Author: Jason Deveau

  • Adjuvants in the airblast tank

    Adjuvants in the airblast tank

    Spray adjuvants are tank mix additives that either physically or chemically influence the efficacy, consistency or safety of pesticides. For example, adjuvants can improve the handling characteristics of a spray solution (e.g. water conditioners, de-foamers, emulsifiers). They can improve uptake into a target plant and/or improve the amount of contact between spray droplet and target surface (e.g. non-ionic spreaders). They can also modify droplets to reduce the potential for wastage from drift or run-off (e.g. anti-drift additives, stickers).

    Note how little of the droplet contacts a waxy leaf (above). This hydrophobic reaction between water and wax can be overcome using a non-ionic spreader. Similarly, note how the droplet gets hung up on the trichomes (hairs) on a leaf before it reaches the leaf surface (below). Again, a non-ionic spreader would reduce droplet surface tension allowing it to splash onto the leaf. Photo Credit – Dr. H. Zhu, Ohio.
    Note how little of the droplet contacts a waxy leaf (above). This hydrophobic reaction between water and wax can be overcome using a non-ionic spreader. Similarly, note how the droplet gets hung up on the trichomes (hairs) on a leaf before it reaches the leaf surface (below). Again, a non-ionic spreader would reduce droplet surface tension allowing it to splash onto the leaf. Photo Credit – Dr. H. Zhu, Ohio.

    Some pesticide labels require the use of adjuvants in the tank mix for the pesticide to work correctly. They are not formulated with the product because of expense, bulk, or product stability, and must be added during loading. In order for a pesticide to work as advertised, it is important to include any adjuvants required by the label. In some cases, we are encouraged to use adjuvants to improve an application, even though they are not on the label.

    There are potential benefits to introducing some unlabelled adjuvants, but there are also potential problems. The difficulty is that unless someone tests a specific tank mix combination for a specific crop, the results cannot easily be predicted. For example, when a tank mix is incompatible, an adjuvant could cause phytotoxicity, create more drift when used with the wrong nozzle, deactivate or enhance a tank partner, and/or potentially reduce spray coverage.

    We once conducted a trial to test a deposition utility modifier intended to reduce run-off and drift. Water-sensitive papers were placed in the canopies of a 40 year old McIntosh orchard, which was then sprayed from one side in late May. The papers in the left panel (dilute control) were sprayed with 600L/ha (~60 g/ac.) of water. Those in the right panel (adjuvant) were also sprayed with 600L/ha but included the label rate of 500 ml of adjuvant. The water-plus-adjuvant reduced drift and runoff, as advertised, but did not penetrate as deeply into the canopy or spread on the papers, which is a concern if the operator was performing alternate-row middle spraying or needed better coverage (e.g. for mites). It was an unexpected side effect.

    For better or worse, even small amounts of adjuvants can have a significant effect on spray coverage. Always test spray coverage when using a new adjuvant in a tank mix.
    For better or worse, even small amounts of adjuvants can have a significant effect on spray coverage. Always test spray coverage when using a new adjuvant in a tank mix.

    We also investigated the use of an anti-drift adjuvant in airblast sprayers, which you can read about here.

    There is no simple answer regarding unlabelled adjuvants; there are too many possible product/adjuvant/plant combinations. If you intend to experiment with an adjuvant, perform a jar test to test for physical incompatibility. Then spray a small volume of the tank mix on a few trial plants to ensure there are no unexpected chemical issues (e.g. phytotoxicity or inactivating tank mix partners) or coverage issues.

    It is highly recommended that every sprayer operator have a copy of Purdue Extensions’ 2015 “Adjuvants and the Power of the Spray Droplet – PPP-107”. This comprehensive handbook describes of how water quality and adjuvants affect the performance of pesticide applications. I consult it regularly.

    Here are two videos from Dr. H. Zhu, USDA-ARS Ohio, showing how adjuvants that affect surface tension can help improve the level of contact between spray droplet and target surface.

