Author: Jason Deveau

  • 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.

  • Spraying Large Nut Trees – Part 2

    Spraying Large Nut Trees – Part 2

    This article continues from Part 1.

    Droplet size

    Droplet size influences droplet behaviour. The following table lists the pros and cons to changing droplet size when overall spray volume (e.g. L/ha) remains constant.

    Relative Spray QualityProsCons
    Coarser DropletsLower drift potential because they resist deflection by wind and evaporation from heat and low humidity.Lower droplet count may reduce coverage.
    Greater mass means they move ballistically, propelled at higher speeds by pressure for greater distance.May fall out of the spray before reaching the top or centre of the canopy.
    Coarser droplets do not penetrate dense canopies as easily as finer droplets.
    Redistribution due to bounce, shatter or run-off may either improve or compromise coverage.Redistribution due to bounce, shatter or run-off may either improve or compromise coverage.
    Finer Droplets Higher droplet count may improve coverage (if they arrive at the target).Higher drift potential from wind, and evaporation from heat and low humidity.
    Finer droplets penetrate denser canopies better than coarser.
    Finer droplets move unpredictably and require optimal air settings to direct them to the target. Sprayer design and air settings will determine if it is optimal for nearby or distant targets, but it is rarely if ever both.Finer droplets move unpredictably and require optimal air settings to direct them to the target. Sprayer design and air settings will determine if it is optimal for nearby or distant targets, but it is rarely if ever both.

    It is preferred to use nozzles that create coarser droplets at higher rates (to compensate for fewer droplets) in the higher boom positions. They are more likely to stay on course to the tops of the trees, and when they miss, many fall out of the air rather than contribute to drift.

    Learn more about strategies to reach the top of a canopy here.

    Finer droplets have very little mass and therefore very little kinetic energy. This means they slow quickly (imagine throwing a feather) and require entraining air to carry them to the target. Finer droplets also evaporate quickly, particularly on hot and dry days (i.e. unsuitable Delta T conditions). If employed, they should be distributed in the lower-middle portion of the boom where they have the least distance to travel and are most likely to be intercepted by canopy.

    Boom distribution

    Unlike a broad acre boom sprayer, where each nozzle emits the same rate, an airblast boom can distribute spray unevenly. For a curved (axial) boom, the rule of thumb is to produce 2/3 of the overall volume from the top 1/3 of the boom. This compensates for the distance and greater proportion of canopy it is intended to cover.

    A vertical (tower) boom positions each nozzle roughly the same distance from the target, and if that target is a hedged canopy, the spray can be distributed equally over the boom. Research has demonstrated that there is no appreciable advantage to one spray shape over another (e.g. flat fan, hollow cone, full cone) other than the spray quality they produce.

    In extreme cases, operators might elect to “fire hose” spray to the tops of canopies using high pressures. This is achieved by using streaming nozzles or removing the swirl/whirl/disc plate in a disc-core combination nozzle in the top few nozzle positions. Given the heavy demand on the pump and the inaccuracy of the method, this should only be considered when air fails to reach the tops of trees.

    Learn more about nozzling an airblast sprayer here.

    Spray coverage and diagnostics

    It’s well understood that spray coverage has a negative correlation with tree height. The irony is that in large nut trees the upper portion of the canopy produces much of the harvest. Taken collectively, this may explain why pest activity is also highest in the upper canopy. When choosing a spray volume and boom distribution, the metric is threshold coverage in the top 1/3 of the canopy. This requires us to define threshold coverage.

    If ribbons and leaf movement represent the feedback mechanism for air settings, then water sensitive paper (WSP) is the choice for spray coverage. Placement in tall trees can be tricky, given that we are most concerned with coverage at the top, but this can be overcome by mounting the WSP on telescoping poles. Papers can be oriented horizontally to represent a leaf, or curled around the pole to give panoramic coverage and emulate a nut. Beware over-blowing in the lower canopy, which creates a shingling effect where leaves cover one another (or the WSP) and block coverage.

    Fluorescent dyes and kaolin clay show spray coverage in situ, but there are drawbacks. Few growers will spray dye and come back at night with a black light to examine targets. Further, a target sprayed with dye or clay cannot be sprayed a second time, which means the grower can’t adjust the sprayer and try again in the same canopy. And finally, it’s very difficult to determine if there is more or less coverage with clay or fluorescent dye.

