Category: Tables & Apps

Calculators, tables and applications

The Ultimate Sprayer Calibration and Unit Conversion Tool
Canada, like most of the world, is officially Metric. America operates using the US Imperial system. It sounds very cut and dried, doesn’t it?
However, anyone that’s tried to calibrate a sprayer in Canada quickly discovers that we’re really an amalgam of the two systems. We like to call it “Mock-tric“. By way of evidence, some operators still adhere to the dreaded L/ac. You know who you are. To be fair, some of our sprayers and nozzles originate from the states, meaning nozzle tables and rarely, sprayer indicators, can be in US Imperial.
This leads to mind-bending questions such as:
I drive 12 mph, spraying 150 L/ha and my pressure is about 40 psi. How many ml/min should my 72 nozzles emit for a product that wants a 6 oz/acre acid equivalent?
Cue the quiet sobbing…
Frustrated back in 2017, we created a set of conversion tables to help operators with almost any Imperial/Metric emergency. Admittedly, they were in 4-point font and therefore too cumbersome for practical use. We’ll keep one here for posterity.
The good old days of “look-up tables”. RIP.
Happily time has marched on and we now have a better way. Explore our new Sprayer Calibration and Unit Conversion Tool, below. While it doesn’t do it all, it certainly does a lot! You can:
- Convert between common (and some uncommon) agriculturally-relevant units.
- Calibrate a field sprayer for both broad acre or banded applications.
- Calibrate an airblast sprayer for almost every traffic pattern and swath width.
- Calibrate a plot sprayer, either for a handheld boom (any number of nozzles) or for a backpack sprayer mist/wand in 3D rows.
- Calibrate a fogger for common closed environment structures
To use this suite of calculators correctly, the user needs some agronomic understanding of what these variables mean and how to obtain them. In order to provide context, and reduce the friction, we’ve added a link to relevant articles at the top of each calculator.
Grab an offline version here, or try it out below. We’ve tried to validate every path, but if you find a bug, please let us know. Once you know your calibration settings, go here to determine how much goes in the sprayer tank.
September 4, 2026

Increase Sprayer Productivity Without Driving Faster

Timing trumps most things in crop protection. A great spray applied at the wrong time isn’t nearly as valuable as a mediocre spray at the right time. So how do we improve our ability to get things done at the right time?

Often, we try to win races by driving faster. In our last article, we looked at driving speed and concluded that faster speeds can lead to more drift and less uniform deposition. Driving slower can be viewed as a sort of insurance policy: You may not notice the benefits right away, but on days when that extra bit of performance is required, you’re covered.

So how do you get the job done quickly if you can’t drive faster? To answer, we have to look to other opportunities for boosting productivity.

Recently, we used our and tried to capture all the elements of a normal spray operation that affect timeliness. These were:

travel speed
boom width
tank size
water volume
field length
number of headlands
turning speed
fill time

First, we identified a reasonable base condition. For the sprayer, that was a travel speed of 14 mph, a 90’ boom, an 800 gal tank, a 10 gpa water volume, and a 20 minute fill time. Then, we set up a typical field situation, which was spraying a half-mile run on a quarter with two sprayed headlands and a turning speed of 8 mph. Finally, we changed one factor at a time to determine its relative importance.

Before we discuss the results, let’s make it clear that just because changing some of these factors improves productivity doesn’t mean we’re recommending them! For example, adequate water volume remains an important input that improves coverage and permits the use of low-drift sprays. Larger tanks increase compaction and take more power, and so forth.

Here’s what we found:

All productivity values were expressed as acres per engine hour. For this reason, our numbers will be lower than what a typical sprayer monitor reports, most of which calculate acres per spraying hour.

For the base condition, the sprayer spent 15% of its driving time turning, and 37% of its on-field time stationary (i.e. filling or cleaning). For every hour spent on the field, less than half the time (48%) was spent spraying. This resulted in an average productivity of 82 acres/h.