  • Diagnosing Airblast Coverage

    Diagnosing Airblast Coverage

    Assuming there are no mechanical or maintenance problems, water-sensitive paper can be used to diagnose sprayer performance. Go here to read more about water-sensitive paper. Interpreting the results and knowing what changes to make is the critical part of the process. Observing no coverage, or a sodden paper, make for obvious conclusions… but what about everything in between? Here are the ground rules:

    First: Only ever test coverage in environmental conditions you would normally spray in. Temperature, humidity and wind speed can make or break an airblast calibration.

    Second: When altering sprayer settings, only make one change at a time for each test pass so you can isolate what’s wrong.

    Third: Each pass requires a new set of papers located in the same place, oriented the same way, distributed throughout the canopy. Mark their locations with bright flagging tape and write the pass number and canopy position on the back of paper prior to placement. This helps you to compare the passes later on. Don’t collect papers until they’ve had an opportunity to dry a little, or they will smear and stick together.

    Fourth: Pass down one alley first. Have a look at the papers without removing them. Then, spray the target canopy from the other side. Now the papers can be removed for analysis. This order is important because it reveals the impact of wind direction and the cumulative effect of spraying from both sides. In some cases, the sprayer operator may wish to travel an additional upwind alley to reflect the cumulative coverage on a typical spray day. Alternate row applications are not recommended.

    This Turbomist has been outfitted with sensors that detect the presence of a canopy. Each eye corresponds to a boom section, turning the section on and off as required and improving efficiency. If it’s not there, why spray it?
    This Turbomist has been outfitted with sensors that detect the presence of a canopy. Each eye corresponds to a boom section, turning the section on and off as required and improving efficiency. If it’s not there, why spray it?

    Once the papers are retrieved, it’s time to diagnose the coverage. The following situations are typical in calibrations, and possible fixes are suggested. Remember, this is a process that takes time. Several passes may be required before satisfactory coverage is obtained. Once the correct settings are determined for the block, continue to use them until there is a significant change in the crop staging or weather. At that point, repeat the process.

    Seven Situations

    Situation One:

    <15% coverage and <85 Fine/Medium droplets/cm2 at top of target (e.g. tall targets such as hops or trees). Suggested Fixes:

    • Wind might be stealing fine droplets. Try Coarser droplets (e.g. using air induction nozzles). Be aware that you may have to increase volume to compensate for reduced droplet counts and that they may fall out of the airstream before reaching distant targets.
    • Deflectors may not be channelling air and spray correctly – extrapolate air direction using ribbons on deflectors.
    • Fan may have to be set to higher gear, or if using GUTD, return to 540 rpm to increase fan speed. If still insufficient, you may need a sprayer with higher air capacity.

    Situation Two:

    <15% coverage and <85 Fine/Medium droplets/cm2 deep in canopy – sometimes papers on outside of canopy are visibly wet. Suggested Fixes:

    • Ground speed may be too high. Use flagging tape indicator on far side of target and see if air is getting through.
    • Canopy maintenance may be required (e.g. pruning, hedging, leaf stripping, etc.). No sprayer can consistently penetrate really dense canopies.
    • Fan may have to be set to higher gear, or if using GUTD, return to 540 rpm to increase fan speed. If still insufficient, you may need a sprayer with higher air capacity.
    • Increase carrier volume.

    Situation Three:

    Papers are drenched, dripping or show channels of running liquid. Suggested Fixes:

    • Reduce spray volume, either overall or in key locations on the boom corresponding to the drenched papers.
    • Ground speed may be too low. Use flagging tape indicator on far side of target and see if too much air is getting through. If so, increase ground speed.

    Situation Four:

    Considerable overspray beyond target row. Suggested Fixes:

    • Turn off upper nozzles until spray JUST clears target.
    • Deflectors may not be channelling air and spray correctly – extrapolate air direction using ribbons on deflectors.

    Situation Four:

    Considerable blow-through beyond target row. Suggested Fixes:

    • Slow the fan speed by shifting to low gear, or using GUTD method
    • Ground speed may be increased as long as coverage is not compromised. Use flagging tape indicator on far side of target and see if air is getting through.

