Author: Jason Deveau

Airblast Sprayers for Small Operations
Did you come here looking for advice on which sprayer is best for your small operation? Are you looking to ditch the backpack mist blower? Do you want to avoid repeatedly mounting and dismounting a 3-pt hitch sprayer from your only tractor? Are you concerned you’ll have to sell an organ to be able to afford one? We hear you, and we’ll try to help. Let’s set the stage with a few facts.
Airblast sprayers stay in service for a long time; more than twenty five years is not unheard of. The majority of them are the generalist, PTO-driven low profile radial design with capacities ranging 150 to 1,200 gallons. Typical fan diameters are around 30″ and can produce >40,000 m³/h of air, making them a good fit for most pomme, citrus and tender fruit canopies. These sprayers come with a horsepower price tag of perhaps 45 hp or more. Many of these sprayers eventually enter the used sprayer market, making them an affordable option for small acreage specialty operations. But, affordability should not be the sole motivation when choosing a sprayer.
Ontario, c.1980 and probably still out there spraying somewhere!
The key to optimizing sprayer performance is to match the air settings to the the canopy you’re trying to spray. You can start reading about the process here. In the case of small and medium-sized canopies like vine, cane and bush crops, the fleet of gently-used sprayers we just described tend to produce too much air. There are options to improve the fit, like driving faster to reduce dwell time, or perhaps the operator can employ the Gear-up Throttle-down method. But, the best plan is to employ a smaller sprayer, which produces a more appropriate air volume, has a smaller profile, delivers better fuel efficiency and won’t break the bank.
So, where are these sprayers? Unfortunately there aren’t many, and options are especially limited if you don’t own a tractor to power them.
The budget-conscious grower may be tempted to buy a sprayer that does not have air-assist. We do not recommend this. Air is a critical component for spraying canopies consistently and efficiently. Caveat Emptor!
We encountered a good solution in June, 2014, when we were invited to Durocher Farm in New Hampshire to see their new airblast sprayer. In years previous, spotted-wing drosophila (SWD) was a significant pest in this two acre, high bush blueberry planting. They claimed that since buying their new sprayer they no longer had any trouble with SWD. That’s quite an endorsement!
The Carrarospray ATVM (200 L option pictured)
I’m not sure what I expected, but I was captivated by this miniature orchard sprayer. The toy-like size carried a zero-intimidation factor and I immediately wanted to start using it. Italian-made, Carrarospray’s hobby line is designed to be pulled behind vehicles without PTO. The ATVM is available in capacities from 120-400 L. The one I saw had a 400 L capacity, adjustable air deflectors, a fan speed gear box, and it was powered by a quiet and efficient pull-start Briggs & Stratton four-stroke engine. It even had a trash guard, a kick-stand and a clean water tank for hand washing. That’s a lot of features.
Thanks to Kitt Plummer (Durocher Farm), Penn State, Univ. New Hampshire and Chazzbo Media for filming these 2014 videos:
The sprayer was pulled (in this case) by a mower, so the grower not only sprayed, but mowed his alleys at the same time. It fit beautifully between the bushes, so the potential for physical damage to the berries was minimized. The air speed and volume was enough to displace the air in the blueberry canopy and replace it with spray-laden air with minimal blow-through. Combined with an appropriate spray volume and distribution over the boom, we found that the coverage it provided was excellent.
Coverage from the top-centre of the bush.
Since seeing this sprayer, we have had reports that importing it to Canada has proved challenging. But there are alternatives. A few companies here in North America offer economy-sized airblast models that are ATV trailed, or skid-mounted, or attached to a small tractor via a three point hitch. PBM’s Lil Squirt is a simple and versatile option. Available primarily in the western US from California through to Washington.
PBM’s trailed Lil Squirt (Image from their website)
Another option is the mounted, PTO-driven mistblower line from Big John Manufacturing in Nebraska.
BJ 3PT mistblower from Big John Manufacturing (Image from their website)
Or MM Sprayer‘s ATV sprayers, which come PTO or Engine-driven. The LG400 has a 106 gallon tank and a 20″ fan. I’d like to see deflectors, but you could easily add them. Here’s a 2024 pdf on features.
Picture of the LG400 engine-driven model from www.mmsprayers.usa
Or Wisconsin’s Contree Sprayer and Equipment. They carry the “Terminator” line. Skid mounted, one-sided air shear units with capacities from 15 to 100 gallons, this company offers a range of possibilities both PTO and gas-driven. Well worth a look.
The “Terminator” skid-mounted mist blower from Contree Sprayer and Equipment (Image from their website)
Then there’s the A1 Mist sprayer series, also out of Nebraska. They carry the Terminator line as well as an interesting two-sided volute option that employs conventional nozzles and allows one pass down an alley rather than two. This is a big productivity booster:
A1’s two-way volute header. (Image from website)
A1’s PTO-driven 60 gallon, skid-mounted “Terminator”. (Image from website).
Then there are larger, PTO-driven, three-point hitch options. In fact, there are many options for this manner of sprayer, but they tend to be out of the price range for small operations, and they do require a tractor. That isn’t a deal-breaker, though, as they can sometimes be found used. Pictured below is British Columbia’s Major 193 (Slimline Manufacturing) and a Brazilian-made option (Jacto) distributed out of Quebec.
Slimline Manufacturing (aka Turbomist) makes the Major 19P 3-pt hitch tower sprayer (PTO-driven)
Jacto’s Arbus 200 3-pt hitch airblast sprayer (PTO-driven)
When considering your options, give serious thought to your work rate, refill time and other factors that go into developing a robust spraying strategy. What’s a spraying strategy? That’s a farm’s overall management and operational plan for achieving safe, effective and efficient spray coverage. You can read more in chapter 8 of Airblast101, which you can download for free, here. And, just to play Devil’s Advocate, go small but not so small that the sprayer is underpowered.
We staged this video in 2011 (spraying only water, so don’t mind the lack of PPE) to show how a sprayer can be too small for an operation. This 3-pt hitch GB cannot overcome the cross wind and the spray barely reaches the apple trees. Reducing travel speed and increasing pressure won’t cut it, either.
Of course, other possibilities are emerging for crop protection in small acreage perennial crops. Multirotor drones are capable of delivering air-assisted spray from above the canopy. While it’s still a drift-prone and inconsistent means for broadcast spraying, it might lend itself to perennial row crops. Equipment design is evolving quickly and global research is underway to establish best practices. As regulators and agrichemical companies focus more on this method we may see drones as a cheap alternative to a tractor/airblast sprayer, with no compaction, no mechanical damage to fruit/berries, and no potential for splashing infection throughout an operations.
DJI’s Agras T30
Even further into the future, small autonomous sprayers may be viable, too. Very much in their early days there is great potential. One example is the XAG Revospray Ground 2 with it’s 150L capacity or the R150 with it’s 100 L capacity.
The R150 – Image from https://hse-uav.com/. Modular system and ~32K USD (as of 2023)… if you can find one.
It’s early days, but there are researchers looking at the spray pattern from these units. The image below may not be a fair indication because the nozzle used may not have produced as wide a swath as possible. Thanks to Dr. M. Reinke for the image.
A test pass using food grade dye. You can see the waveform created by the two spray heads as they move up and down during travel.
And recently, small autonomous platforms have become more common. Perhaps there’s an opportunity to place a gas powered sprayer on these platforms, or use them to pull a hitch-style sprayer. One such possibility is created by the Burro, shown below at the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Convention in 2024.
The Burro autonomous platform.
Are you aware of a sprayer that’s not in this article? Let us know! Good luck and make sure you have only slightly more “sprayer” than you need.
February 14, 2023