    Learn more about how to use water sensitive paper here.

    WSP is fast, cheap and effective. With the exception of drench applications, the most demanding spray application (e.g. contact fungicide) should produce a spray coverage pattern of 85 drops per cm2 and 10-15% total coverage on 80% of the targets. This threshold comes from collective research and experience in many horticultural crops, and should true hold for tree nut.

    Be prepared to make changes to your sprayer calibration to compensate for tree height, canopy density, and weather conditions throughout the season. The feedback from water sensitive paper is far more accurate than shoulder-checks and leaf residue. It takes some time and effort, but it’s well worth it. Coverage is King.

    What others have done

    Researchers like Brad Higbee (Paramount Farming Co.) and Ken Giles (UC Davis) have explored spray coverage and efficacy from different sprayer configurations to combat Naval Orange Worm in almond. What follows is a summary of their observations. This information comes from their presentations and conversations with Brad.

    Ten years of trials spanned travel speeds of 3-6.5 km/h, volumes of 1,400-2,150 L/ha, and sprayer-generated airspeeds (measured at source) of 80-290 km/h. They looked at efficacy, residue levels and WSP coverage both in leaves and on the nuts themselves. When comparing sprayer configurations, the target almond tree was divided into four levels:

    • Level 1 = 1.8 m to 2.5 m (Lower canopy)
    • Level 2 = 3.0 m to 3.7 m
    • Level 3 = 4.2 m to 4.9 m
    • Level 4 = >5.5 m (Upper canopy)

    Many configurations were tested, but the following figure shows the top four. Of those not shown, most notable are the Bell 206 helicopter (280 L/ha at 50 km/h) and the Curtec AC 1000 Cross-Flow tower.

    A. Air-O-Fan low profile axial D-240 (Also used Air-O-Fan 232).
    B. Progressive Ag two-head 2650 electrostatic air-shear with 4 m tower (Also used 4.9 m three-head and 5.5 m four-head).
    C. Blueline Accutech 10-head air-shear tower.
    D. Low-profile axial airblast with two Sardi-style fans on mast. Upper fans set to 70% overall fan speed and spray volume. Axial fan and nozzles set to 30%

    Here is a summary of their observations:

    • Spray coverage and residue deposition was weakest in upper half (Levels 3 and 4) of canopy. Tower sprayers tended to provide more uniform coverage across vertical levels. For low-profile axial sprayers, most of the residues were deposited in the lower half of the tree.
    • The Air-O-Fan low-profile axial had the highest overall residues. But, above 3.7 m there was severe drop off in coverage. PTO-driven sprayers seemed as effective as engine driven. Incremental improvements were observed on this sprayer when using multiple banks of booms, full cone and hollow cone nozzles.
    • The Progressive Ag tower provided the highest residue deposition above 3.7 m and modest deposition in the lower canopy. While tower sprayers tended to provide more uniform coverage, the Progressive Ag was not significantly better than the Air-O-Fan overall.
    • Aerial application (280 L/ha) combined with the Air-O-Fan low-profile axial sprayer (1,870 L/ha) did increase residues in the upper canopy, but did not result in greater damage reduction relative to the Air-O-Fan alone.
    • Slowing the Air-O-Fan low-profile axial sprayer from 4 to 3.2 km/h resulted in 30% more coverage and 47% higher residue deposition overall.
    • Electrostatic treatments did not perform well on WSP (small droplet size was suspected), but they were among the best in residue deposition at full volume and “delivered surprising residues at high speeds/low volumes”.

    Brad has done remarkable work studying the impact of several sprayer configurations. While many were tested, there are still more that might be considered.

    Canopy management

    When all else fails, we are left with only one alternative: canopy management. Hedging and pruning the trees to create sprayer clearance opens canopies to spray (and light and air) and is a critical part of crop protection.

    Learn more about the benefits of canopy management here.

    Topping trees to bring them to a manageable height to improve coverage and reduce drift may be the only viable option for protecting the crop. I acknowledge that a great deal of nut production takes place in the upper third of the canopy, and it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss production and yield economics. However, when the crop is left unprotected, the yield quality is negatively impacted and it has been shown that a reduction in harvest weight is offset by the improvement in overall quality.

