In this episode of Exploding Sprayer Myths we reduce a complicated best practice to black and white… literally. Watch as Jason and Tom get a creepy lesson in the do’s and do not’s of no-spray areas. Under the watchful eye of Dr. Jim Todd (OMAFRA Industrial Crops Specialist and Rod Serling cos-player), brace yourself as you enter The Buffer Zone.
Learn more about how vegetative filter strips mitigate runoff on this Health Canada webpage.
Thanks to the staff at the Simcoe Resource Station and to RealAgriculture for making this video possible.
And if you’re curious about the kitchen-appliance cameo, you’ll have refer back to earlier episodes.
Spray application by drone is here. It’s common practice in South East Asia, with a very significant proportion of ag areas now treated that way. Estimates from South Korea, for example, suggest about 30% of their ag area being sprayed by drone. It’s in the US, too. The Yamaha RMax and Fazer helicopters, which pioneered drone spraying in Japan dating back to the mid 1990s, have been approved for use in California since 2015. DJI, the world’s largest drone manufacturer, introduced their ag model, the Agras MG-1, to North America in 2016. Many other spray drones are available or in development.
As William Gibson, the author of Johnny Mnemonic, once said,
“The future’s here, it’s just not widely distributed yet.”
DJI Agras MG-1 spray drone (Source: DJI.com)
Proponents of drone spraying cite a drone’s ability to access areas where topography is a problem, such as steep slopes, where productivity of manual application is much lower, or low areas where soil moisture prevents ground vehicles. Operator exposure is reduced compared to handheld application.
Opponents talk about productivity and cost factors compared
to manned aerial application, spray drift, and rogue use.
Before drone spraying becomes commonplace, two important
things need to happen.
Federal laws need to be updated to accommodate the unique features of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), as they’re now called. Current laws make many assumptions unique to manned ships, and the process to correct that will require some patience. A thorough review for US laws, and their shortcomings, can be found here.
Federal pesticide labels need to permit the use of drones for application. As of August, 2021, Canadian labels have no such registered use.
There is no doubt that we need to prepare for a future that includes spraying by drones. Features such as topography adjustment for height consistency and autonomous swath control are already essentially standard, and the capabilities that improve control and safety will continue to develop.
And yet I’ve been nervous about the prospect of pesticide application with drones. My primary concern is around – you guessed it – spray drift. Because a drone payload is relatively small (about 5 to 25 L, depending on the model), application volumes will need to be low to have any sort of productivity. How low? For manned aircraft with a 200 to 600 gallon hopper, 2 to 4 US gpa (18 to 36 L/ha) are the lowest commonplace volumes. The lower volumes require a Medium spray quality (among the finer sprays in modern boom spray practice) to achieve the required coverage.
It’s a simple concept: the less water is used, the smaller the droplets need to be to provide the necessary droplet density on the target. Drift control with coarser sprays requires higher volumes, and true droplet-size-based low-drift spraying can’t really happen at volumes less then, say 5 to 7 US gpa.
At 2 to 4 US gpa, a drone would be able to do perhaps 1 acre per load. While OK for spot spraying, it represents a serious productivity constraint for anything larger. There will be a push toward lower volumes, perhaps 0.5 to 1 gpa (5 to 10 L/ha). The only way these will provide sufficient coverage is with finer sprays, ASABE Fine to Very Fine, with expected problematic effects on off-target movement and evaporation. These fine droplets are also more prone to the aerodynamic eccentricities of aircraft.
Vortices from the rotor can create unpredictable droplet movement (Source: kasetforward.com)
The current regulatory models for aerial drift assessment in North America, AgDISP and AgDRIFT, are not yet able to simulate drone application. But by entering finer sprays into these models for their conventional manned rotary wing aircraft, we can see that buffer zones will be higher. Much higher. And that outcome will give pause to regulators. Failure to control the movement of a spray is, and should be, a problem.