Evaluating Methods for Controlling Algae in Carrier Water Storage Tanks

This work was performed with Mike Cowbrough, OMAFA Field Crop Weed Specialist.

In the early summer months, many field and specialty crop operations collect rainwater (or possibly pump water from holding ponds) into storage tanks for use as a carrier in spray applications. These tanks may be stationary, or they may be part of a nurse or tender truck that delivers both water and chemistry to the field as a means of improving operational efficiency.

Poly tanks. Source: Purdue Extension publication PPP-77 “Poly Tanks for Farms and Businesses“.

In the case of translucent poly tanks, which are commonly used because of their light weight, custom shape, and low price point, light exposure will grow algae. Algal populations multiply exponentially and will clog spray filters and negatively affect filling. In response, growers use home-grown algicides such as copper sulfate, lengths of copper pipe, household bleach, chlorine, bromine, etc. They do so with little or no guidance and therefore little or no consistency. Beyond the obvious questions surrounding efficacy, it is unknown whether these adjuncts create physical or chemical incompatibilities in the tank mix. If so, there is the potential for reduced efficacy and/or crop damage.

We tested popular methods for algae control by inoculating a series of 10 L translucent plastic jugs with an algal population sourced from a southern Ontario holding pond. The population was left to acclimate and generally establish itself (aka colonize) before we introduced some form of control. Each jug was then gently stirred and emptied through a sieve for qualitative assessment.

In a parallel experiment, we introduced the same algicides to fill water and conducted spray trials. 10 L volumes were mixed with a field rate of glyphosate and sprayed on RR soybeans. Weed control was assessed and soybean yield measured for each treatment.

Algicide Efficacy Experiment

In each treatment, tap water was mixed with a micronutrient growth media (from the Canadian Phycological Culture Centre at the University of Waterloo). This was an unsterilized 10% WC(ed) solution intended to provide micronutrients for algal growth while minimizing fungal and bacterial growth.

The source algae were collected from the bottom of a holding pond from a farm in Guelph, Ontario. Algae were homogenized and equal parts added to each jug. The jugs were former 10 L pesticide containers thoroughly rinsed and sprayed with Five Star’s “Star San” non-rinse sterilizer. Tank solutions were gently bubbled (one bubble every 10-15 seconds) with air from an aquarium pump. Air was balanced using a manifold and introduced via diffusion stones at the bottom of each jug.

Algae sourced from a farm’s holding pond near Guelph, Ontario. Algae was homogenized before inoculating treatment jugs with equal parts.

Treatments

Each treatment was tap water plus growth media inoculated with algae and exposed to a natural diurnal/nocturnal cycle unless otherwise indicated.

