Category: Speciality Sprayers

Main category for all sprayers that are not horizontal booms

  • The Misplay of our Generation

    The Misplay of our Generation

    We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.

    –Amara’s Law of Computing

    We tend to overestimate the effect of a stewardship mistake in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.

    –Wolf’s Adaptation of Amara’s Law to Agricultural Stewardship

    August 9, 2017

    Since June of 2017, we’ve been hearing reports of widespread dicamba damage symptoms in soybeans throughout the US mid-south and midwest. It appears that millions of acres could ultimately be affected, and yield impacts are unknown at this time.

    For those new to the issue, dicamba is a broadleaf herbicide in the Group 4 mode of action group, a benzoic acid. It’s an important tool for herbicide resistance management for weeds like palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and waterhemp (A. tuberculatus), populations of which have become resistant to Group 2 (ALS inhibitors), Group 5 (triazines), Group 9 (glyphosate), Group 14 (PPO inhibitors) and Group 27 (HPPD inhibitors) in some places.

    Dicamba is a volatile herbicide, discovered in 1942 and first registered in the US in 1967. Its primary use was in corn and other cereal crops, lawns, and rights of way, at comparatively low doses, and relatively early in the season.

    Calling a pesticide volatile means it can evaporate after application, either from a liquid or a dry deposit, for hours or sometimes days after application. The resulting vapor cloud can move unpredictably, depending on atmospheric conditions, and affect plants long distances away. Higher temperatures increase vapor loss.

    Starting this year, dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton (Xtend varieties) were sprayed with new lower-volatility formulations of dicamba, XtendiMax, Engenia, and FeXapan, to control certain broadleaf weeds (including the Amaranth species above) without harming the soybeans. Problem is, dicamba can harm non-Xtend soybeans and other plants, even at very low doses. And these registrations were for applications that occurred later in the season, at higher doses than before.

    I usually don’t get involved in people’s decision about whether to spray, or what to spray. But I do get involved when it comes down to how to spray. That’s my job. The real question to me is “can this product be used safely in cotton and soybeans?” Right now, the jury’s out on that one.

    In my business, our guiding principles are what some people have called the “Three Es of Application”, Efficacy, Efficiency, & Environment.

    We use sprays to control pests. That’s the only reason. We have to apply them so that they work, or else it’s a wasted effort. That’s the efficacy part. We also need to use our resources, time, money, etc., efficiently so the whole process doesn’t bankrupt us and we have time left for other important tasks.  That’s efficiency. And finally, we need to protect the environment, and that means making sure the product lands where it’s intended.

    None of these three priorities trumps the others. All need to be met to the best degree possible. And due to ever-changing conditions, we will typically change our approach to emphasize one or two of these three over the others, to have a working system.

    Simply put, pesticides belong on target surfaces covered by the swath of the sprayer, and nowhere else. If they do move elsewhere (something we’ve come to view as inevitable), regulators conduct risk assessments to ensure that this movement does not result in harm. If harm is possible, mitigating tools such as application timing, product rate, spray method, and buffer zones may be imposed. If those tools aren’t enough to ensure safety, regulators deny product registration. That’s their job.

    But even if no harm is done by trespass, the products still need to be on-target. That’s stewardship. It’s a principle whose adherence gives license for a technology to be used. It gives others faith in our competence. Practicing this principle when it’s easy prepares us for hard times.

    I respect our regulatory process, and know it to be increasingly conservative with regards to risk the less data there are. I worked for the PMRA (the Canadian pesticide regulatory agency) as an application expert for five years. I know the system isn’t perfect and can make mistakes.  I know the system can be political. Usually it’s by being too careful. With dicamba, it looks like the opposite happened.

    The reason we’re seeing dicamba leaf cupping everywhere isn’t because all applicators suddenly forgot how to spray. They didn’t suddenly get reckless. They didn’t wilfully ignore all the training that the dicamba manufacturers and state and provincial governments developed in preparation for the product launch.

    Instead, dicamba drift reports arose from a combination of extreme sensitivity and easily identified symptoms, as well as an unexpected (by some) amount of vapor drift. Even good applications appeared to create problems. Despite warnings from local experts, regulators and registrants didn’t see it coming.

    Experienced agronomists have suggested that the observed dicamba trespass of 2017 implicates both temperature inversions and vapor drift. And although the new product labels advise against spraying under inversion conditions, they don’t say a word about vapor drift, the conditions that give rise to it, or how to protect against its occurrence. Not one word. I’ve searched the Xtendimax, Engenia and FeXapan labels. Nada.