Estimated Buffer Zones (calculated by AgDISP) for a reference rotary wing spray aircraft, using three pesticide toxicologies and two spray qualities.
Furthermore, ultra-low volume (ULV) sprays can change the efficacy of some products, and these will require new performance studies. At this time, regulators are seeking information not just on spray drift, but on product efficacy, operator and bystander exposure, and crop residues.
Regulators are currently collecting spray drift and efficacy data from drones. Since the drones available in today’s market do not conform to a common design standard like fixed or rotary winged manned aircraft, each model may have its own characteristics and need its own study. Some will have rotary atomizers, others will use hollow cone hydraulic sprays. Some will have electrostatic charging, others may propose special adjuvants.
Once data are assessed, there will likely be restrictions in flight height, flight speed, wind speed, spray quality, water volume, perhaps air temperature and relative humidity (or Delta T). This is not new to spraying, as current labels already constrain use for both ground and aerial spray application, more so for aerial.
The obvious question is how these proper application practices can possibly be assured. Operators will need more than just regulatory approval to use a drone, they will require proper training, similar to what a commercial aerial applicator now receives prior to operating a business.
Recall that our aerial applicators are governed by national organizations, the NAAA in the US and the CAAA in Canada. These organizations are in regular contact with federal regulators to assure compliance. They also help fund research into application efficacy and safety. They organize conferences in the off-season and calibration clinics in the growing season. At these, flow rates are confirmed and deposited droplet size is measured. Spray pattern uniformity is assessed and corrected as necessary.
Should drone applications be exempt from these controls? I don’t think that would be wise. Are we ready to implement them? Absolutely not.
These requirements would change the drones’ economic model. And despite these precautions, a drone may still leave the control of a pilot due to unforeseen technical or human events.
In the US, Yamaha does not sell their drone helicopters. Instead, they deploy their own teams to make the applications. This way, they have assurance that only trained and experienced pilots use the technology.
As the industry gears up for the first registrations, we see drone service companies take a leading role in testing. Much is being learned via legal applications of liquid micronutrients, for example, or limited use of pesticides under approved research permits. And I’m pleased to see the recognition of drift management in these efforts through the use of low-drift nozzles. We are off to a promising start.
Requests for drone use are in progress at our regulatory agencies. The outcomes of their risk assessments will provide important initial guidance, and food for thought and discussion. In the meantime, the drone development continues at a rapid pace, with new features and greater capacity at each iteration.
Checking coverage on water-sensitive paper with some of the Grape Growers of Ontario members in 2012Press play to hear the audio version of this article.
When an extension specialist, equipment retailer or consultant is asked to calibrate an airblast sprayer, they would be well advised to calibrate the sprayer operator as well.
Consider this: you and the operator are each investing three hours (average) to optimize the sprayer for a specific set of circumstances: the crop dimensions, density, and the weather conditions at the time of calibration. Depending on the reason for the application, you may even account for the product(s) mode of action and the pest location. This means that once you leave, the circumstances will change and the benefits of your efforts will quickly diminish.
Calibrations, like milk, have an expiry date.
There are three possible outcomes from a single, stand-alone calibration:
The operator manages efficacious applications throughout the season because the variability in weather, crop and pest isn’t significant. This is generally not the case.
Not recognizing that sprayer settings need constant adjustments (or being unable to make the changes) the operator experiences only modest results and decides calibration isn’t worthwhile.
The operator experiences failures and lays the fault with you (as the last person the touch the sprayer) and/or the agrichemical rep that sold the chemical. Few sprayer operators blame timing or spray coverage.
Explaining how to place water-sensitive paper and ribbons in an apple tree
The solution lies in the proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” It is the sprayer calibrator’s responsibility to involve the sprayer operator and ensure they understand what is being done, why it is being done, and how to do it when you leave. Otherwise, expect to calibrate that sprayer again… soon.