    Situation Five:

    Ground under target row is drenched. Suggested Fixes:

    • Rotate lower nozzles slightly upward, but do not shut them off. If ground remains drenched, turn them off entirely. Each hollow cone produces up to an 80º spray angle, so the next higher nozzle often compensates by spraying lower than expected.
    • Deflectors may not be channelling air and spray correctly – extrapolate air direction using ribbons on deflectors.

    Situation Six:

    <15% coverage and <85 Fine/Medium droplets/cm2. Remember that this coverage threshold is only a point of reference, not a hard fact. It does not apply when using Coarser droplets. Suggested Fixes:

    • Increase spray volume, either overall or in key locations on the boom corresponding to the under-sprayed papers.
    • Wind might be stealing fine droplets. Try coarser droplets (e.g. using air induction nozzles). Be aware that you may have to increase volume to compensate for reduced droplet counts.
    • Ground speed may be too high. Use flagging tape indicator on far side of target and see if enough air is getting through. If not, decrease ground speed.
    • Canopy maintenance may be required (e.g. pruning, hedging, leaf stripping, etc.). No sprayer can consistently penetrate really dense canopies.

    Situation Seven:

    Inconsistent coverage on outer edge of canopy (e.g. one spot never seems to get spray.) Suggested Fixes:

    • Nozzle spray angle may be too acute (e.g. full cones), and spray is not overlapping before reaching target. Try wider spray angles.
    • Some tower sprayers have ‘dead spots’ in their air. Check for limp or flagging ribbons tied to nozzle bodies and/or deflectors. Deflectors may need to be adjusted, or adjacent nozzle body angles repositioned to compensate. Try an air induction nozzle in the dead zone.
    • Canopy may be brushing against nozzles as the sprayer passes, temporarily blocking them. Canopy management required.
    Some sprayers, such as Rears, Turbomist, FMC or this Durand Wayland have an option for electronic ‘eyes’ that detect spray targets. The boom will shut off completely if there is a gap in the planting. This can save a great deal of wasted spray. It is less applicable in trellised plantings where it has been known to be “fooled” by wires and posts.
    Some sprayers, such as Rears, Turbomist, FMC or this Durand Wayland have an option for electronic ‘eyes’ that detect spray targets. The boom will shut off completely if there is a gap in the planting. This can save a great deal of wasted spray. It is less applicable in trellised plantings where it has been known to be “fooled” by wires and posts.

    If you still are unable to achieve satisfactory coverage, you may have to consider more extreme solutions. You may have an under- or over-powered sprayer. You may have to perform significant canopy management. Or, you may be trying to spray in poor weather conditions.

  • Spraying Sweet Corn

    Spraying Sweet Corn

    This article was written with information from George Hamilton, Field Extension Specialist with New Hampshire Cooperative Extension (retired), and from Dr. Ben Werling, West Michigan Vegetable Educator with Michigan State University Extension.

    Commercial sweet corn growers must use spray application equipment capable of depositing spray material at the ear zone. These producers often hail from small, diversified vegetable and fruit farms that sell direct to the customer. For example, in 2013 New Hampshire’s Hillsborough County had about 500 acres planted to sweet corn. The seven farms ranged from 35 to 80 acres, and five of those farms also had orchards. Only one farm used an over the row (high clearance) sprayer, while the rest managed equipment costs by using their orchard airblast sprayers. While uncommon in Ontario, airblast application continues to be a very common practice in the US.

    High clearance in corn. Photo: FS Partners’ Juli Paladino

    So, if high clearance or aerial application isn’t an option, what are the limitations of using a directed application from an airblast sprayer? George wanted to find out, so he used water sensitive paper to compare coverage when spraying mature sweet corn plants.

    Water sensitive paper clipped to corn silks.

    He first sprayed an 18 row, and then a 16 row block using a Jacto cannon sprayer.

    Jacto cannon sprayer in action.

    The following photo shows (qualitatively) the resultant coverage. The top row shows the coverage when the sprayer drives both sides of the 18 row block. The bottom row shows the coverage from driving on only one side of an 18 row block. Three observations:

    1. Coverage is excessive adjacent to the cannon (row 1 or 18), improves further along the swath (rows 2-4 or 15-17), and then becomes erratic or non-existent with distance (see block sprayed from one side).
    2. Spraying from both sides improves coverage in the middle 10 rows.
    3. Spraying from one side does not provide sufficient coverage beyond row 7 or 8.
    Results from Jacto spray passes in 18 row block. Top: Driving both sides. Bottom: Driving only one side.

