Author: Jason Deveau

  • Tank Mix Compatibility

    Tank Mix Compatibility

    Tank mixing is the practice of combining multiple registered agricultural products in the sprayer tank for application in a single pass.

    The Pros of Tank Mixing

    • Efficiency: If the timing makes sense, a single pass saves time and reduces trample/compaction. E.g. A “weed-and-feed” application of fertilizer and herbicide in corn.
    • Resistance management: Multiple modes of action help prevent resistance development and combat existing problems.
    • Improved performance: Labels may require adjuvants to condition carrier water or reduce drift (utility adjuvants) or to improve the degree of contact between droplets and the plant surface, or enhance product uptake or rainfastness (activator adjuvants).
    Prowl meets Roundup – A beautiful photo by Peter Smith, University of Guelph

    The Cons of Tank Mixing

    Tank mixing requires caution and careful investigation. Should tank mix partners prove to be incompatible, the consequences can be subtle or dramatic, but are always negative. There are two kinds of incompatibility.

    1. Biological or Chemical Incompatibility

    This form of incompatibility may not be immediately apparent following an application. Some level of crop damage or impaired efficacy occurs, which may impact yield or warrant an additional “clean-up” application. This is the result of product synergism or antagonism.

    Synergism (Crop damage)

    When products synergize, the application becomes too potent. For example, an adjuvant could affect crop retention or uptake, exposing it to more active ingredient or overwhelming crop metabolism. The result is damage to the crop we are trying to protect.

    Antagonism (Reduced efficacy)

    When products antagonize, the application becomes less potent. There are several examples:

    • pH adjusters in one product may reduce the half-life of another product (e.g. The fungicide Captan has a half-life of 3 hours at a pH of 7.1 and only 10 minutes at a pH of 8.2.)
    • Active ingredients may get tied-up on the clay-based adjuvants in other products (e.g. glyphosate tied up by Metribuzin).
    • One product changes the uptake/retention of another. For example, a contact herbicide burns weed foliage beyond its ability to take up a lethal dose of systemic herbicide.

    2. Physical Incompatibility

    Physical incompatibility affects work rate and efficacy. Products form solids that interfere with, or halt, spraying. It can also make sprayer clean-up more difficult. For example, weak-acid herbicides lower the pH of the spray mix, reducing the solubility of Group 2 herbicides (i.e. imidazolinones, sulfonylureas, sulfonanilides). The oily formulation then adheres to plastic and rubber surfaces in tanks, connectors and hoses.

    There are many forms of physical incompatibility:

    • Liquids can curdle into pastes and gels that clog plumbing to such an extent that flushing cannot clear it and a manual tear down is required.
    Clogged screens
    • Dry formulations don’t hydrate or disperse, becoming sediment that clogs screens and nozzles. Even if they are small enough to spray, they reduce coverage uniformity. For example, a dry product added behind an oil gets coated, preventing it from hydrating.
    • Certain product combinations may cause settling, or one partner is more prone to settling. If the sprayer sits without agitation, settled products may or may not resuspend. Even if they do resuspend in the tank, they may remain as sediment in lines.
    Residue in hoses – Photo courtesy of Fred Whitford, Purdue University
    Clay-based products may or may not resuspend easily in a tank. Even then, they may not resuspend in plumbing lines.
    • Certain product combinations may cause foaming, or one partner may be prone to foaming, causing overflows or breaking pump suction. When products foam, dry products added through the foam may swell, preventing hydration.
    The Foamover Blues
    • Phase separation occurs when products layer in the tank. Consider oil and water. Even with agitation, the active ingredients may not be uniformly suspended in the tank and coverage uniformity will be reduced during spraying.
    Salad dressing left to rest is a great example of separation and stratification (left). Agitation helps emulsify it (right)

    Due Diligence – Preventing Tank Mixing Errors

    Incompatibility is often a function of the inert ingredients in pesticide formulations (e.g. thickeners, adjuvants, defoamers, stabilizers, solvents, etc.) and not the active ingredients. The more products you add to the tank, the more likely you’ll encounter an issue. It is prudent to perform a jar test to confirm physical compatibility. Remember, even if registered tank mix partners support mixing, your pace, mixing order, and water quality/temperature could cause issues.