Personally, I have had the most success educating and empowering sprayer operators to make their own seasonal adjustments based on a formulaic approach. Depending what you are trying to accomplish, you may not need all of the following steps, or you may perform some on your own and others as part of the education:
1) You could be working one-on-one, or you may be presenting to a large group. When it’s the latter, I like to arrive the day before to meet the host or owner of the sprayer(s). You can scope out the operation and triage the equipment so you know what parts you might need the next day. It also helps to see the space you will be working in.
2) Perform a pre-calibration inspection of the equipment with the sprayer operator. They know their equipment and can tell you about usage, history and maintenance. It also opens a dialogue between you and helps the operator to relax. Remember: from their perspective they may feel they are being judged and they will take criticisms and corrections personally. Do your best to reassure them that you are trying to make a good thing better – not to correct failings.
3) If you’re working at a large operation, educate the manager (decision maker) and the operators (drivers) at the same time. If you teach the manager, they might not effectively communicate the lessons to their operators. Likewise, if you teach the operators, they may not be able to convince the manager to let them spend money, or time, on making changes to the sprayer program. Get everyone on the same page, at the same time.
4) With the operator, perform a basic maintenance check. Specifically, confirm sprayer ground speed, evaluate pressure gauge accuracy and evaluate nozzles. Explain what you are doing, and ask the operator questions. This is where you learn about their attitude. Are they open-minded about changing how they do things? How has their efficacy been in the past? Will they spring for new parts? Do they need convincing that this process must be repeated regularly?
Demonstrating how deflectors aim air, and spray, into the target using some scrap wood.
5) With the sprayer in the crop, have the operator tie wind-indicator ribbons in the canopy (or better, use lengths pre-tied to springback clips). Explain what they are doing and why. Tell them these ribbons should be monitored, maintained and replaced season-long.
Here’s a tip: If you are working with a large audience, keeping them focused is critical. Growers will take the opportunity to catch up with each other while you are occupied with the sprayer. They are also inclined to wander away to answer cell phones. If they are not focused, you are on a service call and are not really educating. If you feel you are losing control, single out the ringleaders or wayward students and give them jobs, such as holding tools, or placing/removing water sensitive papers. When they have a responsibility, they pay closer attention.
A convenient, weather proof calibration kit for flagging tape, clips and water sensitive paper.
6) Discuss where water-sensitive papers should go, and how they should face. Give the operator a latex glove and after you write on the back of each card (position and trial number) have them clip them in place. Tell them how much they cost, where to buy them and the benefits of using them regularly.
7) Have the operator spray the target crop using their typical set-up (i.e. ground speed, pressure, rate, air settings, etc.) Have attendees and the operator watch the ribbons as the sprayer passes. Spray from one side with both booms on and then stop to discuss results. Then spray from the other side and explore the cumulative impact.
8) The operator will be very surprised to learn they have drenched or missed the papers. They may or may not be surprised to have seen the ribbons stood straight out (indicating too much air). If you like, you can even set up papers in the next alley (or alleys) to show how much spray blew through the target. When the papers are dry enough, collect them and store them somewhere safe for later comparison. They tend to blow away, so stick them to a whiteboard with two-sided tape, or clip them there with paperclips. Explain that they can (potentially) save a lot of money and lost fill-time by improving their efficiency. Get them on-board for the big change to come.
9) Optimize sprayer ground speed, air direction (i.e. deflectors) and air speed/volume (i.e. fan speed). Then re-nozzle the sprayer using brass disc and core tips to reduce output in areas that were drenched or increase output in areas of sparse coverage. Quite often, I turn off the lowest (and sometimes, highest) nozzle positions. A piece of water-sensitive paper at the top and bottom of the canopy will confirm the wisdom in this. Label a new set of papers and have the growers position them in the same locations. Spray again. This entire process should take about 1/2 an hour and is described in detail in the Airblast101 handbook.
Tying flagging tape in trees to indicate prevailing wind and to calibrate airblast air settings.