    They then used the cannon on both sides of a 16 row block to see if a shorter swath would improve coverage in the centre rows. It is a little difficult to discern from the photo, but the beyond the four outer rows, the centre rows have far better coverage.

    Jacto Cannon Sprayer spraying from both sides of a 16 row block.

    Finally, they used a more conventional axial Durand-Wayland airblast sprayer to spray a 12 row block from one side, and then from two.

    Durand-Wayland airblast sprayer in action.

    Once again, a shorter swath distance improves coverage in the middle rows, and spraying from one side results in poor coverage uniformity.

    Results from DW spray passes in 12 row block. Top: one side only. Bottom: Both sides.
    Close-up of DW performance spraying from both sides in 12 row block.

    In 2018, Ben also tried tackling the airblast / sweet corn combo. He and a grower used an AgTec cannon to spray from one side into a block of 5.5′ high corn on 30″ centres. They were travelling about 4 mph and spraying 50 gpa. Water-sensitive papers were placed at the top (N) middle (MID) and bottom (S) of the ear zone on rows 1,3,5,9,11, 15 and 20 rows to the west of the sprayer’s path. He used the Snapcard app to determine cover (see table).

    Rows from sprayerCoverage (Mean %)
    112
    319
    514
    77
    116
    153
    203

    Further observations:

    1. Coverage appears to be reasonable up to about row 5.
    2. The top card in row 9 caught spray falling into the crop (aka the up-and-over technique) but it didn’t penetrate any lower.
    3. Spraying from one side also showed how a stray leaf in the way of the card makes a big difference (see card at the top of row 7).

    Watch the video of Ben and the grower spraying water:

    So what’s happening?

    In both George’s and Ben’s trials, we see that spray droplets lose forward momentum as a function of distance from the nozzle. Fine droplets, typical of airblast sprayers, require air to carry them to the target. When the air produced by the sprayer slows, they begin dissipate and move erratically. Now, consider that the corn canopy itself is acting like a filter, scrubbing the spray from the swath as a function of distance. This is further exacerbated by environmental conditions such as wind, humidity and thermals.

    What’s the solution?

    In Ontario, we’ve tried directing cannons both laterally and downward (the up-and-over technique) in highbush blueberry, grape and cedar nurseries. We’ve tried increasing air speed, slowing sprayer travel speed and increasing spray volume. In each case we incur excessive coverage near the sprayer, extend the reasonable coverage zone a bit, and have only a modest improvement as the spray inevitably slows and is filtered.

    So, we feel the best approach for spraying sweet corn with an airblast sprayer is as follows:

    • Spray from both sides (even if you must cut an alley to accommodate the sprayer). This also helps with access for harvest.
    • For two or three head cannons, blocks between alleys should not exceed 16 rows to allow sufficient spray coverage of the ear zone. The sprayer head must be pointed downwards.
    • For axial airblast, or if spraying tall varieties with a cannon, consider 12 row blocks.
    • Any style of air-blast sprayer requires 75 gpa (or more) for sufficient coverage, and both travel speed and air settings should ensure air movement reaches the middle of the block.
  • Air-Assist Improves Coverage in Field Corn

    Air-Assist Improves Coverage in Field Corn

    Why aren’t there more air-assist boom sprayers in Canada? I can understand why field croppers might hesitate to pay for the feature because it’s only been in recent years that fungicide applications have become a regular part of their annual spray program. But, high-value horticultural muck crops like onion and carrot, or field vegetables like tomato and peppers have been a great fit for many years.

    One operation near Dresden, Ontario was thinking the same way when they bought a used 2010 Miller Condor with a Spray-Air boom from Indiana. In the past, they employed a trailed Hardi sprayer applying 40 gpa using Turbo TeeJets alternating front-to-back in their field tomato and onion crops. They felt they could achieve better coverage with the air assist feature.

    On June 19 the onion and tomato canopies were still too sparse to be a good testing ground (and the ground was very wet). So, we decided to run coverage trials in a stand of 3 foot high corn on 30 inch centres.

