Category: General Operation

All general hort articles on sprayer operation.

Spray Equipment From the 2016 Great Lakes EXPO
Michigan’s Great Lakes EXPO is a massive horticultural convention that draws international speakers and more than 4,000 attendees to Grand Rapids every December. Like any large agricultural conference, it can be challenging to run back and forth between lecture rooms to hear key presentations. And, of course, there is always disappointment when you have to choose between two talks in concurrent sessions. When your head is full and your posterior is numb, you move onto the trade show floor.
I think the trade show might be my favourite part; Who doesn’t like filling a bag with swag? Candies, foam vegetables, pens, DVD’s, colourful brochures and all manner of gimmicks designed to get your attention in a sea of vendors that vie for “just a minute of your time”. But for me, I only have eyes for the sprayers. And wow, were there a lot of sprayers at GLEXPO.
This article is a photo journal of those sprayers (or features) that caught my eye. For some readers, these features might be old news, but for me they were insight into a different way of spraying. For example, Europe’s tolerance for spray drift is practically nil, and sprayer manufacturers have had to develop equipment that comply with that reality. Many such sprayers were present, so I had a chance to see, and ask questions, about their claims of less than 5% drift. At the other end of the spectrum, there were sprayers that proudly boasted being able to cover multiple rows in a single pass by boiling the spray over great distances… which while appealing to producers looking to save time, still makes me wince. But then, I’ve never tried to spray almonds in California, or citrus in Florida. Then there were sprayers claiming to cover multitple rows and reduce drift, which would be quite a trick. I reserve the right to be a skeptic.
So, I’m not promoting or condoning any of the equipment or claims described here. I’m just sharing what I found interesting and I’m giving the reader a peek onto a trade show floor they might not otherwise have seen.
Shrouded Herbicide Application
There are lots of approaches to making in-row or under-row herbicide applications. The concept is simple enough: You want to get the product on the ground either under or between rows without hitting the crop itself. If you don’t care about hitting a mature orchard trunk, the boomless nozzle is a good choice with it’s massive droplets and variable swath. But if you want to avoid off-target movement as much as possible, you need shrouds.
I’ve seen brushes used to great effect in asparagus because they match the contour of moderately uneven ground by dragging over it. Gaps may open in the shroud as the bristles part, but that issue may be offset by the possible advantage of physical redistribution of herbicide as it rubs over the target weeds like a weed-wicker.
Then there’s the classic flexible curtain. Similar to the brushes, it’s intended to “just” touch the ground and should maintain a reasonable seal even if said ground is moderately uneven. I often wonder how difficult it is to clean all the surfaces on these systems, but since they are only ever used with herbicide, I won’t speculate how often operators actually decontaminate (or even rinse) them.
Other variations include a hard carapace with no contouring lip. They should only be used with Coarse spray qualities or larger. Note the hefty spring on the boom for those inattentive moments where the operator might whack a trunk or fence post. The wing flexes away from the impact and snaps back into position, giving the operator time to put down the cell phone and tweak the steering wheel. The adjustable nozzle body on the far end is a nice feature for adjusting the swath without changing nozzle spacing, but beware to maintain proper overlap.
And, if you want the heartiness of a solid carapace, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to see through it so you can spot a plugged nozzle before it becomes a problem? This variation with its heavy impact bar, tight nozzle spacing (to reduce the potential for misses) and guide wheel (to maintain correct boom height) looks ready to handle anything.
Airblast – Multi-Row, Ducted Systems
In the never-ending quest to do more in less time, multi-row airblast systems are very appealing. Delivering air to the vertical booms in each row can be challenging. I’ve seen suspended axial fans (e.g. Gregoire, not pictured) but they’ve always struck me as overkill because of the volume and speed of the air they deliver, and because they need fairly wide rows to be accommodated. Their weight is also a concern, requiring scaffolding that must be strong and still somewhat flexible to handle the inevitable pitch and yaw translated from uneven ground to the boom.
Lightweight conduits that channel air through ducts (like the Berthoud sprayer below) are a popular solution. They can be suspended to any length and telescope to any row width. Head pressure, and friction from sharp bends in the ducts can influence the air delivered, so the shorter the ducts and the less bends, the better. It was a surprise to discover the ducts in this sprayer are corrugated inside as well as out, but apparently it’s not enough to disrupt air flow significantly.
This Berthoud sprayer offers many of the optional features I’ve seen on the Hol sprayer (not pictured) such as tandem axles, a hand wash tank, low residual volume tank, and built-in boom and tank rinse systems. What’s interesting is the light weight “Drop Legs” (i.e. the vertical booms) with dual-angled “airmist diffusers” (i.e. the air shear nozzles) for multi-row vineyard applications. The close-up below uses my hand for reference. There are options for two to four diffusers on each drop leg, and they can be single or double sided, giving a lot of flexibility to match the crop.