    Where plants are very old and overgrown (such as macadamia), it is highly recommended that the orchardist engage a local crop expert and discuss a strategy for canopy management. There are many benefits, including:

    • Improved harvest quality
    • Fewer refills (saving time and water)
    • Less time to spray means more timely applications
    • Potential chemistry savings
    • Savings in gas, noise and equipment wear and tear
    • Potential for reduced off target spray drift

    Summary

    Spraying large nut trees is a challenging proposition. A number of inter-connected factors are involved and an operator must address all of them make spraying as efficient and as effective as possible.

    • Adjust sprayer air settings first, using canopy penetration as your guide to travel speed.
    • Distribute the 2/3 of the volume and coarser spray quality to the top 1/3 of the boom.
    • Consider an air-assisted vertical boom configuration to improve coverage uniformity and reduce drift.
    • Use water sensitive paper for critical coverage feedback and make changes based on that feedback.
    • Develop a canopy management strategy to improve spray coverage and yield quality.
  • Spraying Large Nut Trees – Part 1

    Spraying Large Nut Trees – Part 1

    Introduction

    I’ve studied spray applications in a diversity of crops, both broad acre and specialty, but perhaps nothing is as challenging large tree nut canopies. Australia’s macadamia orchards can form >10 metre high, >4 metre deep canopy walls! So in writing this article I face the opposite situation I normally encounter when advising on airblast sprayer settings.

    In my region, fruit orchard, cane, bush and vine crops are typically sprayed with airblast sprayers. Over the years, through breeding and crop management, these operations have densified. The idea is that smaller, uniform crops can be managed, protected and harvested more efficiently. The ratio of quality fruit to planted area goes up, and input costs go down.

    However, our aging fleet of sprayers are overpowered relative to the target. This means much of what I do involves demonstrating to sprayer operators what sufficient coverage looks like, and then teaching how to restrain sprayer parameters to achieve this ideal coverage as efficiently as possible.

    So, are there any commonalities?

    Yes! The need to understand what “good coverage” looks like, and the parameters that affect it, is universal to any airblast operation. Assuming the operator already has product choice and pest staging well in hand, there are three major factors that influence the quality of the spray application: The sprayer settings, the geometry of the target and the environmental conditions.

    In theory we can discuss each of these factors individually, but in practice they interact with one another. It is wrong to adjust one factor without considering the other two. This is also why you should be wary of anyone that tries to sell you a sprayer by demonstrating it in an empty lot on a calm day! Always calibrate a sprayer in the planting, in weather conditions you would normally spray in.

    Air volume and direction

    Air adjustments are perhaps the most impactful changes you can make to your operation. The air stream created by the sprayer not only conveys the spray solution to the target, but opens the canopy and exposes leaf surfaces to the spray. In order to achieve adequate coverage, the volume (and speed) of sprayer-generated air must be sufficient to span the distance from sprayer to target, and then displace the volume of air in the canopy while depositing the spray.

    I admit to a bias when it comes to air shear systems. These sprayers utilize sprayer-generated air to atomize the spray liquid as well as convey it. As such, you cannot easily adjust the air without affecting spray quality (aka average droplet size or VMD). My preference is an arrangement where nozzle selection allows you to control spray quality independent of air settings. In any case, adjusting air settings requires the operator to “see” air.

    In my region, I advise tying 25 cm lengths of flagging tape at the top, middle and bottom of the far side of the upwind tree. Then, drive past with the air on and the spray booms off. If the ribbons stand straight out, the sprayer is over-blowing and the operator can drop to a lower fan gear, reduce the tractor RPM’s (if using a positive displacement-style pump) or drive faster. If the ribbons don’t move, the opposite steps can be taken. If the ribbons still won’t move, the sprayer is under-powered, it’s too windy to spray, or the canopy is too large.

    Learn more about these topics here.

    Let’s explore that last point. In the case of a canopy as large as macadamia, it is unlikely a low-profile axial sprayer can produce sufficient air volume to displace all the air in the canopy – particularly at the top of the tree. In this case a more humble goal would be to move the leaves at the trunk, indicating that the sprayer is managing to drive the air to the centre. To monitor this, an observer wearing safety goggles would have to stand at the far side of the upwind trunk and (while being very careful of flying debris) watch for leaf movement.