10) The goal is 85 medium droplets per square centimetre and 10-15% coverage on 80% of the target surfaces for most insecticides and fungicides. If there are still drenches or misses, or if you’ve gone too far in a few positions, correct them and try once more. This is iterative. Make sure the sprayer operator will not be spraying in particularly hot or windy conditions, or your calibration at the top of the target can be compromised. Once you are both satisfied, work out the new sprayer output per area (e.g. US gpa or L/ha). You will have to discuss whether the operator plans to concentrate the tank mix to maintain the labelled “per area” rate (not recommended by me) or will continue to mix the tank as always and simply drive further on it (recommended by me). The later is called “Crop-Adapted Spraying“. Don’t push because it’s their livelihood, and therefore their choice.
11) The final step relies on how well you’ve earned the sprayer operator’s trust throughout this process. Once you have an output and spray distribution that you are both happy with, the operator should invest in molded ceramic tips that emit similar rates to replace the brass disc-core. Then, they must be willing to repeat the process on any crops that are significantly different to ensure they have the right settings. Sometimes only modest changes are required between blocks. Perhaps they will dedicate certain sprayers to certain blocks to reduce the number of changes required. In either case, they will have to revisit these settings as the season progresses to compensate for denser and/or larger canopies.
A few examples
The following figures illustrate three airblast calibrations in Ontario apple orchards from spring 2014. Some required one attempt; others required a few trial settings before we achieved reasonable coverage. In all three cases, the sprayer operators reduced per-area rates, bought new nozzles and planned to buy water-sensitive paper. Further, they indicated they would continue to monitor ribbons (as long as they could be seen) and would review coverage after petal-fall.
Several nozzles shut off, spray re-distributed. Targets still drenched in two locations with a 24% savings in spray mix.Three successive re-calibrations were required. Output was reduced in the first trial, but poor coverage in position 3. Top nozzles turned off and spray re-distributed in trial 2, but a gust of wind reduced coverage at the top of the tree. Bottom nozzles turned off and spray redistributed to top nozzles for a 40% savings in spray mix.Output reduced in all nozzle positions and sprayer fan speed reduced. The high humidity greatly reduced droplet evaporation and increased the spread on the papers. In this case, it was decided not to reduce output any further to account for anticipated growth and the high humidity. There was a 27% savings in spray mix.
Conclusion
So, the next time you calibrate an airblast sprayer, be sure to teach the sprayer operator (and audience) what you are doing and why. Involve and engage them. Answer their questions. Encourage them to perform the same calibration for each significantly different block and make mid-season changes. With luck they will only call back to report success and savings, and not to condemn your efforts, or worse: to ask you to re-calibrate their sprayer!
It happened three times this spring. As is often the case, I was contacted by growers who wanted help with herbicide application. In most of these calls, the discussion revolves around the proper choice of nozzles for a specific task, perhaps some questions on spray pressure, water volume and travel speed.
But these three were different. Instead of being seasoned applicators, all three were new to the business. And more importantly, they had done their homework by looking at product labels before calling.
Labels give us important information on product rates, crop and weed staging, mixing order, sprayer cleaning, and personal and environmental protection. They’re very valuable there. But they also provide application information, and that’s where the problems begin.
Perseverance Required
I have to commend my three clients: they showed great tenacity by actually finding application information on a pesticide label in the first place. This document is so mired in legalese protectionist language at the front that it discourages all but the most persistent.
And often, the application information comes in several parts, interspersed among other information. Mixing instructions. A little later, application. Somewhere nearby, buffer zones. Another paragraph for cleaning. Rainfastness? Keep looking.
It forces the reader to skim through the document, hunting for relevant information.
But once my clients found application instructions, they obviously questioned if they should believe it, or else they wouldn’t have called. The application statements on many labels, simply put, are from long ago, and it’s obvious.