How do you control flow? With a digital flow regulator. What if you want a different rate at each diffuser? Well, if I understand this correctly, instead of using a typical flow-metering disk placed in-line to restrict flow, you slot a conventional moulded hollowcone inline and use the nozzle manufacturer’s flow tables. And what if you are concerned about using a misting air-shear style nozzle? It appears they also offer an option to swap out the diffusers for air assisted swirl nozzles where the air flow is behind the nozzle to entrain the spray and limit dispersion. They look similar to the diffusers, except they have a nozzle cap between the slotted air outlets (not pictured).
Ducted air handling comes in many shapes and sizes. Rather than terminating in a blade-shaped diffuser, Cima has hourglass shaped distribution heads that use the venturi principle to deliver airspeeds up to 180 mph at the nozzle. That’s fast, and while it would help entrain spray as it travels longer distances, I wonder what it does to crops close-up?
In the centre of each head is the teardrop-shaped atomizer-style nozzle that produces a Very Fine spray quality between 100 and 150 µm in diameter. It was explained that the teardrop employs Bernoulli’s principle… and for the lay reader (like me), think of the teardrop the way you think of an airplane wing. Air moves over the contour at different rates, making a low pressure area at the tip. The upshot is that it creates lots of very small droplets that (according to the manufacturer) permit you to use much lower volumes that you would with an airblast sprayer using conventional hydraulic nozzles. As always, I suggest you let coverage be your guide to spray volume.
Flow is controlled by an inline disc that allow the user to select from a series of flow-restricting orifices. Look back two photos and you’ll see them as yellow circles on the tower. The photo below is a stainless steel version from an AgTec.
Air-Assist Horizontal Booms
A ducted, vertical airblast sprayer is an air-assisted horizontal boom sprayer just waiting to happen. For vegetable and berry growers, air assisted spraying is an appealing prospect. Many still use axial airblast or cannon sprayers to spray row crops, but I don’t like that. It’s my opinion that while it may be effective, it’s not efficient because it’s not possible to consistently control drift or coverage. I prefer getting the air and nozzle closer to the crop, but sprayers that can do this are few and far between.
There have been no after-market options I’m aware of for converting a horizontal boom to an air-assisted boom. That leaves only a few manufacturers of trailed boom sprayers to fill the need (e.g. the trailed Hardi Commander with Twinforce air or their new self-propelled Alpha evo). But this tradeshow opened other possibilities, as demonstrated by the Cima below. It uses all the same principles described above… it just aims down.
Not interested in ducted air delivery on a three-point hitch system from France or Italy? No problem. How about a Florida company called Airtec that offers trailed air-assist booms up to 120 ft. I wasn’t able to photograph the sprayer at the show, so here’s a picture of one in the field (from their website), as well as several I took at a spinach operation in Ontario.
Airtec offers a single axle, or a walking beam tandem axle reminiscent of the Argifac Condor. Note that the boom itself is the air conduit, which should open crop canopies, expose underleaf surfaces, entrain smaller droplets to reduce drift, and extend the spray window by allowing the operator to work in slightly windier conditions. I can’t speak to the manufacturer’s claims of reducing spray volumes (and by extension, chemicals), but you can read it on their glossy brochure.
Each air outlet terminates in an hourglass-shaped duct, similar to the Cima and ostensibly creating the same advantage, as they also claim 180 mph windspeed at the nozzle. Again, I wonder if that can be dialed back, or adjusted to match the density of the crop canopy? Unlike the Cima teardrop shear nozzle, conventional hollowcone nozzles are used (see below). They can also be suspended to match the contour of the row (look back at the first photo) improving coverage in a manner similar to using drop arms or row kits.
Airblast – Unconventional Fans
Have you seen this man? Mark Ledebuhr is the co-author of the 2nd edition of Airblast101. He looks happy here… little did he know I’d one day lasso him into writing the new edition with me.
Let’s get back to airblast sprayers. The majority do not use ducts to convey air to the target – they point and blow. Pictured below is the generous Mark Ledebuhr with a Proptec rotary atomizer. I call him generous because for several hours Mark led me through the tradeshow and introduced me to many of the vendors. Perhaps more importantly, he helped me interpret what they were explaining after we left each display. Developed with his father, the Proptec system suspends individual fans with rotary atomizers so each can be aimed and operated independently, offering a lot of targeting flexibility. The fans can be electrically or hydraulically driven. Some might be reminded of a Sardi fan (not pictured) but unlike that system which uses several conventional nozzles around the circumference of the fan, Proptec employs a rotary atomizer in the centre. Rotary atomizers can produce very, very small droplets and until GLEXPO I was only familiar with their use in aerial applications.