Control (no algicide)
Left in a shaded area (no direct sunlight)
Household bleach (approximately 5.25% sodium hypochlorite)
Container was spray-painted black to exclude light
Ammonia
“Scotch Bright” copper-coated scour pad. (copper is often introduced as copper sulfate at 1 cup / 1,000 US gal. or a short length of copper pipe)
Bromine (sourced from a local pool supply store)

Treatment Number	Treatment Name	Rate (/US Gal.)	Rate (% v/v)	Rate (/10 L final volume)
1	Control (no algicide)
2	Shaded
3	*Household bleach	1/4 tsp	0.00033	3.3 mL
4	Black container
5	*Ammonia solution	1/4 tsp	0.00033	3.3 mL
6	Copper-coated scour pad
7	Bromine	1/32 ml	0.000004	0.04 g

Table 1. * Bleach and ammonia should never be added together as they produce toxic chloramine gas.

Method

On July 12, jugs were loaded with water and growth media and inoculated with algae. They were bubbled gently for one week to establish a stable algal colony. On July 19, algicides were added, or transferred to shade or black-out conditions. On August 31 (approximately six weeks later), jug contents were gently stirred and filtered through white cloth for qualitative assessment.

Building up algal population for each jug. Note air lines through lids for slow, intermittent bubbling. Algae was not moved to black container or to the shade until after the first week of acclimation.

Almost six weeks after algicide was added, jug contents were gently stirred and poured through white cloth to collect algae and establish how easily the liquid passed through.

Observations

The results of all seven treatments, plus photos of the copper-coated scour pad.

(1) Control. Liquid poured slowly through cloth. Algae was still alive and healthy. It formed some clumps but was not as thick as other treatments.

(2) Shaded. Liquid poured fast and easily through cloth. Was particulate in texture rather than clumpy or gelatinous. Very little mass and entirely brown, suggesting it was dead.

(3) Household bleach. Liquid poured easily through cloth until the clump of algae sitting at the bottom of the jug came out (i.e., most algae were not suspended). Thick mat of healthy-looking algae (note profile photo #3 below). Much greener and thicker than the control (1).

(4) Black container. Liquid poured fast and easily through cloth. Algae retained a little green coloration (more than the shaded condition (2)) but was particulate and not as healthy as the control (1). We intended for this treatment to exclude all light, but it was still able to enter at the bottom where the jug wasn’t completely painted. This may have kept the algae alive.

In an oversight, the jug was not completely painted. This left a source of light at the bottom edge that may have helped sustain algae.

(5) Ammonia. Very difficult to pour liquid through the cloth (note profile photo #5 below). The only condition where a mat of algae was floating at the top of the jug rather than settled at the bottom. It was healthy, green and thick.

(6) Copper. The most gelatinous of all conditions, the liquid took the longest to pass through the cloth filter. While the algae seemed brown and dead, the gel would be very problematic during sprayer filling and spraying. Note that the copper scouring pad (shown unrinsed) has nothing growing on it.

(7) Bromine. Like the household bleach condition, liquid poured easily until the healthy mat of algae at the bottom of the jug came out (i.e., most algae were not suspended). Note profile photo #7 below.

Profile shots of treatment 3 (Bleach), 5 (Ammonia), and 7 (Bromine).

Spray Efficacy Experiment

Ideally, adjuncts added to carrier water are inert. That means they don’t reduce a herbicide’s effectiveness on susceptible weeds or increase crop injury. For example, hypochlorite (found in bleach and in chlorinated water) reduces the biological effectiveness of low concentrations of isoxaflutole (the active ingredient in herbicides such as Converge and Corvus). However, when added to higher, agriculturally-relevant concentrations, the reduction in efficacy wasn’t considered significant (Lin et al., 2003). Conversely, bromide has been added to certain herbicides to improve performance (Jeschke, 2009).

There’s precious little information about synergistic or antagonistic effects from adding bleach, ammonia, copper or bromine to herbicide carrier water. To learn more, we added each of these adjuncts to the standard rate of glyphosate (900 gae/ha – 0.67 L/ac). Using a CO₂-pressurized plot sprayer, the solution was applied to <10 cm tall weeds at 150 L/ha (15 g/ac) in glyphosate tolerant soybean at the 2nd trifoliate stage of growth (Elora Research Station, Ontario).

Visual crop injury was evaluated at 7 and 14 days after application. Weed efficacy was evaluated at 14 and 28 days after application. Soybeans yields were collected using a Wintersteiger plot combine and adjusted to a moisture content of 14%.

Weed Control

All treatments provided excellent control (>90%) of the weeds emerged at the time of application. Table 2 (below) presents the % visual control 28 days after application.

Carrier Treatment (glyphosate 540 g/L at 900 gae/ha or 0.67 L/ac)	Lamb’s-quarter	Green pigweed	Witch grass	Green foxtail
1) Control	0	0	0	0
2) Shaded	100	100	100	100
3) Household bleach	100	100	100	100
3a) Household bleach – added prior to mixing	95	97	100	100
4) Black container	100	100	100	100
5) Ammonia	100	100	100	100
6) Copper-coated scour pad	100	100	100	100
7) Bromine	100	100	100	100

Table 2. Visual control of lamb’s-quarter, green pigweed, witch grass and green pigweed at 28 days after the application of glyphosate 540 g/L at 900 gae/ha mixed with various carrier treatments intended to prevent algae growth. Treatment numbers correspond with the soybean injury and yield image below.