Increasing the spray speed to 18 mph increased average productivity to 93 acres/h, but it also increased the proportion of time spent turning and loading, resulting in just 40% of the field time spent spraying.

Decreasing the loading time from 20 to 10 minutes reduced the proportion of field time spent stationary to 23%, covering 100 acres/h at 14 mph. Surprisingly, this was the productivity-winner, resuling in 62% of on-field time spraying.

We discovered other powerful productivity factors, and chief among them was boom width. A 33% increase in boom width from 90’ to 120’ gave a productivity boost to 94 acres/h, close to the same result as increasing the travel speed to 18 mph earlier. Similar side effects occurred: more time turning, and a greater proportion of time filling, as we saw with faster travel speeds.

Boom width seems to have some room for growth. Many smaller European counties use wider booms than we do in North America, for example. With gps guidance and large fields, we have excellent conditions for their implementation.

Two other factors that had similar effects to fill time were water volume and tank size. Less water and larger tanks increased productivity by decreasing the fill frequency, with effects similar in magnitude to speeding up the fill time. Decreasing the water volume from 10 to 5 gpa increased productivity to 100 acres/h by decreasing the proportion of time the sprayer was stopped from 37% to 23%. Increasing from an 800 to a 1,200 gallon tank increased productivity to 94 acres/h, again by decreasing the proportion of time spent filling to 28%.

Taken together, a sprayer with a 120’ boom, a 1,200 gal tank, applying 10 gpa and filling in 10 min had an average productivity of 132 acres/h. And this was achieved without driving faster than 14 mph. If you can string two quarters together and drive a whole mile before turning, that number rises to 145 acres/h, a surprisingly large 13 acres/h gain.

The perspective of minimizing downtime extends to other tasks, too:

Be more prepared for the job by reviewing the product label in advance, noting the correct mixing order.
Keep extra nozzles, clamps, and nozzle bodies in the cab.
Don’t clean plugged nozzles, replace them.
Use low-drift nozzles so a small increase in wind doesn’t shut you down.
Ensure all the products needed are on the tender truck (e.g. pesticide, adjuvant, tank cleaner, anti-foamer, etc.).
Consider switching to 3” plumbing (pump rates of 300 – 400 gpm are possible).
Make sure your inductor won’t be the limiting factor. For example, product pumps can be awfully slow when the product is cold. It might be worthwhile to explore a venturi system.

Speeding up the fill process is a good idea, but be careful with certain products. Dry materials such as the sulfonyl ureas (e.g. Refine, Express SG, etc.) and some fungicides (e.g. Astound, etc.) require time to hydrate in water so they mix properly. Some operators pre-hydrate these in a smaller tank, while others get an extra tank to pre-mix whole loads and simply transfer them over.

Also think about the time spent cleaning the sprayer. Thoroughness is important, but perhaps there are efficiencies to be gained there as well, like never letting a sprayer sit after spraying. We’ve written about continuous rinsing, for example, to improve cleaning speed and effectiveness.

So, the quicker we can spray, while ensuring a quality job, the more effective our crop protection practices will be. We encourage you to use our to determine your best configuration.

Got a productivity tips to share? Let us know! And remember: In spraying, the race is won in the pits.

Factor	Base	Drive Faster	Fill Faster	Spray Wider	Less Water	Bigger Tank	New Sprayer
Travel Speed	14 mph	18 mph	14 mph	14 mph	14 mph	14 mph	14 mph
Fill time	20 min	20 min	10 min	20 min	20 min	20 min	10 min
Boom Width	90 ft	90 ft	90 ft	120 ft	90 ft	90 ft	120 ft
Water Volume	10 gpa	10 gpa	10 gpa	10 gpa	5 gpa	10 gpa	10 gpa
Tank Size	800 gal	800 gal	800 gal	800 gal	800 gal	1200 gal	1200 gal
Field Length	0.5 mile	0.5 mile	0.5 mile	0.5 mile	0.5 mile	0.5 mile	0.5 mile

Time Turning	15%	19%	15%	20%	15%	15%	20%
Time Loading	37%	42%	23%	42%	23%	28%	19%
Time Spraying	48%	39%	62%	38%	62%	57%	61%
Acres/h	82	93	100	94	100	94	132

To work with the productivity calculator, click here.