I admit to a bias when it comes to airblast sprayers. In my mind, the further away the source of air and spray are from the target, the more opportunity there is to drift. Particularly when such small droplets are involved. I couldn’t find the Proptec video I saw looping at the tradeshow, but what I saw looked like tight columns of cycling spray, reminiscent of a tornado, firing into each row of a vineyard. I was told it was during a 15 mph wind, yet I didn’t see a lot of off target movement. A notable advantage to spraying down into the ground rather than sideways or up into the air. Here’s a good video I found of one operating in highbush blueberry (below). It seems I have a lot more to learn about this system.
Then Mark and I went over to see Michigan-based Precise Manufacturing’s EX III cross-flow rotary atomizing tower system. I was reminded of the Curtec tangential fan towers that, like this sprayer, employ rotary atomizers and a peristaltic pump. For Curtec, it’s the AccuStaltic pump. For Precise, it’s the Extreme pump. More on that shortly.
Here’s a video of the EX III operating (sourced from the Precise Mfg. website). Obviously, we’re not talking grapes, berries or high-density orchards, here. This is for big, dense targets like standard cherry, nut trees and citrus. The rotary atomizers throw spray in a circle, but the air from the tangential fans capture it and blow it all out towards the target in very laminar (i.e. not turbulent) air that carries it over long distances to the target.
Back to the peristaltic pump. It can run dry, is self-priming, is anti-backflow, low maintenance and can handle pretty much any manner of spray mix (i.e. viscosity and corrosion are non-issues). Each atomizer has its own flow channel, and by changing the diameter of each tube you change the relative flow rate to each atomizer. Certainly not something you’d do every day, but it does allow you to match flow to the canopy density.
The Precise Touch Screen Controller is very intuitive and I liked how much control the operator has. Fan speed can be adjusted quite easily (although it would require a very knowledgeable operator to ensure the correct speed is selected). It tracks GPS position and logs where the sprayer empties and the rates used per acre. It also calculates a kind of tree-row volume by determining savings when the operator turns off nozzles that would otherwise blow over the tops of targets, or when overall flow is reduced by slowing the rpms of the pump.
Airblast – Cannons
Well, there were lots of cannon sprayers. Most airblast manufacturers have one in their lineup. Squirrel-cage style fans feed air into a tower that allows spray to come out laterally, and on a downward angle from the top of the sprayer. AgTec, pictured below, has long sold such a sprayer.
The nozzles are air-shear style, relying on fast-moving air to shear the spray into finer droplets.
They usually only have nozzles on one side and the cannon can be turned via a chain-driven gear, and aimed up or down from the cab. They are intended to spray larger areas to save the grower traveling every row, and to prevent physical damage to the crop as the sprayer passes (I’m thinking about knocking berries off, mostly).
Nurseries use cannon sprayers quite often because they spray whips (i.e. young trees), shrubs, container crops, and all manner of crops in dense plantings and they try to spray them all with a single sprayer. Generally, there’s a lot of drift potential and erratic coverage from cannon sprayers – especially when operators try to cover too much ground in a single pass. I’m always skeptical when I can’t adjust air settings without impacting spray quality, and considering the bad practice of trying to apply too wide a swath, I have a hard time with cannon sprayers. I will note that the AgTec now has baffles that allow the operator to distribute air over the height of the tower (see the hand near the hydraulic piston in the image below). However, I don’t know what that does to spray quality in each section of the tower.
Airblast – Classic Axial Fans
And, of course, there were many classic axial airblast sprayers. Even then, however, there were features to set them apart from one another. British Columbia’s Slimline TurboMist was there, featuring their turbine fans and adjustable air outlets (not pictured). Italy’s Carrarospray was there, and I’ve written about them in the past because they make a tiny sprayer that I like in cane fruit and highbush blueberry. You can hitch it to a mower and mow while you blow.
More interesting to me was their sprayer boasting two axial fans that run counter to one another. Carrarospray claims this counter-rotation creates more uniform air than a single fan… but I have no idea how.
Then there was the Andreoli Eco with it’s stainless steel high-efficiency vane system. Reminding me of the Turbomist, the suction is in the front, so the sprayer is a little less likely to draw spray into the fan when one side is shut down for border spraying and when turning at the end of a row. Louvers covering the outlets would be better, but still, this is an improvement. They also claim to have a symmetrical airflow pattern, unlike older axial fans that move air up on one side and down on the other.
The Rears Pul-Tank reminded me of just that – a tank! Heavy-duty, stainless construction and intended (with care) to last a long, long time. No special features to boast of. It would seem this sprayer adheres to old-school ideas about airblast spraying. Certainly, simple and strong are two appealing features to those operators that don’t want to be bothered with complications.
And, lastly (not leastly), was the Air-O-Fan sprayer. Another solidly-built sprayer with a few interesting features. Not shown is the reverse-style propeller which like the Andreoli Eco, claims to draw from clean air, and not spray-laden air. This is undoubtedly the biggest trash guard I’ve ever seen to protect the fan blades from drawing in dirt and leaves (see below). Looks like a CAT steam shovel.