Soybean Injury and Yield

There was no noticeable crop injury from any treatment (figure below) and yields were not significantly different from the control treatment (Table 3). However, when bleach was added prior to mixing, we did observe a trend in reduced soybean yield. We’re unable to explain this observation, but suggest it may be an unrelated issue (such as field variability). There were no obvious signs of crop injury, and the treatment provided excellent weed control.

Photographs of each plot 14 days after application. The number/letter in each inset image corresponds to treatments in Tables 2 and 3.

Carrier Treatment (glyphosate 540 g/L at 900 gae/ha or 0.67 L/ac)	Crop Injury (%)*	Avg. Yield (bu/ac)	Significance**
4) Black container	0	40.0	A
7) Bromine	0	39.6	A
2) Shaded	0	38.1	AB
3) Household bleach	0	37.6	AB
1) Control	0	37	ABC
5) Ammonia	0	36.9	ABC
6) Copper-coated scour pad	0	36.1	BC
3a) Household bleach – added prior to mixing	0	34.0	C

Table 3. Visual control of lamb’s-quarter, green pigweed, witch grass and green pigweed at 28 days after the application of glyphosate 540 g/L at 900 gae/ha mixed with various carrier treatments to prevent algae growth. *7 days after application. **Duncan’s multiple range test. Soybean yields that don’t share a letter in common are significantly different.

Discussion

We elected to use an extreme situation where a single application of algicide was applied to an established, healthy colony. It’s possible that regular applications of algicide in a volume of water with little or no algae could maintain that condition.

A treatment was considered effective if it slowed or halted algal growth, especially if it also degraded algal populations, causing them to become brown, thin, and/or particulate. Once in the spray tank, the shear forces created by circulation should disperse any dead or degraded algal masses, making it easier to pass them through filters and nozzles.

The shade treatment appeared to kill algae as well as cause degradation. Second place went to the black-out treatment, where some light was unfortunately allowed in. This would have continued to fuel photosynthesis in the unpainted portion at the bottom of the jug. Conversely, the black exterior likely raised temperatures above >20 °C, which depresses most algal growth and may have contributed to the degradation.

Copper appeared to kill the algae but also created a gel that would pose problems to filters. Unlikely to be bacterial, as copper is known to suppress bacterial growth, it could have been caused by diatoms; certain invasive species are known to form brown jelly-like material endearingly referred to as “brown snot” or “rock snot”. Alternately, and according to work by J. Rodrigues and R. Lagoa, alginate polysaccharide can form viscous aqueous dispersions (such as gels) in the presence of divalent cations (such as copper).

No treatment appeared to reduce herbicide efficacy or affect crop health. However, unexpectedly, the household bleach added prior to mixing may have reduced soybean yield. Given the limited number of replications and the single plot location, we suspect this was a field effect, unrelated to the treatment.

Take Home

Based on these results, a combination of shade and light-excluding materials (e.g. black paint) would be the ideal approach to algae control. It’s cheap, effective, and doesn’t require periodic management. Buying black tanks is a good choice, or you can paint them. What you should paint them with is a matter of debate and there’s a very good Twitter thread on the subject if you’re interested.

An Aside: Algae in Ponds and Dugouts

We didn’t test this, but the question has come up and the best we can do is share some long-standing farmer wisdom. Some have used Aquashade dye to absorb the photosynthetic wavelengths and reduce algae buildup. Reputedly it is moderately successful. Another option is adding aluminum sulfate to the pond, and with a lot of agitation it should clarify in about 48 hours. Still others have added a few square barley straw bales to the water and found it to work surprisingly well (possibly an allelopathic response). Tie a rope to them and float them in the pond.

Citations

Jeschke, Peter. 2009. The unique role of halogen substituents in the design of modern agrochemicals. Pest Manag Sci, 2010; 66: 10–27

Lin, C.H., Lerch, R.N., Garrett, H.E. and M.F. George. 2003. Degradation of Isoxaflutole (Balance) Herbicide by Hypochlorite in Tap Water. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 8011-8014

November 28, 2022

How to Spray Ginseng

This article was co-written with Dr. Sean Westerveld, Ontario Ginseng and Herb Specialist.

An effective ginseng protection program begins with observing the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) process:

diagnose the problem,
monitor the problem,
control the problem, and
monitor the results.

When spraying is warranted, the operator should understand the basics of application technology. This not only includes the equipment, but the effects of changing spraying parameters (such as pressure or carrier volume), the impact of weather conditions (such as wind and relative humidity) and the product being applied (such as correct timing and safety requirements). The operator should also understand how to properly maintain, calibrate and orient the sprayer according to the nature of the target. Finally, monitoring the results requires the operator to respond to changes in the environment and target during application and to consider these factors when evaluating the outcome.

The ginseng garden

This is a four-year old garden, which represents one of the largest, densest ginseng canopies an applicator can spray. The six-foot wide beds in this particular garden are higher than most beds, making sprayer/tractor clearance an issue. It also means the distance-to-target from boom to canopy is less in the middle of the bed than it is nearer the alleys, making it difficult to ensure consistent coverage. Sprayer operators typically drive in the same direction over each bed, “training” the plants to bend in the same direction each time the tractor passes over the surface. This practice, combined with fenders on the tractor wheels, helps to minimize physical damage as the sprayer passes.