August 20, 2026

Evaluating the return on investment of optical sprayers for horticulture
Investing in an optical sprayer for horticulture is not a straightforward financial decision. Compared with a conventional boom sprayer, the upfront capital cost is substantially higher, often by an order of magnitude, and most commercial systems require an annual software or service subscription to operate. Despite these barriers, adoption is accelerating, and many growers who have made the investment report very positive outcomes.
To help clarify when and where this technology makes financial sense, I developed a calculator to estimate the return on investment (ROI) of optical sprayers under a range of production scenarios. The goal of this tool is not to promote the technology, but to provide growers and advisors with a structured way to evaluate whether it fits their specific operation.
Note: This calculator was designed for onion and carrot production in Ontario, Canada. Model parameters can easily be adjusted reflect other production systems. However, if you need assistance making these changes you can contact me by email.
New versions may be uploaded as the calculator evolves through experience and based on user feedback, so check back. You can download Version 1.1 (April, 2026), HERE.
How to use the calculator
At first glance, the calculator may appear overwhelming because it requires a fair amount of information to be entered. This is the minimum data required to reflect real-world conditions while avoiding an oversimplification that could lead to misleading conclusions. Cells shaded in yellow are meant for user input. All other values are calculated automatically based on those inputs.
For convenience, the calculator is pre-filled with generic values derived from grower discussions and informal benchmarks. These default numbers are meant only as placeholders and to provide general reference. They are not sufficiently accurate on their own to support financial decisions.
Users should replace all default values with operation-specific data whenever possible. As with any economic model, the quality of the output depends entirely on the quality of the inputs.
The calculator is organized into three spreadsheets (see tabs at bottom).
1. Introduction
This tab provides general instructions and contact information. No data entry is required.
2. Sections Explained
This is a reference tab that explains each section of the calculator in detail. It is intended to help users understand how different inputs affect the results and the intention of each section (small table) withing the sheet. No values should be entered here.
3. Calculation Sheet
This is the main working tab. All data entry occurs here. To prevent accidental changes that could break formulas, the sheet is protected. For most input fields, a brief explanation is provided immediately to the right of the cell. In the results section, short interpretations are often included, such as: “Decrease of 36% ($101,250/year) in hand-weeding cost with optical sprayer.” Within this tab, scenario tables are also provided. These tables are designed to illustrate how different acreages of the two crops analyzed affect each of the calculated financial indicators.
Insights from scenario testing
Even using rough approximations, several consistent patterns emerge from adjusting the calculator inputs:
Herbicide savings alone rarely justify the investment
In high-value horticultural crops, herbicide costs are often a relatively small portion of total production costs compared with labor, equipment, and the overall value of the crop. In many cases, any reduction in herbicide expenditure is largely offset by increased tractor hours resulting from slower operating speeds and narrower effective spray widths typical of optical sprayers.
Labor savings can be decisive
When the technology results in meaningful reductions in hand-weeding, the financial impact can be substantial. This is especially true in crops such as onions, where hand-weeding is both costly and difficult to source reliably. In these situations, labour savings alone can drive a favorable ROI.
Yield protection may outweigh cost savings
Several growers report stand losses and weakening associated with herbicide phytotoxicity as a major production risk. By limiting spray exposure to crop plants, optical sprayers can significantly reduce or even eliminate this issue. In high-value systems, relatively small yield gains resulting from improved crop safety can translate into revenue increases large enough to justify the technology, even if other savings are modest.
Scale matters
When evaluating advanced sprayer technologies, scale becomes a decisive factor. The high capital investment and ongoing service fees may be difficult to justify for small, and in some cases, even medium-sized operations.
What about herbicide resistance?
The long-term implications of optical sprayers for herbicide resistance management are still uncertain. Recent research from the University of Arkansas has raised concerns in field crop systems, suggesting that poorly optimized optical spraying can result in short term gains, but these can be outweighed over time by higher weed escape rates compared with broadcast applications. If these escapes are allowed to grow and set seed, rapid seedbank replenishment and accelerated resistance development may occur.