    Seems that the regulators and registrants felt confident enough in the reduced volatility of dicamba, based on their internal empirical data and modeling, that they didn’t need to mention it on the label. Calling that a mistake is an understatement.

    I’d call it the biggest spray application misplay I’ve ever seen.

    A part of the problem may be the enormous scale on which this new use of dicamba was introduced, over 25 million acres of Xtend crops. Scale-up errors are common in many industries. Emergent properties related to scale can’t readily be predicted by empirical data and models. Especially when the underlying data are scant.

    So what to do? The continued success of agriculture depends to continued access to safe crop production tools. Irresponsible use threatens that. And by irresponsible use, I don’t just mean application. I also mean registration, promotion, sale, and support. The whole stewardship package.

    When problems occur, we need to be quick on our feet to acknowledge them, to support those affected, and to try to understand the cause and prevent the situation from continuing or getting worse.

    The current industry response appears to be the exact opposite. What I’ve seen is full of denial, downplaying, innuendo, blaming, and entrenchment.

    Why is such an important issue in pesticide stewardship handled so poorly?

    The immediate victims of this situation are the producers that depend on new technologies. But the long-term victim is agriculture as a whole. The lack of humility and leadership by many of the proponents of this technology, those with no small financial stake in its continued use, hurts not just them, but all of us involved in farming. This is not stewardship. It’s not license. It’s short sighted and reckless.

    Over my career, spray application has generally become safer for the operator and the environment. A big part of our success has been the adoption of low-drift nozzles, the de-facto standard for modern pesticide application. The development of less toxic and less persistent pesticides has also been very important. We can avoid a lot of problems with good chemistry. I’ve been proud to tell this story.

    I want to stay proud of our story. And in this case, that requires admitting to mistakes that were made and taking corrective action that is in the best interest of our entire industry. Agriculture will persist longer than company brands and titles. It takes priority.

    It’s still too early to fully understand all the reasons for the widespread dicamba damage. But it’s not too soon to say that much of this could have been prevented with a smaller rollout, with greater collaboration with government and university experts during registration, and with more honest information on dicamba volatility on product labels. Call it Volatility Humility.

    We’ll all pay for the mistakes that were made. We’ll likely have more stringent and expensive registration protocols. More restrictive application parameters. Strained relationships. More distrust of agriculture.

    And as always, an ounce of sweet prevention would have been much better than the pounds of bitter cure that will surely be required to make this right.

  • Plumbing Projects That Make Spraying Easier and Safer

    Plumbing Projects That Make Spraying Easier and Safer

    Some of our biggest struggles in spraying involve the start and end of each spray day.

    When starting a new field after the sprayer is cleaned, we need to prime the boom. If it’s full of water, that water has to be purged and the question is always for how long and where to do this (pro tip at bottom of article).

    At the end of the day, we should ideally clean the sprayer. During that process, we may struggle with waste disposal, including large rinsate amounts, and course, the uncertainty of whether the job is actually done (since clean water looks exactly the same as contaminated water).

    If not cleaning the entire sprayer plumbing, we should at least rinse the boom, even if we’re returning to the same product the following day. It can prevent future problems.

    These tasks are complicated by the increasingly convoluted plumbing featured on modern sprayers. Ask someone to explain their sprayer’s plumbing system to you one day. It’s a long story! A bright spot is the well-engineered, compact, and accessible Agrifac system.

    Fortunately, virtually any sprayer can be modified to suit your needs. Let’s talk about a few ideas for a winter project:

    1. Boom flush. It’s good practice to flush clean water through your boom at the end of spraying even if the main tank remains full of product. Some sprayers have an air purge system to eliminate liquid from the plumbing and that is a great feature. A water flush should follow that purge so that any residual pesticide is diluted and removed before it can dry on and become hard to remove later.  First you’ll need a clean water tank on the sprayer (150 gal is enough). Second, plumb a feed so that this clean tank can be the sole source of the water supplied to the solution pump. Select this source, shut return lines down or off, and pump clean water through boom.  Sprayers that have an auto-rinse cycle will likely be able to draw clean water, but may not be able to push it to the boom, directing it to the wash-down nozzles instead. Check to see what’s possible, and make the changes you need.
    2. Clean water pump. Installing a second pump dedicated to the clean water tank has several advantages. We’ve talked about continuous rinsing before, here, and here, as a way to dilute the tank remainder faster. It requires installation of a second pump dedicated to clean water. Additionally, give this pump the option to deliver water to the boom, not just the wash-down nozzles. Now it can be used to rinse water through the boom. The main challenge is to obtain a pump capacity that can match the needs of the boom and/or the wash-down nozzles.
    3. Boom ends. We’ve mentioned this part of the boom many times. Boom ends must be flushed regularly to get rid of product and possibly debris that gets stuck there. A simple way to achieve this is to use the Express Nozzle Body End Caps from Hypro. These bleed air continuously, and also prevent accumulation of dead-end contamination. They do need to be flushed, and this can be done by pulling a plug or rotating the turret to an open (no nozzle ) position.
    1. Recirculating boom. This is a significant change, but worth considering. Conventional plumbed booms are separated into five to 13 sections. Each has two ends at which the spray stops and where air and contamination can accumulate (see point #3). Each section feed has a shutoff valve.  Once the spray mixture leaves the pump and bypass valve, it is committed to leaving the sprayer.  In a recirculating boom, the boom becomes a part of the tank and the liquid can return to the tank if desired. Spray is pressurized at one or both ends, and valve positions determine its flow. Sectional control is achieved with individual nozzle shutoff, air or electric.
      1. Three advantages:
        (a) the boom can be primed with new product without spraying. The surplus goes back to the tank.
        (b) the boom can be flushed with water without spraying while material is still in tank, and without spilling anything on the ground. Again, the surplus goes back to the tank.
        (c)  high resolution sectional control with individual nozzle shutoff is a byproduct of this design. Fast response, high res, saves money.
    2. Steel lines. Steel cleans easier than plastic, and this material makes a lot of sense for booms. But it also makes sense for the boom feeds, currently handled by black rubber hose.  This hose is a literal black box. We can’t see inside it, and we don’t know if and where potential contamination resides. It has considerable surface area. Consider replacing portions of your feed lines with steel. The boom is the obvious candidate. Aside from easier cleanout, it also helps with faster nozzle shutoff because it doesn’t expand with pressure.

    A word about dumping the tank on the ground. It’s a bad practice for many reasons. Let’s examine just one of those. When you spray a product at 10 gpa, you actually cover each square meter with about 10 mL, or 1/3 oz, of spray mix. When you flush your boom ends on the ground, you’re probably dropping 2 or 3 gallons in the same area. That’s 1000 times the label rate at each boom end, 10 to 26 times per boom. If you dump your tank remainder and all the hoses, say 20 or 30 gallons, that’s 10,000 times the label rate if it covers 1 sq meter. That’s leaching, runoff, residual potential, and not a good story.

    Many of the changes we outlined above help prevent that from being necessary.

    Pro Tip: To find out how much water your plumbing (from the pump to the boom ends) holds, do this: After cleaning with water and before spraying an EC formulation (white milky appearance in tank, some crop oils are ECs) reset your sprayed gallons on your rate controller. Start spraying and watch for the last nozzle on your furthest and longest section to spray white. Stop spraying and check your sprayed gallons. That’s your volume. No matter the size of nozzle or application volume, it stays constant. To be sure the boom is primed with a new mix, spray until those gallons are reached and you’re set.

  • Storing Pesticide Mix Overnight

    Storing Pesticide Mix Overnight

    Not being able to finish a tank due to weather or any other reason happens to just about everyone. Is it OK to simply leave the sprayer as is, and resume spraying later after some agitation?

    In many cases, the answer is yes. Most pesticide mixtures are stable in short term storage. On resuming spraying, an agitation could be all that’s needed to get back to where you started a day or so earlier.

    But there are three important exceptions.

    When the active ingredient is formulated as a suspension. Suspensions are typically wettable powders and flowables, and rely on a clay carrier to distribute the active in the tank. Because clay is denser than water, these formulations settle out quickly after agitation stops. Sure, they can be brought back into suspension with vigorous agitation. But in lines and booms, boom ends and screens, dislodging a settled clay carrier is much more difficult. It’s also hard to tell if the cleaning has been successful because the problem spots are hidden.

    The best solution is to flush the spray boom with water before materials can settle and lodge. A visual inspection where access is possible, such as strainer bowls and boom ends, is part of the process to ensure the formulated product has been removed.

    Learn to identify which formulations are suspensions. There’s lots of jargon out there. Look for terms such as DC, DF, DG, DS, F, Gr, SP. Even EC formulations are suspensions (oil in water) and require agitation.

    When the active ingredient is chemically unstable. Some pesticides can degrade in the tank, usually due to alkaline (high pH) hydrolysis. The effect is very pesticide specific, but in general, insecticides (particularly organophosphates and carbamates) are more susceptible than other pesticides. This fact sheet by Michigan State University describes the impact of pH on a the half-life of a large number of pesticides.

    Note that in the examples in the MSU fact sheets, pesticide half lives are typically days and weeks, and only rarely hours. Also note that while high pH is most often problematic, low pH can lead to faster breakdown in a small number of products.