In a four year old ginseng garden. Clearance is an issue. — Clearance is an issue in a four year old ginseng garden.

The sprayer

This custom-built sprayer is a fairly standard design for most ginseng operations: Eight nozzles on each wing and nine on the centre boom. Spacing varies but this sprayer is on 11 inch centres, with the outermost nozzles on five inch centres and aimed outward towards the adjacent beds. Given the limited boom height, all nozzles are aimed back about 45 degrees to increase the distance to target and allow for overlap. The angle is critical to prevent gaps in the spray swath, but given the recommended practice of limited overlap for hollow cone nozzles, the 11 inch spacing may be a little shorter than required.

Custom-made ginseng sprayer. A standard design. — Custom-made ginseng sprayer. A standard design in Ontario.

Spray coverage

There is no hard and fast rule for spraying ginseng. The crop can receive 30 or more applications a year, most of which are fungicide applications. Tip: Monitoring the small plants inside the canopy is a good indicator of overall garden health.

The following lists products available for use in Ontario at the time this article was published. The application target varies for each product, depending on the pest or disease the applicator wishes to control. As such, the application volume should reflect the location of the intended target. For example, a foliar-and-stem application should achieve consistent coverage of all leaf surfaces without incurring run-off. An application intended to reach the crown through the straw will require some run-off down the plant stem and should require a higher volume than a foliar-and-stem application. Many products will become immobilized if they dry onto the straw. Applications are best done to wet straw, followed by irrigation or rainfall to wash the product into the root zone. Applications for diseases like Rhizoctonia generally take place early in the season before the canopy closes, and higher volumes may not be required to achieve root coverage. In order to know how much is required for optimal coverage, read on.

Table 1 – Spray target and relative volume by pest

Pest	Application Target – Specific Product	Garden Age	Relative Volume
Alternaria and/or Botrytis	Foliar and Stem – all products	Seedling – 2nd year	Low
		3rd – 4th year	Moderate
Phytophthora Leaf Blight	Foliar and Stem – most products	Seedling	Low
		2nd-4th year	Moderate
	Foliar – Aiette and Phostrol	All	Low
Phytophthora Root Rot	Root – xylem-mobile root rot products	All	High
	Foliar – Aiette and Phostrol	All	Low
Phytophthora Leaf and Root	Root – xylem-mobile root rot products	All	High
	Foliar – Aiette and Phostrol	All	High
Cylindrocarpon	Root – all products	All	High
Rhizoctonia	Root – most products	All	High
	Root – Quadris	Seedling	High
Pythium	Root – all products	All	High
Aphids	Foliar and Stem/Berries – all products	All	Moderate
Cutworms	Stem – all products	All	Low
Four-Lined Plant Bug	Foliar – all products	All	Moderate
Leafrollers	Foliar and Stem – all products	All	Moderate
Root Lesion Nematodes	Root – all products	All	High

History of the ginseng boom in Ontario

Historically, ginseng sprayer operators used brass hollow cone nozzles to spray ginseng. For reasons that are unclear, many then adopted the Casotti-style sprayer, which used higher volumes and an oscillating nozzle assembly to create a larger swath. This was determined to be overkill for ginseng, and it produced inconsistent coverage.

Many growers (sadly, not all) switched back to horizontal booms and began using the Arag microjet assembly. Drop nozzles (aka drop arms, drop booms, drop legs, etc.) were positioned with disc-core hollow cone nozzles behind the wheels to direct spray into the canopy from below.

Later, we demonstrated that the microjet mixing valve was difficult to set accurately, creating outputs +/- 50% the optimal rate. In response, a new variation on the Arag microjet was introduced, with a more reliable rate adjustment and a lower price tag (they are imported from Italy by a single North American distributor). The drop nozzles are absolutely critical for under canopy coverage, and growers have begun suspending them in each alley – not just behind the sprayer wheels. I predict the future boom arrangement will return to hollow cone nozzles, but in the form of molded poly nozzles with ceramic handling and drop nozzles with full cone disc-core assemblies. Air assist would be even better.

Sprayer settings

Most operators employ a ground speed of about 5 km/h (3.1 mph), operate at about 13.8 bar (200 psi) with nozzles spaced 25-30.5 cm (10-12”) spraying anywhere from 1,000 L/ha (107 gal./ac.) to 1,686 L/ha (180 gal./ac.). The application volume should reflect the stage of crop growth, the age of the garden and the target in question (see Table 1). Applicators should also consider droplet size (Table 2). This is difficult to control given that the majority use Arag microjets with the 1.5 mm orifice disc. In which case, pressure choice will affect median droplet size, with lower pressures increasing median droplet diameter and vice versa.

Table 2 – The Impact of Droplet Size

Droplet Size	Drops per area	Retention	Canopy Penetration	Drift Potential
Fine	High	High	Low	High
Medium	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate
Coarse	Low	Low	High	Low

The older style Arag microjets with 1.5 mm diameter discs have highly variable outputs. We developed tables listing their rates with the mixing valve handle set in two positions. They can be found here. We have also developed tables for the newer Arag nozzles for the 1.0, 1.2 and 1.5 mm discs based on 28 cm (11”) spacing. They are listed in Metric and U.S. Imperial.