Something that struck me was the air deflector blades inside the fan housing. In my experience, the nozzle bodies and blades are two separate components. But not here, and it makes so much sense! I’ve always taught operators to adjust the air speed/volume and direction first, then adjust nozzle direction and rates second. With this system, you aim the nozzles right along with the air. Expanded systems (e.g. for tree nut, citrus) can have as many as three nozzles per deflector blade.
There was one other very exciting feature coming to this sprayer that I promised I wouldn’t reveal until they were ready, but I’ll just write “HVES” so you will remember you heard it here, first!
Closing
So, this was a massive, sprawling article. Congratulations for getting to the end and I hope it opens your mind to the possibilities for horticultural spray application. The GLEXPO tradeshow was a great experience and I’ll try to get back there in the future. Until then, I look forward to bringing some of this equipment to Ontario to try it out in our horticulture operations. There’s always more to learn.
December 13, 2016
The Sprayer Operator – The Most Important Factor in Spraying
Spray application is one of the most important activities regularly done in any crop operation. It can also be one of the most expensive and time-consuming. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a multi-step process that helps sprayer operators make informed choices about when and what to spray. But, the decision to spray is not the end of the process.
Spraying highbush blueberry in British Columbia just after a rain. Not ideal, but sometimes the window for application is very small. It’s not the ideal situation, but one strategy for spraying a protectant fungicide on wet leaves is to concentrate the tank mix and use less spray per hectare. The fewer, and more concentrated, spray droplets will dilute in the water already on the leaves and the possibility of run-off is reduced. This is a stop-gap measure, only. The spray will not dry or distribute as it was intended and this strategy will require an additional full-rate application as soon as the weather improves, as long as the label permits. It is often said there is no such thing as a wasted fungicide application.
The sprayer operator now faces a lot of decisions about sprayer set-up and application method. These decisions determine if the application will be effective, and they also determine if it will be efficient. Efficient spraying saves money and reduces environmental impact. The goal is to be both effective and efficient.
So what should the operator be aware of?
A quick Google search reveals a seemingly endless number of sprayer articles by government, industry and academia (and many on this website!). There are differences in definitions, opinions on priorities vary, and classic sprayer wisdom is sometimes supported and sometimes debunked by current research. But, if you read enough of them you will find more similarities than differences, and common themes will emerge.
Most agree that the objective of spraying is the safe and timely delivery of an effective, uniform dose of product to a target area. Any product not deposited on the target (e.g. spray drift, sprayer leaks, run-off, etc.) reduces efficiency and is called wastage. The literature points to six broad elements that affect spray efficiency and effectiveness. Sprayer operators should actively consider all six elements before, and during, each spray application.
The six elements in the illustration overlap because changing one of the elements often means reconsidering others. For example, increasing droplet size to reduce drift potential also reduces the number of droplets sprayed. This may warrant higher spray volumes, which means you might require a more dilute tank-mix to maintain the rate-per-area. Only the sprayer operator’s decisions affect all the elements, which is why it’s pictured in the centre. Technology or technique can not compensate for an inattentive operator; an operator’s skill and willingness to do a good job impacts the overall efficiency and effectiveness of every spray application. Understanding how droplets behave (or misbehave) is essential.
The six elements of effective and efficient spray application.
Each element is comprised of many contributing factors. Some of these factors might fit under multiple elements and certainly we’ve reorganized this list many times over the years. No matter how they are presented, all of these factors (and more) contribute to the success of spray applications and they should figure into the operator’s considerations.
The expanded six elements of effective and efficient spray application.
So, as sprayer operators, we should all be aware of how the factors that affect an application. Take an active role! Don’t be afraid to get out of the tractor and make changes to your pressure or your nozzle choice. Check your coverage as you spray, and make adjustments as the weather changes. Finally, recognize when it’s a waste of time and spray, and know when to pack it in. The days of “set it and forget it” are no more!
November 21, 2016
The Pressure Gauge Shows More Than Pressure
Kim Blagborne (formally with Slimline Manufacturing) has long said that the pressure gauge on an airblast sprayer indicates more than just pressure. It can be used to diagnose a number of pump and plumbing issues… if you know what to look for. Here’s Kim’s troubleshooting guide to reading into what your gauge is REALLY telling you:
Scenario One
“As the tank empties, the pressure drops”
First, try adjusting the pressure regulator (assuming a positive displacement pump). If you can maintain the pressure up until the tank empties, your intake line may be loose and it’s sucking the bottom of the tank. Check the fitting between the suction filter and the pump. Apply a light coating of grease to the O-rings on the elbows and filter to ensure a complete seal.
Second, try stopping mid-tank (that is, turn off the tractor PTO and let the sprayer sit for a few minutes). Does the pressure gauge return to the original set pressure? If so, then the intake line inside sprayer has likely come loose entirely. Open the lid, and using a straightened-out coat hanger, hook the intake line and give a few gentle tugs – it should not be able to move. If it does, you’ll have to re-fasten the intake line so it’s not sucking the bottom of the tank.