    Ensuring tank mix stability requires a pH meter or paper, and possibly a pH modifier such as citric acid. But do your research first! Here’s an article on pH and water quality.

    When the tank previously contained a product known to harm the current crop. This situation is most common and most difficult to address. Some examples from western Canada are Group 2 modes of action sprayed prior to a canola crop. Why are Group 2 products implicated?  Many are formulated as dry products on a clay base, and these can settle in boom ends, adhere to tank walls, or get stuck on screens. Their solubility is pH dependent, as we explain in this article.

    Canola is particularly sensitive to this mode of action, and the most common canola herbicides, Liberty and glyphosate, are formulated with strong detergents that act as tank cleaners.

    Even when applicators think that their tank is clean, they can’t actually be sure and can’t do much about it at that stage. The stripping of tiny amounts of residue off the tank walls, filter screens, or plumbing, can happen during a mid-day stop or an overnight break.  Applicators eventually find out that this happened, usually about two weeks after spraying.

    Our advice is:

    After spraying a herbicide to which a subsequent crop may be sensitive, with the classic case being a Group 2 and moving to canola, be extra diligent with cleaning and pay attention to the tank walls, all screens, and boom ends.

    The best way to solve issues is to avoid them in the first place. If the weather looks unsettled and may interrupt your spray operation, consider mixing smaller batches that can be sprayed out completely even if conditions change quickly. This allows you to rinse the tank and spray water through the boom, thus avoiding a contamination problem developing overnight.

    If that’s not possible, at least do not let a tank mix sit in the boom overnight. Instead, use your clean water tank to push water through the boom prior to storage and double check the screens. The following day, prime the boom with your tank mix as usual and resume spraying the crop.

    If you’re not sure that your sprayer can draw from the clean water tank and push through the booms (the wash-down nozzles are, after all, the intended destination for that water), decipher your system and add the necessary valves that make this possible.

    A useful design that helps flush and prime a boom quickly is the recirculating boom offered by some aftermarket boom manufacturers. These booms are also more common on European sprayers. A nice feature of such designs is that the tank contents can be pumped through the entire boom assembly without actually spraying. This ensures that the boom is primed without any soil contamination. It also dilutes whatever residue there may be in the boom plumbing with the entire tank, likely reducing its concentration enough to be of little concern.

    An additional feature of recirculating booms is that many offer stainless steel tubing throughout most of their feed and return length, minimizing the black rubber hose products that often adsorb, and later release, herbicide contamination.

    Even if a wholesale boom or sprayer change is impractical, consider switching to steel boom lines and tanks tank to minimize residue carryover.

    As is often the case in the spraying business, prevention is easier and less costly than solving a big problem later. Spray mix storage is one of those examples where a small amount of extra effort at the beginning can pay big dividends later.

  • Should Backpack Sprayers be Used to Test Airblast Products? – Part 2

    Should Backpack Sprayers be Used to Test Airblast Products? – Part 2

    In Part One of this article, we showed that approximately 40% of minor use label expansions and registrant submissions rely on data from hand booms and guns. We also showed that a hydraulic backpack or knapsack will not give the same coverage as an airblast sprayer, and we concluded by suggesting that small plot researchers use spray equipment that reflects grower practices.

    Unfortunately, practical logistics prevent most researchers from using a full-size airblast sprayer. They may not have access to such a sprayer, and if they do, it takes considerable time to mix and clean between treatments. Further, treatments are often only a single row, or even a single plant. It takes too much pesticide, too much time, and too much plot space to justify using a full-sized airblast sprayer, even if the relevance of the results are questionable.

    Would another method of application better emulate an airblast application but retain the convenience of a hand boom or gun?

    The motorized backpack mistblower

    Using the same methods used to compare airblast to hand boom spray coverage in the previous article, we compared airblast sprayer coverage to that of a motorized backpack mistblower in grape, raspberry and peach (July, 2013). Once again, coverage was analyzed as overall percent coverage (see first graph) and droplet density (average droplets per square centimeter – see second graph).