This highlights an important limitation of short-term ROI calculations. A single-year economic benefit may look attractive, but if the system allows even a small number of weeds to consistently escape and reproduce, the long-term consequences can be severe.
On the other hand, optical sprayers may eventually enable new resistance-management strategies. It is possible that new active ingredients, higher labelled rates, or novel use patterns could be registered specifically for targeted spraying in horticultural crops that would not be feasible with broadcast applications. Such developments could significantly improve resistance management tools. As always, it is essential to remember that the label is the law: only registered products and rates may be used, regardless of perceived crop safety.
ROI implications beyond herbicide spraying
Optical sprayers can deliver value beyond herbicide applications, even though weed control is their primary use. These additional uses may improve overall ROI. However, because their economic impact is still difficult to quantify, they have not been included in the calculator.
Depending on the model, additional value-generating capabilities can include:
- Creation of weed maps: Some systems can generate weed maps automatically while spraying, at no additional operational cost. These maps can support future management decisions.
- Application of fertilizers and other pesticides: Although optimized for herbicides, optical sprayers may also be used to apply other inputs, such as fertilizers or non-herbicide pesticides.
- Crop thinning: Certain manufacturers have developed algorithms for automated crop thinning, particularly in crops like lettuce.
Conclusion
Even using approximate inputs, it is clear why optical sprayer adoption is expanding rapidly in Canada.
- For medium to large-scale operations, the ROI can be highly attractive, and the range of potential benefits continues to grow.
- As the technology matures, more equipment options are emerging to serve a wider diversity of crops and farm sizes.
- Manufacturers are introducing wider and more flexible platforms, and Ontario-based companies are actively developing alternative machines and service-based business models that may better suit smaller operations.
It is difficult to argue that optical spraying is a passing trend. While it’s not a universal solution and must be implemented carefully, the technology is clearly here to stay. It will reshape weed management and production economics over the long term.
January 16, 2026
Airblast Productivity and Work Rate Calculator
There are many factors that affect the work rate of an airblast application. If an operator can improve their work rate, without compromising spray efficacy or safety, they improve operational efficiency and save money.
But how does each variable factor in? Is it worth the cost of a tender truck and operator to fill more efficiently? Should you upgrade to a multi-row sprayer? Should your next planting have longer rows? We have a simple calculator that can help you make these decisions. You can build and compare multiple scenarios to explore the relative impact of small changes to your typical spray program. We recommend making only one change for each scenario so you can better understand the results. Print the comparison page for your records.
Whether you’re a sprayer operator, or a manager of sprayer operators, this exercise will help you see your spray program in a whole new light. Download a copy of the Airblast Budget and Work Rate Calculator and explore your productivity. You must have Excel to run the spreadsheet, and you must permit the use of macros (you’ll be prompted to accept).
Spoiler: It’s amazing how changes to travel speed have only a marginal impact on work rate. Often less than 60% of the total spray job is spent actually spraying!
If you’d like to see just how productive you can be, check out this rare (possibly unique) sprayer from Ed Oxley Farms in Michigan. Built on an OXBO 7550, this sprayer is the fourth iteration of a concept developed over the last 20 years by Ed Oxley Farms and ag engineers from Michigan State University.
Capable of spraying five rows at a time, this self-propelled beast is a hybrid wrap-around and targeting-tower system that uses CurTec spray heads equipped with tangential fans and wire-mesh basket rotary atomizers.
That’s not dribbling – that’s purging the boom prior to spraying.
It sprays a mere 150 L/ha (~ 15 gallons/acre) at a ripping 13 km/h (~8 mph), as seen on the Ag Leader monitor below.
When row spacing and turn time are accounted for, that means it’s capable of covering almost 15 hectares (~40 acres) per hour.
And, when not spraying grapes, the boom can be swapped to make it a high-clearance corn sprayer. It doesn’t get much more efficient than this.
The following videos will show the view from inside and outside the cab. Note that the row that’s straddled is sprayed from an overhead spray head mounted to the centre rack behind the sprayer. The two adjacent rows are covered from one side from vertical spray heads mounted on the chassis. Finally, the boom holds two more overhead spray heads for the outer-most rows.