The humble coat hanger. It opens our cars and now fixes our sprayers. Remarkable!
Scenario Two
“When I first start the sprayer, the pressure drops or fails to maintain constant pressure as the tank empties”
This might indicate improper mixing practices because the filter is probably plugging with product. Alternately, your PTO speed may be too slow to drive sufficient mechanical agitation. Check the suction filter as soon as the problem occurs (don’t finish spraying). If you wait to check when the tank is empty, the evidence of a plugged filter could be washed away before you can confirm it. This problem often happens when spraying nutrients, or when products aren’t compatible.
If that’s not it, it could be a collapsed suction valve. The pump will sound like it’s “missing” (like an misfiring engine). The suction valve might need to be replaced.
Or, perhaps you notice that you can compensate for the pressure drop by adjusting the regulator on the first tank. But it has to be dropped back down again for the second tank. In this case, the regulator might be sticking or jamming. Disassemble it and look for grit in the barrel of the regulator, then lubricate the parts.
Scenario Three
“I lose pressure when I turn my boom(s) on or off”
In this scenario, the pressure is fine as you approach the end of the row. You turn off the outside boom (or both) and finish the turn. But, when you re-engage both booms, the pressure drops. Even when you adjust the pressure regulator to compensate (assuming a positive displacement pump), the unit only gains the lost pressure slowly. In this case, the regulator might be sticking or jamming. Disassemble it and look for grit in the barrel of the regulator, then lubricate the parts.
Scenario Four
“The pressure gauge spikes when I turn off the boom(s)”
If you run a Turbomist, it could be the bypass balance. To solve this issue, head over to this article and pan down to see the step-by-step. If it isn’t the balance, then it’s likely the regulator. The issue of a spiking gauge and how to correct for it is covered thoroughly in this article by Ag mechanic extraordinaire Murray Thiessen.
Scenario Five (a positive displacement pump issue)
“My gauge pulses”
Is it more than a 20 psi range? Have you noticed that the deviation gets less as the PTO speed increases? Well, the pump pressure check-valve may have collapsed. Check the pressure check valves in the pump for broken springs on the suction valve plate.
Does the needle move rapidly through a 5 to 10 psi range? The accumulator pressure might be low. Try adjusting system pressure via the regulator and if that changes how the needle is responding, then set an air compressor to 90 psi (or manufacturer’s recommended pressure) and charge the accumulator.
Perhaps the needle movement is not affected by system pressure changes or the PTO speed. In this case the accumulator may have failed entirely and the diaphragm will need replacement.
Scenario Six
“My calibration is going farther than expected”
Sure, that sounds pretty good at first, but it may be that the gauge is stuck. With the PTO off and the spray boom on, the gauge must read “ZERO”. If it doesn’t, pony up the $50.00 and get a new one.
May 30, 2016
The Case for Low-Drift Sprays
This article was written by Tom Wolf for “PEI Potato News Magazine”, a publication of the Prince Edward Island Potato Board (http://peipotato.org/). It is reprinted with permission.
PEI Potato News Magazine
“Should I be using low-drift nozzles?” It seems like a simple question with an obvious answer. We all want to reduce spray drift, and this easy-to-use technology is the fastest way to get there.
And yet, the question is more complicated than it first appears. Yes, all applicators want to reduce drift, but many worry about the coarse sprays produced by low-drift nozzles. As a spray volume is divided into coarser (i.e. larger) droplets, there are fewer of them, and that can reduce coverage. It’s a legitimate concern.
Let’s start with our shared value first – the desire to reduce spray drift.
Given the economic, environmental and health impacts of spray drift, the importance is hard to over-state. That’s why spray drift management is a primary concern of our federal regulators whose job is to protect the public interest. It’s also a concern for the neighbours who have a right to keep unwanted products off their property, whether it’s residential or agricultural.
Conventional flat fan nozzles (XR8004) operating at 40 psi
Glyphosate drift with 20 km/h side wind, XR8004 40 psi
Low-drift nozzles (TD11004) operating at 60 psi
Glyphosate drift with 20 km/h side wind, TD11004 60 psi
For these reason, managing drift should be a foremost concern for applicators. The technology is vital to the crop production industry, and if we don’t take care of the issue, someone else will take care of it for us. That’s not the best path.
Much has been written about how to reduce drift. The key points are:
- choosing days with better weather,
- lowering booms and travel speeds,
- watching spray pressure,
- protecting the spray with shields,
- using coarser spray qualities on the whole.
Of these, the most economical and practical is using coarser sprays via low-drift nozzles. Engineered to emit fewer fine droplets, they are proven to reduce drift by anywhere from 50 to 95% compared to a standard flat fan of the same size. When it comes to reducing drift, they work.
When these tips first hit the mainstream as “pre-orifice” nozzles in the late 1980s, and later as “venturi” nozzles in the mid 1990s, we were impressed with their ability to reduce drift. And the obvious question was, what about product efficacy? Can fewer, larger droplets do the job? The answer, to our initial surprise, was yes.