    Do not decide to try a new-to-you registered tank mix during loading. Even if you’ve used these products successfully in the past, formulations change without notice. Plan as much as possible off season when there is time to do the following:

    Consult the pesticide labels

    Pesticide labels are always the first point of reference. They should be obeyed even if they contradict conventional practices. Booklet-style labels that come with the products are long, difficult to search and may not be up-to-date.

    In Canada, it is faster and easier to go to the PMRA Label Search website and search labels in PDF format. In other countries, consult the manufacturer’s website for label information. For each tank mix partner, use <CTRL>+F to find the following keywords:

    • Do Not Mix
    • Mix
    • Hours
    • Agitation
    • Fertilizers

    Consult manufacturer and crop advisors

    You’re likely not the first to consider a certain tank mix. Learn from those that have been there already:

    • Consult your chemical sales representative. They know their products best and want to see you succeed. They may have insight that is not found on the product label.
    • Consult local government or academic extension programs for an unbiased opinion.
    • Enlist the help of a professional crop advisor.

    It is a good practice to get tank mix recommendations in writing. If something should go wrong, liability is an important concern.

    If you’ve made a mess – The Reverse Jar Test

    It happens. We’ll use this real-world situation as an example:

    “I mixed up a batch of MCPA 500 A and Glyphosate at ¾ recommended label rate, but then got delayed on application with a stuck drill. I came back to the sprayer and found a nasty chemical precipitate – like waxy chunks. Agitation didn’t break them down. I dumped the tank out as I didn’t want to pump it through the booms. How do I clean up the chunks in the system?”

    We forwarded this question to ag chemists Dr. Eric Spandl (Land of Lakes) and Dr. Jim Reiss (Precision Laboratories) and developed this response:

    “Wearing appropriate personal protective equipment, physically remove the “chunky” material. A lot of time can be wasted (and rinsate water created) by experimenting with various concoctions, but if you do choose to try a compatibility agent, first try it in a mason jar. If it works to dissolve the material, it can be added to the tank with water and agitated. If not, you are down to manual cleaning: hot water under pressure.”

    We dubbed this process “The Reverse Jar Test”. Do not add hot water, cleaners or compatibility agents until the reverse jar test confirms success. You may create a larger problem. Of course, the best advice is to not put yourself in this position to begin with. Once again, don’t make mixing decisions at the inductor bowl – make them before ordering product.

    Tank mixing regulations in Canada (January, 2025 update)

    The following legislative framework is specific to Canada, so readers in other countries should consult their own regulatory authorities.

    Paragraph 6(5)(b) of the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) states that no person shall use a pest control product in a way that is inconsistent with the directions on the label. In 2020, a public consultation was held to consolidate and clarify tank mixing requirements. This led to Regulatory Proposal PRO2020-01 (Streamlined Category B Submissions and Tank Mix Labelling – July 3, 2020). Essentially, it stated that tank mixing would be allowed if there was text on the product label that specifically permitted it. This could be a specific tank mix combination, a general statement permitting mixing, or both.

    A new general label statement that permits tank mixing was proposed to consolidate tank mixing information in one place on the label and allow greater flexibility in terms of tank mixing options. The prohibition against tank mixing products with the same mode of action was removed, and the reference to tank mixing with a fertilizer is now an optional component of that statement. The general label statement reads as follows:

    “This product may be tank mixed with (a fertilizer, a supplement, or with) registered pest control products, whose labels also allow tank mixing, provided the entirety of both labels, including Directions For Use, Precautions, Restrictions, Environmental Precautions, and Spray Buffer Zones are followed for each product. In cases where these requirements differ between the tank mix partner labels, the most restrictive label must be followed. Do not tank mix products containing the same active ingredient unless specifically listed on this label.

    In December of 2022, Health Canada released a guidance document describing the federal tank mixing policy. This document is not part of the PCPA, but is an administrative document intended to facilitate compliance by all stakeholders. Registrants have until December, 2025 to update their extension material to align with amended product labels and guidance documents. Similarly, users of pest control products will be provided the same transitional period to adjust their purchasing and production practices to align with the provisions of this document. This means the policy will be in full effect on December , 2025. After that, applicators in Canada can only apply tank mixes that appear specifically on a product label, or tank mixes of products whose labels include the new general tank mixing statement.

    Summary of the guidance document

    Tank mixing is not permitted when a potential tank mix partner’s label has some exclusionary statement, such as:

    • Forbidding mixing. E.g. “Do not mix or apply this product with any other additive, pesticide or fertilizer except as specifically recommended on this label.”
    • Limiting tank mixes to only those specifically listed on the product label.