Ideally, the boom-mounted spray heads would be suspended vertically inside the row, but it makes for such a wide turn radius that it would take too long to turn… assuming there was enough headland to allow it. They’re also swept-back to minimize the turn radius and reduce the amount of airborne spray that deposits on the sprayer itself.
A clever design that makes a few compromises to ideal coverage in order to improve productivity. The balance works for them and this sprayer might be a sign of things to come in horticultural crop production systems. Want to see how your sprayer stacks up? Download the calculator and see where you might be able to make improvements.
August 12, 2024
Mode of Action and Spray Quality
The decision on which application method is best for herbicides boils down to two main factors: (a) target type and (b) mode of action. In general, it’s easier for sprays to stick to broadleaf plants on account of their comparatively larger leaf size and better wettability compared to grassy plants. There are exceptions, of course – at the cotyledon stage, broadleaf plants can be very small and a finer spray with tighter droplet spacing may be needed. Water sensitive paper is a very useful tool to make that assessment. Imagine if a tiny cotyledon could fit between deposits – that could be a miss!
Some weeds are also more difficult to wet, and those may also need a finer spray or a better surfactant for proper leaf contact. An easy test is to apply plain water to the leaf with a spray bottle. If the water beads off or the droplets remain perched on top in discrete spheres, the surface is considered hard to wet. Most grassy weeds are hard to wet, while most broadleaf weeds are easy to wet.
Grassy weeds are an especially difficult target because they have smaller, more vertically oriented leaves, and almost without exception are more difficult to wet than broadleaf species. All these factors call for finer sprays for effective targeting and spray retention.
Broadleaf weeds usually have more horizontally oriented leaves which also happen to be larger. As a result, they can intercept larger droplets quite efficiently.
There are about thirty mode of action (MOA) groups among the herbicides with about ten accounting for the majority in Canadian prairie agriculture. It’s probably an over-simplification to categorize them into just two groups – systemic and contact. But that grouping goes a long way to making an application decision.
Contact products (MOA Group 5, 6, 10, 14, 22, 27) must form a deposit that provides good coverage. Good coverage is an ambiguous term that basically means that droplets need to be closely spaced and cover a significant proportion of the surface area because their physiological effects occur under the droplet, and don’t spread far from there. One way to generate more droplets is to reduce droplet diameter, another is to add more water. A reasonable combination of both is ideal because simply making droplets smaller creates issues with evaporation and drift.
Systemic products (MOA Group 1, 2, 4, 9) will translocate within the plant to their site of action after uptake. As a result, coverage is less important as long as sufficient dose is presented to the plant. In practice, this means coarser sprays and/or less water may be acceptable.
When two factors are combined, either in a tank mix or a weed spectrum, the more limiting factor rules. Application of a tank mix or product that is active on both broadleaf and grass plants will be governed by the limitation placed on grass targets. A tank mix comprised of both systemic and contact products is governed by the limitations placed on contact products.
A factor we should also consider is soil activity and the presence of residue. Studies have shown that soil-active products are relatively insensitive to droplet size. But if they have to travel through a layer of trash to get to the soil surface, more application volume is the best tool.
Below are some recommended spray qualities and water volumes for use in Canada. The spray qualities listed in the table can be matched to a specific nozzle by referring to nozzle manufacturer catalogues, websites, or apps. Note that Wilger also offers traditional VMD measurements on their site, allowing users to be a bit more specific if necessary.
Click here to download PDF
February 9, 2023