Consider the following two label excerpts, the first from a product initially registered in the mid 1980s and still available, the second from one registered about 30 years later:
1980s:
Application should be made using a minimum of 55-110 litres of water per hectare, at a pressure of 275 kPa, or 310 kPa if using check valves, and at a ground speed of 6-8 kph.
The use of 80° or 110° flat fan nozzles is recommended for optimum spray coverage.
Do not use flood jet nozzles, controlled droplet application equipment or Sprafoil® equipment.
Application of the spray at a 45° angle forward and higher water volumes will result in better spray coverage and penetration of the crop canopy.
Uniform, thorough coverage is important to obtain consistent weed control. Higher water volumes should be used under dense crop and weed canopies to ensure thorough coverage of the target weeds.
2010s:
Apply in a spray volume of 46.8 – 93.5 L/ha unless otherwise specified in tankmix partner section of this label – at 207-345 kPa (30-50 PSI) pressure to ensure proper weed coverage.
Flat fan nozzles of 80° or 110° are recommended for optimum coverage.
Do not use floodjet or controlled droplet application equipment or Sprafoil® equipment.
Nozzles may be oriented 45° forward to enhance crop penetration and to give better weed coverage.
Uniform, thorough coverage is important to obtain consistent weed control. Higher water volumes should be used under dense crop and weed canopies to ensure thorough coverage of the target weeds.
Thirty years apart, but remarkably similar.
Crop protection companies spend about 10 yrs. and $250 million to produce a new pesticide and register it for use. Having made this commitment, it would be most useful to see a small further investment to provide current application information that is relevant to applicators.
After all, these applicators purchase the active ingredient to provide a return on this multi-million dollar investment, to the tune of about 2 billion dollars per year in Canada alone. They deserve good application information.
Imagine this scene:
“Doctor, thank you for this new high tech pharmaceutical engineered to help me with my serious illness. How should I take it?”
“Not sure. Here, read this cough syrup label I found in my drawer. Should be pretty close.”
It’s clearly ridiculous
Let’s dissect these labels to see how they could be improved.
Flat fan nozzles of 80° or 110° are recommended for optimum coverage…
Our sample labels refer to what we assume are conventional flat fan nozzles. While popular in the 80s, these have all but disappeared from sprayers over the course of the past 20 years or so. We haven’t recommended them since then because they drift too much. They’ve been replaced by low-drift nozzles, either pre-orifice, or air-induction.
Nozzle fan angles are now generally 110 degrees or more, and frankly, the difference between 80 and 110 degrees is not that important. What’s important is proper overlap, achievable with a visual assessment followed by boom height and pressure adjustments. Unfortunately the label is silent on that.
Application should be made … at a pressure of 275 kPa, or 310 kPa if using check valves…
A nozzle’s recommended operating pressure depends on the specific nozzle model and on the spray quality (average droplet size) required. With literally many dozens of nozzles now available to each applicator, general pressure suggestions are likely to be wrong, and are more of a liability than a help. And they force label non-compliance when over-ruled by a nozzle manufacturer’s recommendations.
Speaking of spray quality, growers crave to know at what spray quality a product should be applied for best performance and lowest drift. Some labels refer to spray quality (e.g. “apply with a Coarse spray”), but this is with reference to spray drift and buffer zone distances, not efficacy, and that distinction is not made. Knowing the right quality for efficacy would help applicators choose the right nozzle and pressure to meet that criteria.
Higher pressures if using check valves? Nobody has brass screens with check valves anymore. Sprayers have had modern diaphragm check valves for a generation, and those don’t produce pressure losses.
And we all know that six to eight km/h is hardly a common speed these days.
Do not use floodjet or controlled droplet application equipment or Sprafoil® equipment
Sprafoil nozzles have not been produced in Canada for about 25 years, in fact their manufacturer is no longer in business. Controlled droplet atomizers, while becoming more popular again on aircraft, were last seen on ground sprayers in the 1980s. Even then, total installed numbers were probably in the single digits.