    During the label transition, guidance relating to tank mixing may be found under a section specific to tank mixing, and/or under other sections as in the following examples:

    • Directions for use: E.g. “When tank-mixes are permitted, read and observe all label directions, including rates and restrictions for each product used in the tank-mix. Follow the more stringent label precautionary measures for mixing, loading and applying stated on both product labels.”
    • Buffer Zones: E.g. “When tank mixes are permitted, consult the labels of the tank-mix partners and observe the largest (most restrictive) spray buffer zone of the products involved in the tank mixture and apply using the coarsest spray (ASABE) category indicated on the labels for those tank mix partners.”
    • Resistance Management: E.g. “Use tank mixtures with [fungicide/bactericides/insecticides/acaricides] from a different group that is effective on the target [pathogen/pest] when such use is permitted.”

    If there are no directions on the labels, don’t tank mix them.

    If your situation does not fit these examples, the following table (Appendix A at the bottom of the Guidance Document), lists several other examples examples of different tank mix wording scenarios for registered pest control products.

    Table 1: Permissibility of tank mixing based on various combinations of label statements related to tank mixing

    Product X label saysProduct Y label saysCan I tank mix? (Y/N)
    Nothing (silent on tank mixing)Nothing (silent on tank mixing)N
    General tank mix statementNothing
    (silent on tank mixing)
    N
    Nothing (silent on tank mixing)General tank mix statementN
    General tank mix statementGeneral tank mix statementY
    General tank mix statementTank mix with Product XY
    Tank mix with Product YGeneral tank mix statementY
    Tank mix with Product YNothing (silent on tank mixing)Y
    Nothing (silent on tank mixing)Tank mix with Product XY
    Tank mix with Product YTank mix with Product XY
    Tank mix with Product YExclusionary statement (and label does not include a specific Product X tank mix)N*
    Exclusionary statement (and label does not include a specific Product Y tank mix)Tank mix with Product XN*
    *There may be registered labels that have tank mix scenarios like this. Note that this is not allowed for new tank mix label amendments. Further, any product labels that have tank mix scenarios like this must be amended to alleviate the contradictory scenario. To do this, using the last scenario in Table 1 as an example, one of the following must occur: 1) remove the Product X tank mix from the Product Y label, 2) remove the exclusionary statement from the Product X label, or 3) add a specific tank mix for Product Y on the Product X label. Source: PMRA Guidance Document Tank Mix Labelling 2023

    Tank mixing adjuvants

    According to the PMRA, the rules surrounding the tank mixing of adjuvants remain the same as they have been since 2009, and are not included under the new guidance document. While the PCPA does not reference adjuvants specifically, they are prescribed to be pest control products in the regulations (Pest Control Products Regulations s.2(b)). The general reference in the PCPA that applies is s.6(5)(b).

    Therefore, in the case of activator adjuvants, the label for at least one tank mix partner must specify the use of an adjuvant, and only registered adjuvants labeled for the crop and for tank mixing are permitted. For example, tank mixing the herbicide Reflex with a registered soybean oil adjuvant not labelled for the use, or with an unregistered food grade activator adjuvant, would not be acceptable. Utility adjuvants have registration numbers, but their use is not prescribed or specified on pesticide labels, leaving their use to the discretion of the operator.

    For more information on Canada’s Tank Mixing Policy

    For more information, please contact Health Canada’s Pest Management Information Service.

    Academic Resources

    Even when products are potentially compatible, issues can arise from errors in mixing order, pace, carrier volume, carrier quality and agitation. These are discussed in our article on sprayer loading and jar testing.

    In 2018, Purdue University published “Avoid Tank Mixing Errors”. It is an excellent reference.

    In late 2022, Australia’s GRDC released a comprehensive guide on pesticide mixing and batching (within the context of the Australian agronomic environment, of course), which can be downloaded for free, here.

    Finally, you can watch a 2021 presentation on tank mixing (below). It was delivered to a grape growing audience, but much of the content applies across agriculture. There are a few “oops” moments where I didn’t say quite what I meant. I misread the Sencor dissolution / filtration work. And, I really didn’t answer the last question about mixing herbicides. The answer should have been to consult labels and local resources, such as OMAFRA’s Crop Protection Hub. Note that any discussion of Canadian regulatory policy may have changed in light of the new 2022 Guidance Document.