    The Spray Air boom features a series of air shear nozzles on 10 inch centres. A liquid feed line meters spray mix to the orifice, where high-volume air is directed at the flow via two Cross-Flow jets. This shreds the liquid into spray and shapes a 60 inch flat fan pattern. The operator can select from a range of air speed/volume settings that affect spray quality (lower air means Coarser and fewer droplets and a smaller fan angle).

    This particular boom also carried a set of hydraulic nozzles, so the operator could elect to turn off the Spray Air feature and employ a conventional application. This would be appropriate if applying a herbicide using air induction nozzles. In this case, the sprayer was equipped with TeeJet FullJet cones.

    The first thing we noticed was that the air was not distributed evenly across the boom. We inspected the baffles that join each boom section, but found no problem.

    We then suspected the Spray Air combination nozzles might be occluded with debris (it did come all the way from Indiana). This turned out to be the case, so we popped them out and cleared the Cross Flow jets of any obstructions.

    We then measured the air speed produced by the boom. A Pitot meter proved to be too finicky to get a consistent reading, so we used a Kestrel wind meter held 12 inches from the nozzle. The operator moved between the six air settings in the cab, producing the following air speeds. Note that these speeds were much slower than the 100+ mph (160+ km/h) speeds noted in the Miller brochure. The owner has since told me that they found a number of air leaks in the boom that they have been diligently repairing, and as a result he’s operating at a lower air setting.

    Air SettingApproximate Airspeed at 12”
    14 mph (6.5 km/h)
    26.5 mph (10.5 km/h)
    38.5 mph (13.5 km/h)
    412.5 mph (20 km/h)
    515.5 mph (25 km/h)
    617.5 mph (28 km/h)

    We used water-sensitive paper wrapped around dowels to illustrate potential spray coverage.

    They were placed perpendicular to the spray at three depths in the corn canopy: High, Middle and Bottom. This provided an indication of panoramic coverage and represents a very difficult-to-wet target. In the last two trials, we also added a horizontal target at the Middle (not shown) and Bottom position to illustrate overall canopy penetration, and two at the High condition, angled at 45º into the sprayer’s path and 45º away from the sprayer’s path. These gave an indication of the highest potential coverage available to the canopy. Papers were later unfurled and digitally scanned. The papers were analyzed using DepositScan to determine the total percent coverage, and the droplet density.

    Trials took place between 8:30 and 11:00. Temperature slowly climbed from 20ºC to 23ºC (~ 70ºF). Relative humidity dropped from 69% to 60%. With the exception of Trial 1, we sprayed in a tail wind of 7.5 mph (12 km/h) gusting up to 10 mph (16 km/h). Travel speed was 7 mph (11 km/h).

    In the first five trials we made single, progressive adjustments to the spray settings that we assumed would improve coverage. Finally, we compared what we felt were optimal settings with the Spray Air (Trial 5) to optimal settings for the conventional hydraulic nozzles (Trial 6). Details are as follows:

    TrialAir settingSpray Volume (gpa)Boom Height (inches)
    121420
    23.51420
    361420
    46146
    56206
    6No Air – Fullcones206

    You can watch the passes in the following video. Note the boom height and the trailing spray.

    The following two graphs show the coverage obtained in the High, Middle and Bottom positions for all six trials. The first graph is percent coverage, and the second is droplet density.

    In trial 1 the air was insufficient to properly atomize the spray mix (as seen in the video) and this is evident in both graphs. By increasing the air in trials 2 and 3, we see that coverage increases in the High and Middle positions, but declines a little in the Bottom position. When we lower the boom closer to the canopy in Trial 4, we see increased coverage again in the High and Bottom positions, but lose ground in the Middle. We then increase our water volume for exceptional gains in the Middle and Bottom position, but at the expense of the High. Throughout these changes, overall coverage trended up. Finally, when we turn off the Spray Air system, and switch to the Fullcones, which were set to spray the same volume via the rate controller, there is a drastic reduction in coverage in all positions.

    Let’s look at the additional papers placed for Trials 5 and 6 in the following graphs.