Download the tables here: Metric (or) U.S. Imperial

Timed output test

Park the clean sprayer and get the pressure up to the desired level. Using a calibration vessel, perform a timed output test to determine each nozzle rate. I prefer the SpotOn SC-4 and a length of 1” braided line to direct the spray into the vessel. You will get wet, so ensure the water is clean and/or wear appropriate PPE.

At 200 psi, we took readings from each microjet and found that while they were more consistent than the older model, there was still a lot of variation from tip to tip. This required us to turn the valve on the nozzle to get a more consistent output, then take another reading, and repeat until we liked what we saw. It became tricky to adjust the rate without reducing the hollow cone pattern to a solid stream because only a slight turn of the nozzle was required. Once we had it, we tightened the lock nut and moved to the next nozzle. Table 3 is a record of the procedure.

While calibrating, we noticed some of the nozzles would suddenly appear plugged, or dense lines could be seen in the spray cone indicating something was wrong. We cleaned them to discover bits of plastic from the poly tank. I asked about strainers, but they are not available for the microjets. I asked about in-line filters, but they aren’t rated for 200 psi. Filling the tank with clean water is very important, but even more so with these nozzles.

Table 3 – Calibrating the new Arag microjets

Nozzle Position	Rates in gpm (bold represents final rate)	Nozzle Position	Rates in gpm (bold represents final rate)
1	0.97, 0.96, 0.93	14	0.77, 0.92
2	1.07, 1.07, 1.26, 0.9	15	0.76, 0.8, 0.95
3	1.1, 1.1, 1.1, 0.93	16	0.97, 0.95
4	0.73, 0.92	17	0.73, 1.0, 1.07, 1.0, 0.98
5	0.92, 0.92	18	0.83, 0.94
6	0.94	19	0.77, 1.0, 0.99, 1.1, 1.24, 10.8, 0.93
7	0.88	20	0.77, 0.88
8	0.92	21	0.71, 0.95
9	0.95	22	0.77, 1.07, 1.04, 1.1, 1.27, 1.0
10	0.90	23	1.06, 0.97
11	0.86	24	0.77, 0.97
12	0.76, 0.83, 1.0, 1.0, 1.2, 0.92	25	0.68, 0.95
13	0.77, 0.92

Average output: 0.93 gpm, standard deviation of 0.03 gpm.

Ground speed

Once the nozzles were adjusted, we filled the tank ½ full and measured out 25 m in the bed. We would normally do 50 m, but the row was too short. The sprayer operator drove the course and we measured the time it took to travel the 25 m distance. Pass one took 18.5 seconds and pass two took 18.3 seconds. That’s an average of 18.4, which we then double so it works in the formula = 36.8 s.

( 50 × 3.6 ) ÷ 36.8 s = 4.9 km/h

Adjusting the drop leg nozzles

This sprayer had drops behind the wheels and two more to hang in the adjacent alleys. This is excellent because research has shown considerably improved coverage with directed spray from drop arms. In my mind, these are not optional – they are mandatory!

We swapped out the hollow cones we found in those positions for full cone disc and core (D5-DC35). Full cones increase the number of droplets that will clear the raised bed and enter the canopy. When adjusting them, be sure to minimize the portion intercepting the bed, while minimizing the spray escaping up through the canopy. It’s a fine line.

Calculating sprayer output

25 microjets at 200 psi = average of 0.93 gpm = 23.25 gpm
8 × D5-DC35 at 200 psi = 1.4 gpm × 8 = 11.2 gpm
That’s ~34.5 gpm for the boom.
Ground speed was 4.9 k/hr or ~ 3mph.

GPA = (GPM × 5,940) ÷ (mph ÷ nozzle spacing in inches)
GPA = (34.5 gpm x 5,940) ÷ (3.0 mph × 11 inches)
GPA = 204,940 ÷ 33
62.1 GPA or about 580 L/ha.

Diagnosing coverage

Water sensitive paper, which turns from yellow to blue when contacted by moisture, was placed in the ginseng canopy. Two sets of papers were set out, with four papers in each set. The canopy was still wet with rain, which made placement difficult as the papers would accidentally contact water on the leaves and change colour prematurely.

Water-sensitive paper wrapped around tubes for panoramic coverage.

Position#1	Clipped face-down on the underside of leaves at the top of the canopy.
Position#2	Clipped face-up on the upper side of leaves in the middle of the canopy.
Position#3	Clipped face-down on the underside of leaves in the middle of the canopy.
Position#4	Wrapped around a plastic tube and threaded over a wire flag, located at the foot of the plant to give panoramic coverage at the root.

The sprayer passed over the canopy spraying water, and papers were carefully retrieved, allowed to dry and scanned.

Generally, there were no “misses” whatsoever. Position 1 showed excellent coverage, with no indication of run-off and a high droplet count with even distribution. This is ideal for foliar applications, and under-leaf coverage is notoriously difficult to achieve. Positions 2 through 4 showed excessive coverage, with the exception of one of the position 3 papers, which was still adequate.

Example of coverage and paper locations in canopy.

Next steps

Ideally, the operator would drop the pressure by 20 psi increments, reducing output until coverage failed. It is important to note that the operating pressure must never approach the lower end of the nozzle’s recommended pressure range, or the spray quality will be compromised and so will coverage.