    This article was co-written with Mike Cowbrough, OMAFRA Weed Management Specialist – Field Crops

  • Beluga Drop Hoses in Corn: Utility and Return on Investment

    Beluga Drop Hoses in Corn: Utility and Return on Investment

    In 2019 we evaluated the spray coverage from nine application methods on corn silks. The results showed that a directed application from drop hoses (aka drop pipes, drop legs) suspended in between the rows gave significantly higher deposits. The results led us to wonder if the superior coverage from a directed application translated to improved yield.

    Around this time we started considering the Beluga Drop Hose developed by Agrotop (Germany) and distributed by Greenleaf Technologies (USA). Originally designed to apply neonicotinoids in canola, we found that the stiff-but-flexible hose did not tend to deflect or sway during an application. Further, their unique low-profile nozzle body had less potential to cause mechanical damage or otherwise snag in dense canopies. Unlike homemade drop pipes or other commercial solutions such as the Y-Drop with 360 Undercover, the Belugas were lightweight, simple to install/remove, and did not need a break-away section to prevent damage.

    Three examples of directed application systems. Left: Homemade drop pipes and a TeeJet QJ90-2-NYR split nozzle body (inset). Centre: Beluga drop hose with streamlined nozzle body (inset). Right: Y-Drop side-dress drop pipes with Yield 360 Undercover option (inset).

    In 2021 we initiated a four-year trial with the Beluga drop hose system in Port Rowan, Ontario. Our objective was to evaluate return-on-investment based on yield using two pesticide regimes. Treatments were established for conventional overhead technology, directed applications (i.e. the Beluga) and unsprayed checks.

    Construction and Installation

    We ordered 150 cm (60″) drop hoses with two nozzle bodies each so we could customize them. The instructions were in German, but after running them through translation software we were confident in how to proceed (download the translated copy here). We started by determining the hose length.

    Hose Length and Boom Spacing

    We started by temporarily fixing the mounting plates to the boom using quick ties because we wanted to ensure they did not interfere with boom folding. The drop hose quickly and easily “keys” into the plate allowing it to swing freely and find plumb. The corn was planted on 76 cm (30″) spacing so we aligned the plates with the alleys to permit the drop hoses to move between the planted rows. Each hose is plumbed to the nearest nozzle body via a quarter-turn quick-connect coupler.

    Temporarily attaching mounting plates every 30 inches to correspond with corn alleys. The Beluga keys into the mounting plate and is then plumbed into the sprayer via a quarter-turn quick-connect coupler that attaches to the nearest nozzle body.

    The drop hose had to clear the ground but still be long enough permit nozzle bodies to span the target region in the canopy. We later learned to cut the excess hose closer to the lowest nozzle body. This eliminated a source of pesticide collection (like a boom end) and prevented them touching the ground and “walking” as occasional contact would cause them them to flex and leap forward.

    Target Zone and Nozzle Body Spacing

    Before we could permanently install the nozzle bodies on the drop hoses, we had to decide what our target was. This required us to establish a primary coverage zone within the corn. Dr. David Hooker (University of Guelph) experimented with directed sprays (triazoles) and leaf disease control in the 2010’s. Dr. Hooker noted that leaf diseases were controlled above the ear to the flag leaf, and postulated it may be due to xylem mobility (i.e. acropetal movement) of the fungicides used at the time. This concept warrants further investigation with modern fungicides, especially with the need to control tarspot and reduce DON risk in SW Ontario.

    Tarspot in corn – Southwest Ontario, 2023

    Given that the nozzles would be about 38 cm (15″) from the stalk, we elected to use 110° flat fan nozzles on two nozzle bodies spaced 50 cm (20″) apart to increase the swath. Our objective was to protect against foliar disease, so the bottom nozzle was aimed approximately at the ear (for silk coverage) and the upper nozzle covered the higher foliage without being so high as to spray out of the canopy. Between gravity, the wake of the drop hose, and the initial angle of the spray, all surfaces received some degree of spray coverage no matter their orientation or depth. This was later confirmed using fluorescent dye.

    It has been suggested that this target zone may not be ideal for all hybrids, and that an overhead component should be included. However, we felt this was the most efficient distribution of the spray given Dr. Hooker’s observations and the results from the 2019 spray coverage work referenced earlier.