As for FloodJet nozzles, those went out of style for herbicides in the late 70s, and were replaced by the very successful TurboTeeJet nozzles shortly after.
Nozzles may be oriented 45° forward…
Nozzles are rarely tilted 45 degrees forward for herbicide application anymore. Maybe that’s because spray booms aren’t built that way today, or because modern booms on self-propelled sprayers are now about 30” (75 cm) above ground, and we travel at about 15 mph (22 km/h). So the forward tilting, though shown to be effective for grassy weeds at 5 mph (8 km/h) and 20” (50 cm) boom heights, as researched in the 1970s, isn’t relevant for herbicides with higher booms.
Uniform, thorough coverage is important to obtain consistent weed control.
Statements advocating for good coverage are nice, but they aren’t useful. Everybody knows we want good coverage. What applicators need to know is how they should measure coverage, and what good coverage actually is. Can we use water-sensitive paper? How much of the target should be covered? How many droplets should be in each square centimetre? How can we measure that in the field, right now? How does it depend on the crop canopy, on weed stage, and on spray quality? The more information an applicator gets, the higher the chance of success.
Apply in a spray volume of 46.8 – 93.5 L/ha…
The only statement that survives our little examination is about water volume. Water volume is important. But even there we have a problem. The volume is in L/ha. This is useful in some parts of Canada, but not in the west, where producers communicate primarily in US gallons per acre. And in the west, provincial guidelines have generated this odd hybrid of L/acre, which few people use for spray volume. But 46.8 to 93.5 L/ha? How is that level of precision justified? (I know that this is a conversion from 5 and 10 US gpa…so why not just say so?)
A Solution
The problem with having outdated or impractical information on labels is that it creates disrespect. Since labels are documents enforceable by federal law, applicators want to comply. At this time, they can’t, and probably shouldn’t, if they want to do the job right.
A vision for a good label should be one that respects the needs of the applicator. Such a label:
places the information that applicators need at the top;
is updated regularly to reflect modern practice and useful advice;
helps a new applicator work out how to apply the product with any equipment;
identifies a spray quality that offers good coverage and low drift;
makes reference to research that supports variations in the application guidelines;
is available electronically, readable on a mobile device, i.e., not pdf.
This label would protect the environment and bystanders, and would foster better pesticide performance.
This label is easy to generate.
This label would be read by applicators.
What’s it going to take?
Additional:
This article created a great deal of discussion. We decided that if we were going to point out issues with the current labelling system, we should also propose a way forward. Read about our Label Summary Sheet proposal.
Droplet size influences droplet behaviour. The following table lists the pros and cons to changing droplet size when overall spray volume (e.g. L/ha) remains constant.
Relative Spray Quality
Pros
Cons
Coarser Droplets
Lower drift potential because they resist deflection by wind and evaporation from heat and low humidity.
Lower droplet count may reduce coverage.
Greater mass means they move ballistically, propelled at higher speeds by pressure for greater distance.
May fall out of the spray before reaching the top or centre of the canopy.
Coarser droplets do not penetrate dense canopies as easily as finer droplets.
Redistribution due to bounce, shatter or run-off may either improve or compromise coverage.
Redistribution due to bounce, shatter or run-off may either improve or compromise coverage.
Finer Droplets
Higher droplet count may improve coverage (if they arrive at the target).
Higher drift potential from wind, and evaporation from heat and low humidity.
Finer droplets penetrate denser canopies better than coarser.
Finer droplets move unpredictably and require optimal air settings to direct them to the target. Sprayer design and air settings will determine if it is optimal for nearby or distant targets, but it is rarely if ever both.
Finer droplets move unpredictably and require optimal air settings to direct them to the target. Sprayer design and air settings will determine if it is optimal for nearby or distant targets, but it is rarely if ever both.