    Even when papers were oriented to intercept the spray as much as possible, The Spray Air system provided superior coverage compared to the hydraulic nozzle.

    This leads us to conclude that there is an advantage to air assist in overall coverage and canopy penetration. Further, it demonstrates that such a system requires careful calibration to ensure it is being used optimally. Water volume, air settings and travel speed should all be reconsidered when the environmental conditions change (e.g. temperature and wind) and when spraying different crops, at different stages of growth.

    Two weeks after this trial, the corn grew too high for the Miller boom, but the grower moved into his onion and tomato and was very pleased with the overall coverage the Spray Air was providing. He’d also replaced the fullcones with 110 degree AI flat fans for herbicide spraying.

    I’d like to see more air-assist booms in Canada.

  • Smart Spraying Tips and Tricks

    Smart Spraying Tips and Tricks

    This 2018 article was written by Victoria Berry for the Ontario Grain Grower.

    In the era of social media and keyboard warriors, it’s easy to feel like someone is always watching and ready to force their opinion on the world. The “tweet first, think later” mentality often adds to misinformation, and worse, it can leave science as a bystander — especially when it comes to modern farming techniques.

    Farmers feed the world and they need to ensure they are growing high quality, high yielding crops. One of the most important elements of protecting high-quality crops is spraying. As farmers and custom applicators become more innovative and more knowledgeable about spraying techniques they have to strike a delicate balance, according to Jason Deveau, Application Technology Specialist with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).

    Deveau recently sat down for a Q&A session to discuss tips and tricks for smart spraying, understanding drift, and how important it is for farmers to share smart practices and be champions to others in the community.

    V.B.: WHAT ARE SOME OF THE KEY AREAS TO SPRAYING? WHAT ARE THE TOP MUST-DOS?
    J.D.: First and foremost, the laws of physics have never changed. We may present the facts in different ways to help people understand, or to make them more accessible, but when it comes to spray coverage and spay drift, there are three speaking points:

    1. We want farmers to use the largest droplet size they can without compromising coverage.
    2. We want the boom at the lowest practicable height to the field.
    3. We want farmers to adjust their spraying practices to match weather conditions, and know when spraying isn’t advisable.

    V.B.: OK. LET’S START FROM THE TOP. WHY AND HOW DO FARMERS CHOOSE THE LARGEST DROPLET SIZE?
    J.D.: Droplet size is an effective tool for combating physical drift. Larger droplets have more mass, which means they are more likely to fall rather than be carried away. But, for a given rate, the number of droplets a nozzle produces decreases as average droplet size increases. It’s the same amount of pie no matter how many slices.

    Fewer droplets might compromise spray coverage, particularly when targeting small weeds or when using a contact pesticide in a dense canopy. The answer is to use more volume to bring the droplet count back up, but that means more refills for the sprayer operator, which is time consuming. A good operator is always considering the balance between drift potential, coverage, and efficiency. Even with sophisticated technologies, these considerations always lead to nozzle choice.

    Traditionally, a grower would choose a nozzle based on the desired rate (e.g. gallons per minute) for a given pressure. As the sprayer changed speed, this would lead to over — or under — application. So, for convenience and consistency, most growers use rate controllers that monitor speed and auto-adjust the rate using pressure. But pressure also changes droplet size and spray pattern. Patterns can collapse at lower pressures (say <30 psi) and average droplet size decreases as pressures increase. You can see that droplet size wasn’t really on the radar. Pulse-width systems have changed this, but they are still few and far between.

    And even if a grower chooses a nozzle with a coarse spray quality, they may be surprised to learn it still produces some fine droplets, too. Look at a bell curve. That’s how a nozzle is rated for droplet size — a lot of average sizes in the middle, and then a few smaller or larger sizes. A coarse nozzle does not make you bullet proof; there will still be some drift. That is why we always observe weather and time-of-day restrictions and adhere to the buffer zones that appear on the pesticide label.