    Each drop hose was suspended on 76 cm (30″) spacing to correspond with the centre of each alley. Nozzle bodies were spaced 50 cm (20″) apart to cover the primary target zone within the canopy. The outer two drop hoses only had inward-facing nozzles to contain the treatment. We later cut the excess hose closer to the lowest nozzle body.

    Using the jig provided, we drilled holes for the two nozzle bodies. Then we blew-out the hoses to clear them of any plastic shavings that could plug nozzles. The hoses were cut to length and the end plug was installed with a hex key. Once we found a rhythm, the assembly went quickly and easily. Expect assembly and mounting to take a day.

    Customizing the hose length and nozzle spacing. We built our own clamping jig to hold the pipes steady.

    Plot Design, Sprayer Set-up and Chemistry

    The study took place on 11.3 ha (28 acres) spanning two fields. The corn variety was Pioneer P0720AM, which has a Gibberella Ear Rot rating of 4. Four overhead treatments, four directed treatments and four unsprayed checks were arranged in a random block design for each of two fungicide regimes (n=8 for each treatment per year). Each treatment area was between 1.05 and 1.10 acres..

    The sprayer was a self-propelled John Deere R4038 with a rear-mounted 36.5 meter (120′) boom. Treatments were eight corn rows wide, so the boom was nozzled to permit all three treatments in a single pass. Travel speed was between 8.85 – 11.25 km/h (5.5 – 7 mph) and the application volume was 225 L/ha (20 gpa).

    Nozzle choice is indicated in the following table. Note that after the first year, we elected to use a smaller droplet size on the Belugas; This gave the advantage of higher deposit density with little or no risk of drift from inside the canopy.

    YearBroadcast (Overhead)Directed (Beluga)Unsprayed Check
    1TeeJet AIC11005’s on 15″ centres4 Airmix 110015’s per drop on 30″ centresNozzles blocked
    2,3,4TeeJet AIC11005’s on 15″ centres4 Spray Max 110015’s per drop on 30″ centresNozzles blocked
    Treatment nozzles by year

    Two tank mix regimes were applied each year, as indicated in the following table. Tank Mix 1 was used each year. Tank mix 2 changed based on pesticide availability and the farmer cooperator’s preference. The insecticide “Delegate” (50 g/ac) was also included in each tank mix. However, there was very little evidence of the target pest (Western Bean Cutworm), so the impact of Delegate will not be discussed. Further, to keeps matters simple, we will not be discussing the relative efficacy of each tank mix in this article. Instead, the results are combined and only the application method and total cost of fungicides will be compared in this study.

    Tank Mix (Year)ProductRate (/ac )
    Tank Mix 1 (all)Miravis Neo405 ml
    Tank Mix 2 (2021)Headline AMP + Caramba303 ml + 405 ml
    Tank Mix 2 (2022)Veltyma + Proline202 ml + 170 ml
    Tank Mix 2 (2023)Veltyma DLX202 ml + 405 ml
    Tank Mix 2 (2024)Veltyma DLX202 ml + 405 ml
    Tank mix treatment rates by year.

    Qualitative Results

    Leaves

    In all four years, a qualitative comparison of randomly-selected ear leaves showed less evidence of disease in the fungicide treatments compared with the unsprayed check. Generally, there was also less evidence of disease in the Directed application treatments versus the Overhead broadcast application treatments.

    A typical random sampling of ear leaves were selected from multiple locations in the treatments. Leaves appeared cleaner in the fungicide treatments versus the unsprayed checks. Leaves from the Directed applications seemed cleaner than the Overhead broadcast applications.

    Cob Size / Quality

    In all four years, preliminary samples showed evidence of disease and tapered-ends in both fungicide treatments and the unsprayed checks, but trends indicated improved size and quality of the cobs from fungicide treatments. It was difficult to discern any difference between Overhead and Directed application at this stage.

    Typically, preliminary sampling showed less incidence of disease in the fungicide treatments but no obvious difference between methods of application.