In the late 1990s, the crop protection industry (including governments, universities, and the private sector), participated in studies throughout Europe, Australasia, and North America looking at low-drift spray performance. In Canada alone, we conducted over 100 studies and concluded that pesticide efficacy was not harmed when a properly adjusted low-drift nozzle was used. A surprising result showed that fungicides did not seem to need finer sprays, contrary to popular opinion, as long as water volumes were sufficient to provide adequate coverage.
As we did more and more studies, it became apparent which points were critical:
- When using venturi nozzles, spray pressure had to be increased from the industry standard of 40 psi to about 70 psi. This is because of a venturi nozzle’s two-stage design. The high pressure compensated for an internal pressure drop inside the nozzle. Sprays remained low-drift, but patterns and overall efficacy were better at this higher pressure.
Spray pattern of conventional spray (XR8002, 40 psi)
Spray pattern of low-drift spray (ULD12002, 60 psi)
Spray deposit of conventional spray (XR8002, 40 psi. ~10 gpa)
Spray deposit of low-drift spray (ULD12002, 60 psi, ~10 gpa)
- Spray pattern overlap needed to be greater with low-drift sprays – a full 100%. In other words, the edge of one nozzle’s spray pattern should reach the middle of the adjacent nozzles’ patterns. The pattern width at target height was now twice the nozzle spacing and this ensured good distribution of not only the spray volume, but droplet numbers, along the boom.
- We needed to pay attention to the target plant architecture and leaf surface properties. Plants such as grasses (with vertical surfaces and difficult-to-wet leaves) often had less spray retention with coarser sprays. Low-drift nozzles worked, but we couldn’t go as coarse in these cases. Careful selection of low-drift nozzles as well as more attention paid to operating pressure solved these issues.
- Our minimum water volumes had to increase slightly to compensate for the fewer drops produced by low-drift sprays. This was especially true for contact modes of action where too few droplets-per-area reduced performance. Using an Extremely Coarse spray at a very low water volume was asking for trouble.
Much of my efforts in recent years have been to advise applicators just how coarse they can safely go without harming product performance. This involves things we’ve touched on in this article, like water volumes, modes of action in the tank mix, target plant or canopy architecture, growing conditions, and the like. We’ve arrived at a few rules of thumb, like those above, but as always, it’s dangerous to oversimplify and there are always new situations to grapple with.
While we were learning how to tweak low drift nozzles to get them to perform, we also learned there were significant advantages to using coarser spray qualities.
1. Foremost, there was an immediate reduction in drift. One applicator told me years ago that switching to a low-drift spray removed a huge burden of worry from him, and that alone was worth it.
2. Low-drift sprays made it easier to spray on-time, even if weather conditions were marginal for conventional sprays. The result: the timely removal of weeds, or the correct staging of fungicides and insecticides. This has paid large dividends in terms of protected yield.
3. Coarser sprays can protect product performance from some adverse conditions, such as days with high evaporation rates. On such days, fine sprays evaporate to dryness so quickly that uptake can be limited. Larger drops stay liquid longer, with more uptake the result.
4. Directed sprays, be they banded sprays or twin fan nozzles for fungicides, make more sense from coarser nozzles. The reason is that these coarser sprays go where they’re pointed, whereas fine sprays lose their path in wind or through travel-induced deflection, very quickly.
5. We also learned about the air-entrainment that coarser sprays can produce. Large droplets dragged air with them, and smaller droplets could hitch a ride in their wake. This provided a form of air-assistance that reduced drift and carried small droplets into the canopy. Finer sprays had a harder time producing this type of drag, and sustaining it in the canopy.
When we analyzed the droplet size spectrum of coarse and fine sprays, we confirmed that the total number of droplets produced by any given volume of water had been reduced. Not a surprise. But two things struck us.
First, even though the average size of droplets in coarse sprays were very large, they still contained a population of small droplets. In fact, if you counted every single droplet in the spray, the vast majority were small and they were still taking care of coverage.
Second, the critical amount of coverage (measured as the percent of the surface area covered by spray deposits) that was necessary for a given product to work was lower than what we’d been aiming for. In other words, we didn’t need as much coverage as we thought we did, and any excess didn’t actually add to product performance in most cases.
We later analyzed the relationship between spray coverage and herbicide performance and found that the uniformity of the deposits was actually more important than the amount of coverage per se. So, if we focussed on proper overlap and spray pressure there was greater benefit than increased coverage alone. Deposit uniformity has become our research focus of late.
So, should you be using low-drift nozzles? By adopting the changes in pressure, overlap, and water volume outlined above, and paying more attention to the plant architecture and pesticide mode of action, we’ve been very successful in implementing low-drift sprays in all field crops. In my view, we can safely retire Fine sprays for all field crop pesticides. This means conventional flat fan nozzles, hollow cone nozzles, and the like. Get rid of them. All they do is add drift potential.