    This becomes increasingly difficult to monitor as the target gets fuller, higher, and farther away from the sprayer. Consider the macadamia trees in the following figure:


    The observer will have difficulty seeing leaf movement at the top of either the taller or shorter tree, but we can safely assume there will be less movement as a function of height. Since our goal is uniform penetration throughout the canopy, we must somehow compensate for this differential. Consider the following figure which extrapolates the path between the sprayer air outlet and the tree:

    In this figure we have divided each side of a low-profile axial sprayer into halves. The bottom half of the air outlet must produce enough air volume to displace area X. I realize I’m mixing area and volume, but bear with me. For the taller tree, the upper half of the outlet must produce enough air to displace 2.5 times the area versus the bottom half. Given that it is a single air outlet, this means inconsistent coverage.

    Comparatively, the shorter tree requires a more uniform air distribution. While this improves matters, there are further challenges. Sprayer-generated air slows and disperses proportional to distance, requiring more air to compensate. Also, orchard wind speed increases with elevation, increasing the potential for interference and dispersion. So, the taller the tree, the harder it is to achieve uniform canopy penetration.

    Spraying shorter nut trees with a low-profile axial sprayer is possible. The sprayer would require a large fan (≥1 m diameter), an aggressive fan blade pitch and a high fan speed. Air deflectors and air separation vanes would also be needed to segregate and focus the air. And travel speed would play a significant role.

    Travel Speed

    Travel speed should be considered as function of air penetration. A slower travel speed (~2 km/h) facilitates the displacement of stagnant canopy air with sprayer-generated air. Further, a slower travel speed reduces the wake effect that can suck finer droplets from the swath.

    It may seem counter-intuitive, but slower speeds can result in greater productivity. There is no need to increase the volume sprayed per hectare, so additional refills are not an issue. Further, improving spray coverage at slower speeds may prevent the need for an additional “clean-up” application later on, saving time and reducing environmental impact. Time lost to slower travel speed can also be reclaimed with more efficient loading practices.

    Learn more about travel speed here and productivity here.

    Directed Sprays and Off-Target Deposition

    When the height of the target tree exceeds alley width, or when branches overgrow alleys, many low-profile axial sprayers suffer from line-of-sight issues. Lower branches/leaves block the upper canopy and too many nozzles target the lower canopy. See the figure below.

    One option is to direct spray vertically to ensure the swath reaches the top of the canopy. In this case it is hoped that droplets remain Coarse enough to fall from the swath and penetrate the canopy, or blow laterally with prevailing wind (left side of figure). This unadvisable strategy is unlikely to achieve consistent results and greatly increases the potential for drift.

    Alternately, the top of the swath can be vectored directly at the top of the tree, but it must pass through canopy to reach it (right side of figure). This strategy increases the potential for drift, risks missing a portion of the upper canopy and is also unlikely to yield consistent results.

    Ideally, we would use a sprayer design that brings the air (and nozzles) closer to the target. Hypothetically, there are several possible configurations, but in practice their success will be hampered by boom sway and roll (from sloped plantings or uneven alleys) and pressure drop restrictions (from boom height). Here are a few possibilities:

    A. A vertical boom with a tapered inflatable bag to convey and redirect the air laterally (typically one-sided).
    B. An axial sprayer topped with a ducted tower with vertical booms, terminating in either a second axial fan or one-sided cannon.
    C. An axial sprayer with a vertical mast with a series of Sardi-style nozzle/fan assemblies distributed along the height.

    Learn more about towers here.

    In the following figure we see how two possible arrangements might work. On the left is a vertical boom with a tapered air assist system. This provides the shortest distance-to-target for each nozzle and in moving laterally, the air will more easily penetrate horizontal limbs. It also reduces the potential for drift.

    On the right is a novel arrangement proposed by Dr. Ken Giles (UC Davis, California). A Sardi-style fan and nozzle assembly is elevated above the canopy from an axial sprayer. His intention was to create air and fluid interaction to generate turbulence that could improve uniformity and decrease drift. He proportioned 70% of the overall spray to the top fan, and the remaining 30% from the ground. Working in almond, he saw more even coverage distribution compared to a low-profile axial sprayer and noted it reduced off target drift. For a target as tall as macadamia, additional fans would likely be required.