Once the coverage is considered a failure, the operator would return to the lowest output that did a good job, and the sprayer is calibrated for that crop (at that stage of growth).

Note that the calibration must be performed for each significantly different crop. With the exception of an early-season drench intended to contact the entire root, an emerging one year old garden would need a very different prescription than a four year old garden with a fully-developed canopy. Plus, the weather conditions will affect coverage, so do not calibrate in conditions you would not normally spray in. Hot and dry and windy conditions produce very different coverage compared to cool, humid and still conditions.

Once the operator knows what each garden requires, they will be able to mix their tanks using the same concentration of carrier to formulated product as they normally use, but likely go further on the tank. It will take some practice before the operator knows how much spray mix is required to finish the job.

November 10, 2022

Adjusting Sprayer for Alternate Rows
An “Alternate Row Middle (ARM)” traffic pattern is where the sprayer passes down every second row. The intent is to improve work rate by cutting the driving time in half. The operator hopes to provide suitable coverage on both the sprayer-facing half of the canopy, and that half of the canopy facing the next alley. In our experience, this depends on sprayer design, and only works in very small/young plantings (or only for the first few applications of the season). Even then, the side facing the sprayer tends to get saturated in an effort to ensure a threshold dose reaches the far side. We’ve already captured the pros and cons of ARM in this article, and (spoiler alert) unless you’re using a wrap-around style design, it’s generally not the best approach for protecting an orchard, bush, cane or vine crop.
So why on Earth would we be testing it here?
We were contacted by an orchardist who planted a test block of Gala (est. spring, 2017) in an unusual way. He called it “V-Trellis Vertical Axis Cross”. Basically, he created an orchard architecture that only allowed equipment (e.g. platforms, sprayers) to pass down every second row. He figured it would save 35% of his labour costs. In the photo and illustration below, you can see the posts lean over the drivable alleys, creating a “V” shape.
So, given that he couldn’t fit a sprayer down every row, we had no choice but to try to optimize sprayer settings for ARM applications. Note the six numbers in circles in the above illustration. They indicate where we would eventually place water-sensitive papers to diagnose spray coverage.
Here are the settings the orchardist was using before we made any adjustments:
- Turbomist sprayer with 11 foot high tower
- Bottom-most nozzle was on and every second nozzle position skipped for a total of 5 nozzles active per side
- Nozzles were TeeJet ceramic disc-core. Top to bottom: D3-DC45, D3-DC45, D3-DC45, D3-DC45, D3-DC25
- 7 km/h (4.35 mph) travel speed per a speedometer app on a smartphone
- Tractor engine speed was 2,150 rpm (PTO was ~ 540 rpm)
- Fan set in low gear
- Pressure was 190 psi
- Ambient wind gusting to 8 km/h, temperature of 30°C, RH ~65%.
And here is a video of what the sprayer was doing before we changed any settings. This is a single upwind pass, and as you can see, the spray blew through at least five downwind rows. Obviously, this was far too much air and spray volume.
When we diagnose coverage in an every-row situation, we drive the alleys on each side of the target row (i.e. two passes). But, when diagnosing ARM spraying, we want to account for every drop of cumulative coverage from spraying upwind rows. So, we have to do three passes, as shown in the illustration below. In this top-down diagram, the sprayer travels the red line.
In order to establish a baseline, we diagnosed coverage for the original settings using water-sensitive papers in the six positions indicated above. We folded them in half, so a sensitive side faced each alley. We sprayed water and later digitized the cards to determine the percent coverage on the papers. Remember, if 80% of the cards receive at least 10-15% surface coverage and a deposit density of 85 drops per cm², it’s typically sufficient.
Here are our results, with percent area-covered indicated in each position, as well as a representative scan of one of the papers. There’s no need to provide deposit density, which after about 30% surface coverage cannot be reliably determined.
So, if the video doesn’t convince, then the papers certainly do: This was way too much air and spray mix.
Next, we performed a series of air adjustments using ribbons (detailed here and here) which led us to reduce engine speed from 2,150 rpm to 1,300 using the Gear-Up, Throttle-Down method. Then we used the OrchardMax calculator to establish an ideal spray volume and guide us to which nozzle rates we should use:
- Bottom-most nozzle was on and every second nozzle position skipped for a total of 5 nozzles active per side
- Top nozzle was TeeJet AITX8002, followed by TeeJet TXR80015, TXR80036, TXR80015, TXR80015
- 7 km/h (4.35 mph) travel speed per a speedometer app on a smartphone
- Tractor engine speed was 1,300 rpm (PTO was ~ 300 rpm)
- Fan set in low gear
- Pressure was 100 psi
- Ambient wind gusting to 4 km/h, temperature of 26.5°C, RH ~70%.
The following video shows the coverage from a single pass (to be clear, no extra upwind pass). We eventually did three passes to capture the cumulative coverage, just like with the first sprayer settings. This video simply serves to show how in ARM applications, the sprayer-facing side always looks much better than the side facing away. Also note how much quieter the sprayer is, as well as the reduced blow-through.
And here is the resultant, cumulative coverage from three passes. Once again, deposit density isn’t required as it exceeded our threshold in each position.