    V.B.: HOW DO LOW BOOMS IMPACT DRIFT AND WHY DO SOME FARMERS RESIST THIS ADVICE?
    J.D.: Imagine holding out your arm and dropping a feather. It will move a ways downwind before landing. Now climb a ladder and do the same thing — it goes considerably further. It’s exactly the same for water droplets. To add insult to injury, releasing spray from a higher point also prolongs evaporation, making it even smaller and exacerbating the problem. And if that weren’t enough incentive to lower booms, the high booms create inconsistent spray coverage, undermining the whole reason for spraying in the first place.

    The resistance to low booms comes from the desire to drive fast. North American booms sway and yaw, even with boom leveling systems. Higher speeds may get the job done faster, but it requires most farmers to raise the boom to prevent it hitting the ground. It may seem counter-intuitive, but there are several ways a farmer can slow down, drop the boom, and spray more acres in a day — it just requires them to look at their spray operation differently. A great deal of time is spent filling, idling, turning, and travelling between jobs. It’s been demonstrated that saving time on sprayer-related tasks has a big impact on efficiency — more than simply driving faster.

    V.B.: HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE WEATHER IS RIGHT FOR SPRAYING?
    J.D.: Everyone knows the obvious cues. If your hat blows off, it’s probably not the time to spray. But, we’re learning that calm conditions may contribute to chemical trespass even more than wind. There’s no hard and fast rule, but three kilometres an hour to 10 kilometres an hour winds are a good range.

    In calm weather, you may find yourself in a thermal inversion, which does not allow fine particles (or volatiles) to disperse and ground. Instead, they hang in a layer of undisturbed air, either moving downhill like water, or eventually moving in an unpredictable direction when the wind picks back up. It’s suspected that this phenomenon has played a significant role in the off target crop damage issues in the U.S. in 2016 and 2017.

    In a very telling demonstration, an Ontario agrichemical rep showed that the smoke from a smoke bomb (representing pesticide vapour) travelled 1.7 kilometres during an inversion. In another demo, he showed it moving back and forth across the same field for hours after the application. Learning how to recognize a strong inversion, and knowing when there is too much or too little wind will require a different way of thinking, but will greatly reduce the potential for chemical trespass.

    V.B.: WHAT OTHER PRACTICES SHOULD FARMERS BE AWARE OF TO COUNTER DRIFT?
    J.D.: There are a lot of other considerations, but let’s highlight two.

    First – Downwind neighbours (residential and agricultural) can take actions based on your spraying schedule. If there’s a possibility of chemical trespass, it’s a courtesy to let them know your plans, or at least make spray records available and be prepared to answer questions. Quite often explaining what’s happening prevents them getting misinformation elsewhere. It may sometimes be a nuisance, but educating others is part of maintaining the public trust. Ontario farmers are experienced and certified and, frankly, the industry needs them to help educate people on all the good work being done.

    Second – Night spraying. Please stop. Time is short and weather can force us to take opportunities where we find them, but calm, clear nights represent the highest potential for a strong thermal inversion. Knowing the weather conditions that affect product performance (for better or for worse), minding pollinator presence, knowing what’s downwind, and STILL following integrated pest management means there seem to be fewer hours left to spray. But, it’s really a matter of understanding which of those factors trumps the others in the decision to spray, or wait. It requires today’s farmer to play an active role when it comes to spraying.

    V.B.: YOU MENTIONED PUBLIC TRUST. HOW WILL SPRAYING AND PUBLIC TRUST IMPACT FARMERS’ BUSINESSES?
    J.D.: We talk about soil, stewardship, and environmental sustainability. But at the core of all those important considerations is the customer driving those agendas. We are getting close to the day (if we’re not there already) where the grocery store dictates farm practices.

    Many broad acre farms are still self-regulating to a large degree. They do their best to maintain high standards for safety, transparency, and record-keeping. But, as specialty crop and livestock operations already know, we are moving towards tracing the history of a farm product from the customer all the way back to the seed. Farmers should adopt best practices proactively, before they become mandatory.

    So, the level of attention on field crops is more acute than ever before. Many are not used to being under the public microscope. Customers are asking when, how, and what was it sprayed, and they want to know the weather and cleaning practices that were followed. We need to have those answers ready to show what we’ve always known — that farmers are self-aware, are stewards, and are responsible partners in public health and safety.

    So spray like everybody’s watching… because they are.