It’s safe to adopt low-drift sprays. Research and experience from the field prove that they work. Low-drift sprays should be viewed as an agronomic tool that improves application timing and accuracy. And with less drift, we show that agricultural practice can be both efficient and environmentally responsible. That’s going to be a very important story to tell, now and in the future.
May 20, 2016
Hol Spraying Systems – Canadian airblast gets an upgrade
The first modern airblast sprayer was developed in the mid 1900’s, but competed with existing equipment before it was adopted by the majority. As you can see below, we’ve come a long way. As application technology continues to evolve and grow, so does the array of choices facing growers.
An Ontario orchard spray crew c.1910. Pump pressure was maintained by the two operators at the right. The spraying rate by the above method could cover 1.2 to 1.6 hectares (3 to 4 acres) per hour. Image from www.farms.com
Provide Agro (a subsidiary of N. M. Bartlett Inc.) had been considering introducing a new airblast sprayer to Canada for more than ten years. After deciding not to get into the manufacturing game, they explored importing sprayers from Europe and Australia. In late 2014 they recently invited me to see their choice: the H.S.S. CF airblast sprayer built by Holland-based “Hol Spraying Systems”.
It’s not often I get to see a “new” airblast sprayer design. To be fair, H.S.S. has been building similar sprayers in Holland for more than 20 years, so technically it was new-to-me.
We met at a local apple orchard in Simcoe, where we ran the sprayer through a series of light duties. The first thing we did was explore the sprayer’s features, both optional and standard. As the ambassador to Canada, this particular model had all the bells and whistles. Here is a list of features and observations I feel are worth relating. It’s important to note that this list is in no way an endorsement, nor are any omissions intended to be a condemnation.
The H.S.S. CF sprayer. Outwardly this PTO-driven sprayer appears very different from Ontario’s typical fleet of airblast sprayers. Notably the flexible ducts and gantry comprising the tower, and the double axle. However, it operates using the same principles as our more familiar sprayers and following a brief inspection of welds and fastens (and given its more than 20 year history in Europe) it appears to be very durable.
Each duct is paired to a nozzle body, and that means each air outlet can be adjusted individually. The tower structure can be customized to match everything from vines to high-density orchards and even has an optional woolly aphid attachment for directing air and spray up-and-into the canopy. For taller crops like hops and semi-dwarf trees, a second fan can extend the tower to 5.5 m.
Anyone that’s been stuck in wet weather can appreciate the value in this adjustable double axle. Weight is distributed to reduce compaction and hopefully, the creation of ruts. This feature is standard, but you have the option to upgrade to hydraulic adjustment. I’m not sure how often an operator would want to adjust the axle length, but there it is.
The H.S.S. CF has a lot of features that promote operator safety by reducing the potential for exposure. One convenient feature is the access port separate from the tank fill port. No need to remove the basket to examine/clean the interior, and no need to remove the basket and come in contact with (potentially) concentrated pesticide residue.
Many large field sprayers feature tank rinse nozzles to facilitate sprayer cleanout following an application. Finally, airblast can boast this feature as well. The 150 L clean water tank supplies enough water to the tank rinse nozzles for a triple, low-volume rinse in the field with no need for a pressure washer or a nurse tank. This prevents residue buildup and reduces operator exposure – and it’s standard!
An optional feature is the tank level sensor, which can be tied to the agitation. If you are using a foamy tank mix, agitation won’t turn on until a preset tank level. I’m not certain about this option because proper tank suspension requires agitation from the beginning – just use a defoamer. Note the tank basket has a hose attached to the bottom… read on.
There’s a standard hydraulic jet at the bottom of the tank basket to assist in proper mixing. I don’t know if it precludes mixing a slurry, or if it will improve pesticide bag dissolution, but I have to assume it helps. I trust there’s a safety feature to prevent this nozzle from operating while the hatch is open, but I’m not certain.
This final standard feature may seem small, but it further reduces the potential for operator exposure. The onboard clean water source is separate from the spray tank and the tank-rinse supply and provides a convenient hand-wash station.
Other features include solenoid shut-offs for boom sections, a rate controller and a small-radius draw bar.
An important function of any airblast sprayer is air handling. Too often, tower sprayers have inconsistent air speeds (and presumably air volumes) over the length of the air outlet. Sometimes this can be compensated for using the small deflectors in the tower, or in extreme cases, replacing conventional hollow cone nozzles in “dead spots” with air induction hollow cones that produce coarser droplets and tend to fly farther under pressure. Using a Pitot meter, we examined the airspeed from each air outlet. The PTO was set to 400 rpm and the fan gear was in low.