In the end analysis, we saved the grower ~30% of their spray mix, greatly reduced noise and spray drift, and still achieved suitable coverage in the target canopy. So, does this mean ARM applications are redeemed? We refer you, kind reader, to our introduction where we said ARM can work in young plantings and early season applications.
Note that the upwind side of the canopy received less coverage than the downwind side. As this new planting grows and fills, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to achieve sufficient coverage. Changes to the sprayer settings may be able to account for the imbalance, but they will also make the applications less efficient (i.e. more spray mix, more drift and coverage will still not be uniform). It remains to be seen if the spray inefficiency inherent to this orchard architecture is worth the estimated 35% savings in labour costs.
It’s an economic decision. We’ll see.
October 25, 2022
Clean Your Nozzles
When operators winterize their sprayers, they should remove all the tips and store them separately. Many store them in large pails with lids. Calibrating the sprayer just prior to winterizing will indicate if the nozzles should be stored, or replaced. Let’s assume each tip flow rate is within 5% of the average output and no more than 5% more than the manufacturer’s pressure tables. Yes, industry standard is 10%, but I always wonder how the spray quality suffers with that much wear. Nozzles are, comparatively, a cheap replacement and it’s not worth skimping. Learn more how to check nozzle flow rate, here.
Just like any other part of the sprayer that comes in contact with spray liquid, nozzles (and strainers) should be cleaned regularly. And, just like any other part of the plumbing, the best way to do that is to dilute any residues via a series of rinses. For a more rigorous cleaning, one of the intermediate rinses should include a detergent, and soaking during this step is an excellent practice.
The orifice of any nozzle is delicate, either machined or molded to exacting standards. Even small changes to the orifice shape results in distorted spray (e.g. spray comes out at undesirable angles), a change to the rate (typically more volume per minute) and a change in the spray quality (typically larger median droplet size). If foreign objects or residues remain in the tips, the subsequent spray job may be less accurate and even damage the tips.
In the case of air induction nozzles, which are essentially the standard on most boom sprayers, debris and weed seeds can plug the air-intake ports. When that happens, the nozzle will not function as intended. So, while the occasional soaking of nozzles does a great deal of good, they may also have to be scrubbed. Don’t use picks or reamers! There are nozzle cleaning tools out there, but they’re basically toothbrushes so save your old ones (and mark them clearly). Soft bristles are the way to go for removing stubborn residues and cleaning any tip orifices, but we found a nifty new way:
Occasionally we receive photos like the one below and we’re asked what we think. Well, just the same way we don’t recommend cleaning your sprayer overalls in the family clothes washer, we also don’t recommend the use of dishwashers for nozzles.
Not a great idea. Certainly not if you intend to ever use this dishwasher for anything else. And where does the rinsate go?
In an interesting experiment, Lucas Olenick of Wilger tried cleaning tips in a heated ultrasonic cleaner. We haven’t tested this and we don’t know what heat and vibration might do to poly and ceramic components, but surely it’s no more aggressive than hot, soapy water and a bristle brush. Lucas tried several durations with and without detergent and arrived at this recipe:
“For tough, non-water-soluble pesticides, around 8+ hours in a heated ultra-sonic cleaner with (Dawn) dish soap to come out like brand new. Other solvents may speed this up, but I’d generally suggest against heating solvents at any concentration. For water-soluble pesticides, expect to be within the 3-6+ hours for the first time to be confident enough in not having to flow-test each of the nozzles. With any pesticides, ensure proper care in handling contaminated nozzles and rinsate after cleaning nozzles.”
The mad genius of Lucas Olenick (@WilgerParts) who used dish detergent and a heated sonic cleaner to unplug tips. Be sure to dispose of rinsate safely. Photo credit: Lucas Olenick.
Don’t have a heated sonic cleaner? No problem. Here’s a step by step:
1. Wearing gloves, remove all nozzles, strainers, rubber gaskets and tips from the sprayer.
2. Put them in a large plastic pail and cover them in warm water. Leave them to soak.
3. Drain the pail, but be aware that the rinsate will have pesticide residue.
4. Fill a second pail with a solution of the same commercial detergent used to clean the sprayer.
5. With a toothbrush, scrub the caps, gaskets, strainers and nozzles to remove any residue. Some nozzles can be pulled apart to expose the mixing chamber and facilitate cleaning.
6. Once scrubbed, leave all the parts to soak in the detergent solution.
7. Drain the solution, which will contain trace amounts of pesticide, rinse the parts with water and reassemble the nozzles.
While you’re at it, drop those filters and scrub them alongside the tips. This may seem extreme, but of all the technology on a sprayer, the nozzle has the biggest impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the spray job. Take the opportunity over the winter months to clean and inspect the tips for damage so the sprayer is ready for calibration in the spring.
Soak, scrub, rinse and store nozzles and nozzle strainers. You may replace them once the sprayer is clean, but I prefer to store then separately. Photo credit: Jason Boersma (@RVFBoys), Ridge Valley Farms, Ontario.
Thanks to Jason Boersma (@RVFBoys), Ridge Valley Farms, Ontario, who sparked this article with his tweet: “Great job for a cold winter day, soak & clean all your tips to be ready for spring also saves on down time!”
September 22, 2022