It is preferred to use nozzles that create coarser droplets at higher rates (to compensate for fewer droplets) in the higher boom positions. They are more likely to stay on course to the tops of the trees, and when they miss, many fall out of the air rather than contribute to drift.
Learn more about strategies to reach the top of a canopy here.
Finer droplets have very little mass and therefore very little kinetic energy. This means they slow quickly (imagine throwing a feather) and require entraining air to carry them to the target. Finer droplets also evaporate quickly, particularly on hot and dry days (i.e. unsuitable Delta T conditions). If employed, they should be distributed in the lower-middle portion of the boom where they have the least distance to travel and are most likely to be intercepted by canopy.
Boom distribution
Unlike a broad acre boom sprayer, where each nozzle emits the same rate, an airblast boom can distribute spray unevenly. For a curved (axial) boom, the rule of thumb is to produce 2/3 of the overall volume from the top 1/3 of the boom. This compensates for the distance and greater proportion of canopy it is intended to cover.
A vertical (tower) boom positions each nozzle roughly the same distance from the target, and if that target is a hedged canopy, the spray can be distributed equally over the boom. Research has demonstrated that there is no appreciable advantage to one spray shape over another (e.g. flat fan, hollow cone, full cone) other than the spray quality they produce.
In extreme cases, operators might elect to “fire hose” spray to the tops of canopies using high pressures. This is achieved by using streaming nozzles or removing the swirl/whirl/disc plate in a disc-core combination nozzle in the top few nozzle positions. Given the heavy demand on the pump and the inaccuracy of the method, this should only be considered when air fails to reach the tops of trees.
Learn more about nozzling an airblast sprayer here.
Spray coverage and diagnostics
It’s well understood that spray coverage has a negative correlation with tree height. The irony is that in large nut trees the upper portion of the canopy produces much of the harvest. Taken collectively, this may explain why pest activity is also highest in the upper canopy. When choosing a spray volume and boom distribution, the metric is threshold coverage in the top 1/3 of the canopy. This requires us to define threshold coverage.
If ribbons and leaf movement represent the feedback mechanism for air settings, then water sensitive paper (WSP) is the choice for spray coverage. Placement in tall trees can be tricky, given that we are most concerned with coverage at the top, but this can be overcome by mounting the WSP on telescoping poles. Papers can be oriented horizontally to represent a leaf, or curled around the pole to give panoramic coverage and emulate a nut. Beware over-blowing in the lower canopy, which creates a shingling effect where leaves cover one another (or the WSP) and block coverage.
Fluorescent dyes and kaolin clay show spray coverage in situ, but there are drawbacks. Few growers will spray dye and come back at night with a black light to examine targets. Further, a target sprayed with dye or clay cannot be sprayed a second time, which means the grower can’t adjust the sprayer and try again in the same canopy. And finally, it’s very difficult to determine if there is more or less coverage with clay or fluorescent dye.
Learn more about how to use water sensitive paper here.
WSP is fast, cheap and effective. With the exception of drench applications, the most demanding spray application (e.g. contact fungicide) should produce a spray coverage pattern of 85 drops per cm2 and 10-15% total coverage on 80% of the targets. This threshold comes from collective research and experience in many horticultural crops, and should true hold for tree nut.
Be prepared to make changes to your sprayer calibration to compensate for tree height, canopy density, and weather conditions throughout the season. The feedback from water sensitive paper is far more accurate than shoulder-checks and leaf residue. It takes some time and effort, but it’s well worth it. Coverage is King.
What others have done
Researchers like Brad Higbee (Paramount Farming Co.) and Ken Giles (UC Davis) have explored spray coverage and efficacy from different sprayer configurations to combat Naval Orange Worm in almond. What follows is a summary of their observations. This information comes from their presentations and conversations with Brad.