    Comparison of average % coverage in peach, raspberry and grape using a mistblower and air blast sprayer emitting he same volume
    Comparison of droplets per square centimetre in peach, raspberry and grape using a mistblower and air blast sprayer emitting the same volume

    Results and Observations

    The mistblower met, or in the case of droplet density, exceeded the coverage obtained using an air blast sprayer in most crops. The results led to a few observations:

    • The significantly-higher droplet density is a function of the Finer spray quality produced by the mistblower (see water sensitive papers below). This may still represent a confound between small plot work and large scale airblast applications.
    • Drift between proximal treatments may be an issue given how far the mist was blown. This should be considered when planning plots.
    • While not shown here, spray coverage was more consistent throughout each canopy, of each crop, when using the mistblower. This is likely because the operator was able to aim the output as they swept the spray over the canopy, thereby ensuring all surfaces were hit from multiple angles.
    • While we always try to be brand-neutral, it should be noted that we’ve used multiple Solo mistblowers over the years, and all of them required significant maintenance (no matter how they were cleaned and stored). It was very difficult to find brand parts and repair expertise in Ontario. The Stihl brand currently has far more dealers, and more accessible parts, and has not caused us any difficulties (yet).
    • Always use the highest grade gasoline in two-stroke engines to avoid ethanol gumming up the carburetors!
    • Always calibrate mistblowers by volume because raising and lowering the boom will affect the flow rate.

    Conclusion

    Hand booms, and likely hand guns, are not appropriate for testing agrichemical products intended for use with an airblast sprayer. Data derived from these methods should be questioned. An airblast sprayer is the best choice for any such research, but a mistblower is a viable alternative. Transparent, standardized operating protocols for testing products intended for use in airblast sprayers should be required.

    Thanks to Vaughan Agricultural Research Services Ltd. for their assistance in the research performed for this article.

  • Should Backpack Sprayers be Used to Test Airblast Products? – Part 1

    Should Backpack Sprayers be Used to Test Airblast Products? – Part 1

    Peer-reviewed journal publications claim there is a significant difference in spray coverage and deposition patterns when an agrichemical product is applied using an airblast sprayer versus a hydraulic hand boom. An airblast sprayer creates Fine droplets that shear in entraining air and are carried into a plant canopy. Properly calibrated, the air opens the canopy to expose all target surfaces to the spray. By comparison, a hand boom relies on pressure to propel fine droplets into a canopy, and while there is some air-entrainment surrounding the spray, it cannot travel as far or displace as much canopy. As a result, most of it impacts on the outer surfaces of the canopy.

    Knowing this, it is surprising that so many products intended for use with airblast sprayers are applied by researchers and consultants using hand booms or the high-pressure arborist-style handgun (see ‘Survey of Submissions’).

    Survey of Submissions
    This graph represents a random selection of 150 minor use label expansion studies and registrant submissions from Canada and the USA spanning 1990 to 2011. It shows the application method by crop.

    In 2012, we performed some research with the following goals:

    • To demonstrate the difference between spray deposition and coverage when using a hand boom versus an airblast sprayer.
    • To create a sound basis for questioning and potentially improving how agrichemical products for orchard, bush, and vine are tested in Canada.

    Using water-sensitive paper to diagnose spray coverage, airblast sprayer application was compared to hand boom application in highbush blueberry, apple and grape.

    Target locations in highbush blueberry.
    Target locations in apple.
    Target locations in grape panel.

    Sprayers were calibrated to emit the same volume per planted area via hollow-cone nozzles. Volumes selected were based on typical application volumes for Pristine or Captan (commonly sprayed in Canada). While there is no standardized protocol (and there should be) we followed typical practices of 500L/ha for grapes, blueberry and apples until plant growth warrants higher carrier volumes. At that point, many researchers go up to 1,000 L/ha. Coverage was quantified by collecting and digitally scanning water-sensitive papers to calculate overall percent coverage (see graph) and droplet density (average droplets per square centimeter – see graph).

    Overall percent coverage
    Droplet density

    Conclusion

    In all cases, airblast applications deposit > %50 more spray than a hand boom. In the case of grape, you’ll note there are three bars. This is because spraying 1,000 L/ha with the airblast sprayer drenched the targets (it was late in the season and the canopy was sparse), making it impossible to discern droplet density. When we reduced the output to  375 L/ha, we were able to register droplet density, which was still significantly higher than that produced by the hand boom at 1,000 L/ha. This raises significant questions about the validity of efficacy and residue studies performed with hand booms when growers apply the same products using airblast sprayers.

    When this data was shared at extension conferences, it was sometimes noted that many researchers choose to spray the target until it is drenched, ensuring the dose administered to the crop reflects what was intended. This does not, however, invalidate the fact that a growers spray equipment and practices are significantly different, and the dose and spray distribution they achieve will not reflect the original research.

    The recommendation is that researchers use the same equipment to test products as the growers use to apply them. But, recognizing the difficulties associated with performing small plot experiments with full-sized airblast sprayers, an alternative is needed. That topic will be addressed in part two of this article.

    Horticultural Crops Ontario, the grower co-operators and former OMAFRA summer student Carly Decker are gratefully acknowledged for making this research possible.