Nozzle: Ground 2 3 4 5 6 7 Top
Left 70 mph 85 mph 90 mph 85 mph 80 mph 85 mph 80 mph 85 mph
Right 75 mph 90 mph 90 mph 90 mph 80 mph 90 mph 85 mph 85 mph
There were no obvious dead spots, and the left and right sides of the tower seemed about equal. The bottom two positions were notably slower than the rest, but given the distance to the target in that position, and the fact that ambient wind is slower at the ground, it’s interesting, but not necessarily a concern.
We arranged a set of water-sensitive targets in the canopies of semi dwarf apple trees to get a sense of the sprayer coverage. Admittedly, it was very humid and there was little wind that day, so coverage is much easier to achieve because so little spray evaporated or was blown off course before reaching the target. We ran different combinations of PTO speed and fan gear. These images are from 540 rpm and low fan gear using red Albuz nozzles (1.5 L/nozzle/minute @ 6 bar) spraying about 400 L/ha at about 5 kph. On a drier and windier day, higher volumes would be needed.
There were no obvious misses, even when papers were oriented parallel with the ground (exposing their narrow edge to the sprayer, such as in the paper on the right). This isn’t conclusive, but it does show that the sprayer had no trouble penetrating the canopy, and with further tweaking should be able to provide suitable coverage throughout the canopy. Personally, given the upward orientation, I would use the woolly aphid nozzle for all applications, particularly for drenches. More on that later.
One notable quality was the “quiet” operation of the sprayer. Applicators are familiar with the loud whine created by most airblast sprayers; at lower rpm’s and in low fan gear, the tractor seemed as loud (or even louder) than the sprayer operation. You can watch a video of one of the spray passes at the bottom of this article.
So the big question: “How much?”. You’ll have to contact the dealers to find out more, but I will say that stripped down to standard features, it’s comparable to some of the more expensive sprayers in Ontario. Don’t be dissuaded because I believe the expense is warranted given the features, with particular note of the on-board tank rinse system and adjustable air ducts.
So is this the sprayer for you? Well, if you’re in the market for a new sprayer, always start by prioritizing your goals. Perhaps work-rate is a priority, so look to sprayer capacity to reduce the number of refills and consider over-the-row technology (where possible) to reduce the number of passes. Perhaps the crop is adjacent to sensitive areas or residential homes and drift control is a priority; consider adjustable air direction and adjustable air speed.
When compiling a prioritized list, reflect on the positives and negatives of your current sprayer and talk to fellow growers about their experiences. It may come down to personal preference, but consider the following points. These points are in no particular order; they come from many articles I’ve read on the subject of considering new equipment purchases and from talking to dealers, mechanics and sprayer owners:
- Necessity – Is a new sprayer really needed? Manufacturers have a number of retrofit kits available to upgrade and improve sprayers. If poor pesticide performance has led to the decision to purchase a new sprayer, be sure it’s related to the technology, and not to an operating error.
- Crop Type and Acreage – Consider the size of the operation and the size, shape and density of the crop(s). Can the sprayer adapt to provide adequate coverage throughout the growing season and in the long-term? How flexible is the sprayer when spraying different products onto different targets?
  • Sprayer Capacity and Filling – Fewer refills means a higher work rate, but increased capacity also means more weight, so consider the effects on navigation, turning radius and soil compaction. Is the tank easy to fill?
- Cleaning, Calibrating and Maintenance – Moving between crops sometimes requires complete cleaning and decontamination of the tank, lines, nozzles and any shrouds or ducts. Clean water reservoirs, tank-rinsing nozzles and overall accessibility should be considered. Review the steps required to winterize and to calibrate the sprayer. Is it easy to access parts? Is operator exposure minimized
- Horsepower – This is an important consideration for airblast sprayers because fans move a lot of air and liquid. Tank agitators require power, too. Consider selecting from the higher range of manufacturer-recommended horsepower to improve longevity. Remember, however, that fans typically don’t have to operate at the maximum rated rpm’s, particularly early in the season.
- Nozzle Technology and Operating Pressure – Consider the range of nozzle-types intended for use and ensure the sprayer can provide sufficient pressure. While more expensive, diaphragm and piston pumps have fewer moving parts in contact with the spray solution, reducing cleaning time and operator exposure.
- Spraying Conditions – A sprayer has to be reliable, even in adverse conditions, so consider the operating environment. Night spraying, uneven terrain, high winds, dry conditions – many environmental factors can impact sprayer performance and may warrant special consideration. Investigate deflectors, shrouds and the structural framework and durability of the sprayer.
Since its introduction in late 2014, growers have been slowly adopting this sprayer in Ontario and the northern US. Some high-density operations have purchased the optional over-the-row boom system that allows them to spray multiple rows at once. Here at at the Simcoe Resource Station, we’re hoping to run the HOL sprayer in apples for the 2016 season to see if the optional woolly apple aphid (WAA) nozzle has any impact on scale, mites and of course, WAA control. Moreover, we plan to run that nozzle all season long to see if its upward angle improves underleaf coverage and canopy penetration.
April 8, 2016