Ten years of trials spanned travel speeds of 3-6.5 km/h, volumes of 1,400-2,150 L/ha, and sprayer-generated airspeeds (measured at source) of 80-290 km/h. They looked at efficacy, residue levels and WSP coverage both in leaves and on the nuts themselves. When comparing sprayer configurations, the target almond tree was divided into four levels:
Level 1 = 1.8 m to 2.5 m (Lower canopy)
Level 2 = 3.0 m to 3.7 m
Level 3 = 4.2 m to 4.9 m
Level 4 = >5.5 m (Upper canopy)
Many configurations were tested, but the following figure shows the top four. Of those not shown, most notable are the Bell 206 helicopter (280 L/ha at 50 km/h) and the Curtec AC 1000 Cross-Flow tower.
A. Air-O-Fan low profile axial D-240 (Also used Air-O-Fan 232). B. Progressive Ag two-head 2650 electrostatic air-shear with 4 m tower (Also used 4.9 m three-head and 5.5 m four-head). C. Blueline Accutech 10-head air-shear tower. D. Low-profile axial airblast with two Sardi-style fans on mast. Upper fans set to 70% overall fan speed and spray volume. Axial fan and nozzles set to 30%
Here is a summary of their observations:
Spray coverage and residue deposition was weakest in upper half (Levels 3 and 4) of canopy. Tower sprayers tended to provide more uniform coverage across vertical levels. For low-profile axial sprayers, most of the residues were deposited in the lower half of the tree.
The Air-O-Fan low-profile axial had the highest overall residues. But, above 3.7 m there was severe drop off in coverage. PTO-driven sprayers seemed as effective as engine driven. Incremental improvements were observed on this sprayer when using multiple banks of booms, full cone and hollow cone nozzles.
The Progressive Ag tower provided the highest residue deposition above 3.7 m and modest deposition in the lower canopy. While tower sprayers tended to provide more uniform coverage, the Progressive Ag was not significantly better than the Air-O-Fan overall.
Aerial application (280 L/ha) combined with the Air-O-Fan low-profile axial sprayer (1,870 L/ha) did increase residues in the upper canopy, but did not result in greater damage reduction relative to the Air-O-Fan alone.
Slowing the Air-O-Fan low-profile axial sprayer from 4 to 3.2 km/h resulted in 30% more coverage and 47% higher residue deposition overall.
Electrostatic treatments did not perform well on WSP (small droplet size was suspected), but they were among the best in residue deposition at full volume and “delivered surprising residues at high speeds/low volumes”.
Brad has done remarkable work studying the impact of several sprayer configurations. While many were tested, there are still more that might be considered.
Canopy management
When all else fails, we are left with only one alternative: canopy management. Hedging and pruning the trees to create sprayer clearance opens canopies to spray (and light and air) and is a critical part of crop protection.
Learn more about the benefits of canopy management here.
Topping trees to bring them to a manageable height to improve coverage and reduce drift may be the only viable option for protecting the crop. I acknowledge that a great deal of nut production takes place in the upper third of the canopy, and it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss production and yield economics. However, when the crop is left unprotected, the yield quality is negatively impacted and it has been shown that a reduction in harvest weight is offset by the improvement in overall quality.
Where plants are very old and overgrown (such as macadamia), it is highly recommended that the orchardist engage a local crop expert and discuss a strategy for canopy management. There are many benefits, including:
Improved harvest quality
Fewer refills (saving time and water)
Less time to spray means more timely applications
Potential chemistry savings
Savings in gas, noise and equipment wear and tear
Potential for reduced off target spray drift
Summary
Spraying large nut trees is a challenging proposition. A number of inter-connected factors are involved and an operator must address all of them make spraying as efficient and as effective as possible.
Adjust sprayer air settings first, using canopy penetration as your guide to travel speed.
Distribute the 2/3 of the volume and coarser spray quality to the top 1/3 of the boom.
Consider an air-assisted vertical boom configuration to improve coverage uniformity and reduce drift.
Use water sensitive paper for critical coverage feedback and make changes based on that feedback.
Develop a canopy management strategy to improve spray coverage and yield quality.