    In Part 2 we discuss Droplet size, Boom distribution, Spray coverage and diagnostics, California research and Canopy management.

  • Airblast Towers are Worth Considering

    Airblast Towers are Worth Considering

    Are you considering shelling out for a tower extension for your airblast sprayer? Spray towers are an excellent investment, but they warrant special consideration. Towers move the air and nozzles closer to the target compared to the curved booms on a conventional airblast sprayer. When the distance-to-target is reduced, the odds of droplets reaching the target are improved. That means less pesticide drift and more deposit in the plant canopy.

    Be Aware: Nozzles need a minimal distance from the target to create an optimal spray pattern, so do not get too close.

    Many growers report savings when switching from conventional airblast to towers. The towers are more efficient at depositing the spray, so they have to reduce their typical sprayer volumes to prevent run-off. We worked with one apple grower that switched from a conventional sprayer to one with a tower. His lake-side orchard was plagued by wind, and his conventional sprayer had a relatively small fan diameter (~2 feet) that couldn’t compete. Traditionally, the grower used higher spray volumes to compensate. His new tower sprayer had a larger fan (~3 foot diameter) but perhaps equally import was that the tower reduced the distance-to-target. As a result, he was able to reduce his spray output by more than 200 L/ha while improving his overall coverage! That represented considerable cost savings and reduced environmental impact.

    Towers may provide better coverage than conventional sprayers in orchards with horizontal scaffolding. The tower sprays between branches, penetrating more easily, while the conventional sprayer has to spray through them. Concept from K. Blagborne, British Columbia.
    Towers may provide better coverage than conventional sprayers in orchards with horizontal scaffolding. The tower sprays between branches, penetrating more easily, while the conventional sprayer has to spray through them. Concept from K. Blagborne, British Columbia.

    While there are many benefits associated with towers, they are not suitable for all situations:

    • Towers must be taller than the highest target (e.g. treetop)
    • Towers should be used on level ground. Towers will roll on the vertical axis (i.e. tip left and right) on uneven ground, potentially missing or over-shooting targets
    • Towers must be able to clear netting, trellises, or an overhanging canopy.
    The perils of towers on uneven ground. For towers to be effective, the tower must be at least as tall as the target. When the target is only slightly higher than the tower, some sprayer operators install an additional nozzle body on the top deflector plate to extend the reach.
    The perils of towers on uneven ground. For towers to be effective, the tower must be at least as tall as the target. When the target is only slightly higher than the tower, some sprayer operators install an additional nozzle body on the top deflector plate to extend the reach.
    A home-grown airblast sprayer with tower. PVC ducts, sheets of plastic, a squirrel cage blower and grower ingenuity. While it looks suspect, and difficult to clean, it reputedly works very well in highbush blueberries.
    A home-grown airblast sprayer with tower. PVC ducts, sheets of plastic, a squirrel cage blower and grower ingenuity. While it looks suspect, and difficult to clean, it reputedly works very well in highbush blueberries.

    Occasionally, we have discovered areas along tower outlets where there is reduced air flow. You can usually feel these “dead zones” with your hand (beware flying debris), but it’s better to observe short ribbons attached to the nozzle bodies as described in our articles about adjusting air direction and speed/volume. In low fan gear, watch to see if any ribbons flag or appear slack from a lack of air, you can “borrow” air by re-positioning neighbouring deflectors. If that’s not possible, try replacing the conventional nozzles in the dead zone with air induction nozzles; coverage should improve in that zone because pressure propels coarser droplets further than finer droplets. We’ve seen significant improvements using this technique in high density orchards.

    In the end, if a tower will fit in our operation, we suggest it’s a worthwhile investment that will make coverage more consistent, reduce off-target drift and possibly reduce the volume of spray needed per hectare.

    Towers come in many shapes and sizes. Orchards aren’t the only good fit for towers; grapes, bushes and canes can also benefit from small towers.
    Towers come in many shapes and sizes. Orchards aren’t the only good fit for towers; grapes, bushes and canes can also benefit from small towers.