 CAD. Number 3 was a free sample and number 5 was gifted to me by a colleague more than 15 years ago. I looked up the SDS for that last one and was surprised that it was relatively inert. So, I used it.

    Dye numberName of dyeCommercial sizeManufacturerLocation
    1IFWB-C81PT1 pintRisk ReactorCalifornia, USA
    2UVTRACER-G1PT1 pintRisk Reactor
    California, USA
    3Eco Pigment Blaze Orange SPL15JXSample size – 100 gramsDayGloCleveland, Ohio, USA
    4Fluorescent Yellow Tempura Paint1 literTri-Art ManufacturingKingston, Ontario, CA
    5Phosphor Powder (Zinc Orthosilicate: Manganese CAS#11-47-2)1 kgGlobal Tungsten and Powders Corp.Pennsylvania, USA

    I also purchased UV lights. When I was bequeathed the phosphor powder it came with heavy, ancient, black lights. They made an unsettling humming noise and required a power source, making them unwieldly for field work. I opted to try three battery powered versions instead. Again, I won’t list prices, but they weren’t unreasonable.

    UV flashlight numberName of lightManufacturerWavelength / wattageBatteries
    1Super TacRisk Reactor395 NM / 850 µW/cm2 at 5 inchesRechargeable battery provided
    2Mini ZoomRisk Reactor395 NM / 1 watt1 AAA
    3V3 UV Flashlight with 68 LEDsAmazon.ca395 NM / 10 watts3 AA

    Regarding the recipes, one of my criteria was that the dyes could be mixed in relatively small batches. I chose 50 L as the high end because the airblast sprayer we were using (Turbo-Mist 30P) could still prime when only 50 L was added to the tank. This allowed us to mix as small a batch as possible, while still having enough to spray a row of berries from both sides. We left three rows between treatments to serve as buffers.

    Turbo-Mist Model 30P before the dye-job.

    I also had to consider the nature of the dyes. The Eco Pigment (Dye 3) is a hydrophobic powder and two colleagues warned me that it was notorious for plugging filters. So, it had to be mixed with a non-ionic surfactant (NIS) to help “wet” the powder prior to adding it to the tank. In fact, NIS seemed like a good idea for all my dye candidates, so I included Activate Plus (Sollio Agriculture, Winfield Solutions) in each recipe.

    The candidates.

    I added the dye, NIS, and a small amount of water to a Pyrex measuring cup on a digital scale, then rinsed the cup into a final volume of 50 L while filling the tank. I didn’t always follow the advice I received, so I’ll show you the ratios I was told and (right or wrong) what I ultimately did.

    Dye numberManufacturer- or colleague-suggested ratio Amount of dyeAmount of NISAmount of water
    11 part dye : 10,000 parts water125 mL65 mL310 mL
    21 part dye : 10,000 parts water125 mL65 mL310 mL
    31 gram dye : 1 mL NIS : 200 L water65 grams65 mL425 mL
    41 part paint : 100 parts water500 mL65 mL0 mL
    51 gram dye : 1.25 L water65 grams65 mL425 mL

    It took roughly 15 minutes to fill, prime, spray, and rinse out each dye. We started at 5:00 p.m., were done at 6:15, and then waited for sunset at 7:30.

    50 L tank mixes going through circulation and paddle agitation.
    Draining the remains and rinsing the tank. It looks terrible, but these dyes are intended for environmental projects like tracing water courses.

    We used a smartphone (Google Pixel 9a – 48 megapixel camera) to photograph each combination of dye and flashlight. It was tricky to find an angle where the black light illuminated the residue, but didn’t wash out the photo. In those cases where the dye was evident, it was always far more vibrant in person than through the lens of a camera. As for the results?

    Lets start with the lights. We found that the high wattage of Light 3 showed dye more easily. This also happened to be the cheapest light, which was a pleasant surprise.

    Dye 1 and 2 were disappointing. We couldn’t see anything on the plants. This dye is intended for monitoring plumbing and water courses, and the manufacturer states that the colour will disappear if the solution is mixed with chlorine. Perhaps mixing it with city water caused it to fade, but that’s likely to happen, so these dyes failed.

    Dye 1 – Light 1, 2 and 3. A sad, single drop showed up for Light 3.
    Dye 2 – Light 1, 2 and 3. Again, a solitary deposit illuminated under Light 3.

    Dye 3 was spectacular. Not only was it evident with every light source (including day light to some extent), but we were able to find it several rows downwind, on the sprayer nozzles, all over the tires and on the floor of the cab (which surprised the operator). I may have mixed this one too strong; It seemed to clump on the leaves, but perhaps that’s because they were exceptionally waxy.

    Dye 3 – Light 1, 2 and 3.
    Dye 3 showed up everywhere… whether we wanted it there or not.
    A nice close up of Dye 3 on a leaf.
    A close up of Dye 3 on the boom.

    Dye 4 came in second place. It wasn’t amazing, but it was visible. This is children’s tempera paint, used in daycares for finger painting and at universities for raves. I’ve used it in the past with mixed results, not only to spray canopies, but in classroom demos on cabbage leaves and as a surrogate tracer to hunt down where pesticide hides in sprayer plumbing. It’s OK in a pinch if you mix it at least 2x more concentrated than I did here.

    Dye 4 – Light 1, 2 and 3.
    A nice close up of Dye 4 on a leaf.

    Dye 5, like dyes 1 and 2, was a disappointment. I’ve seen it used in powder-form to demonstrate how dermal exposure can spread as you touch clothing, doorknobs, your face, and places where the occasional adjustment is required. But in a liquid solution, it wasn’t any good at all.

    Dye 5 – Light 1, 2 and 3

    Persistence

    We followed up after the application to see if the dyes would persist. Twenty four hours after application, Dye 4 (our runner-up) was gone. This was no surprise given it was a water soluble paint and wasn’t terribly showy to begin with. However, Dye 3 (our winner) was still clearly in evidence. This is a hydrophobic, micro ground powder (~0.1 micron). That’s one reason it had to be mixed with a non-ionic surfactant. The following photos shows little or no change after 24 hours and a respectable dew:

    Dye 3 after 24 hours.

    Three days after application (DAA), we had a rain event. Four DAA this (blurry, sorry) image was taken:

    Dye 3 after 96 hours and a heavy rain.

    We see that the deposits did redistribute to drip points and the overall coverage was reduced, but it was still holding on. This means it likely shouldn’t be used on any horticultural crop that isn’t going to be washed. Or at least used long before any fruit, leafy green or vegetable contacted by the powder will be harvested. Not because it is unsafe (see safety data sheet) but because of the optics to buyers.

    Conclusion

    And so, I hope you have been inspired by this process. I’ve learned that the use of dyes for education and research is potentially powerful, relatively cheap, and more accessible than I originally thought. Certainly the growers were impressed by what they could suddenly see and it’s led them to reassess some of their practices. Just bear in mind the possible persistence, and remember to wear gloves when mixing.

    Wear gloves. Trust me.

    Thanks to Mark Ledebuhr, Helmut Spieser, David Manktelow, and Ben Werling for the helpful advice. Thanks to Brandon and Jordan Falcon for use of their spray equipment and their blueberry operation.