    Quantitative Results

    Net Revenue

    Each treatment yielded corn with different moisture levels, so we chose not to compare bushels per acre harvested. Instead, we calculated net revenue for each year based on the current market values in the Port Rowan area. We normalized the treatment yields by moisture level and calculated their relative drying costs. Then we accounted for the other inputs (see list below) using the following formula:

    Net Revenue (CDN) = Seed Yield × Corn Sale Price – Drying Cost – Treatment Cost

    Item2021 ($)2022 ($)2023 ($)2024 ($)
    Corn Sale Price (/bu)6.008.006.506.00
    Custom Spray Cost (/ac)12.0012.0015.0015.00
    Drying Cost based on Moisture Levels (/bu)0.58-0.640.60-0.690.49-0.560.47-0.54
    Tank Mix 1 (/ac)16.6618.2418.5018.86
    Tank Mix 2 (/ac)15.7528.5222.0922.49
    Net revenue input costs and prices by year in Port Rowan, Ontario

    Averages were calculated for the eight replications for each treatment. These average yields (bu/ac), moistures and ROIs ($/ac) are presented for each treatment, for each year, in the table below. The average values of all four years are also presented in this table. With few exceptions, it always paid to spray, and the directed application produced a higher yield than the conventional overhead treatment.

    YearTreatmentYield (bu/ac)Moisture (%)Average ROI ($/ac)
    1Broadcast vs. Check-2.26+0.58-0.49
    1Directed vs. Check+3.48+0.60+20.93
    1Directed vs. Broadcast+5.74+0.01+21.42
    2Broadcast vs. Check+9.79+0.22+52.48
    2Directed vs. Check+14.56-0.04+89.14
    2Directed vs. Broadcast+4.77-0.26+36.66
    3Broadcast vs. Check+8.40-0.20+23.70
    3Directed vs. Check+22.7+0.20+117.10
    3Directed vs. Broadcast+14.4+0.40+93.40
    4Broadcast vs. Check+45.7+1.00+244.37
    4Directed vs. Check+43.7+0.80+232.09
    4Directed vs. Broadcast-2.10-0.20-12.28
    AllBroadcast vs. Check+13.40+0.40+69.07
    AllDirected vs. Check+19.60+0.40+107.00
    AllDirected vs. Broadcast+6.200.00+37.93
    Final accounting. Bold indicates a desirable outcome, while italics signify an undesirable outcome (n=8 per year).

    Return on Investment

    Given that costs changed each year, it’s not ideal to average the final costs. However, doing so gives a relative indication of the value of spraying versus spraying with overhead systems versus spraying with directed systems.

    • Directed (Belugas) vs. Unsprayed check: Profit of $107.00/ac CAD
    • Directed (Belugas) vs. Broadcast (Overhead): Profit of $37.93/ac CAD
    • Broadcast (Overhead) vs. Unsprayed check: Profit of $69.07/ac CAD

    Perhaps a more realistic review of the ROI is to calculate how many acres were required to pay for the Beluga system each year. In other words, how many acres would a grower have to spray for the profit to offset the cost of purchase? This value was different each year due to changes in costs and relative disease pressure.

    In 2021, 48 Belugas on (30″ centres) and 192 110 degree flat fans was $8,400.00 CDN. 2022: $8,600.00. 2023: $8,800.00. 2024: $8,890.00. Perhaps it was demand, or a change in dealers, or perhaps it was tariffs (or both) but in 2025: $13,500.00. Note that the break even point spanned from roughly 40 to 400 acres, but on average was less than 100 acres.

    Corn acres required to offset start up costs of the Beluga system from 2021-2024. A broad description of growing conditions and disease pressure in the test fields is noted for context. n=8 each year.

    While now a little out of date, the following video filmed by Real Agriculture discusses the return on investment based on 2021 and 2022 data.

    Mycotoxin Assays

    We submitted samples for lab analysis of mycotoxins for each treatment, annually. However there are many factors that influence ear mould pathogens, and we did not see any clear correlations between the fungicide, application method, or even the unsprayed check with the level of Deoxynivalenol (DON aka vomitoxin) or zearalenone detected.

    The Drop Hose Experience

    While cost and efficacy are key considerations, we felt it was also important to describe the utility and user-experience. This study focusses on the Port Rowan trials, but over the years several other Ontario farmers have adopted the Beluga system and reported on their experience. We have included their observations:

    • Installing and uninstalling the drops took roughly 90 seconds apiece, including moving the ladder.
    • Deflection was minimal, even when they were dragged perpendicular to the rows through headlands.
    • The factory mounting bracket permits the drop to be “keyed in” from either side, however this may have led to drop hoses occasionally detaching in shorter corn stands and on sharp turns. The weak point may be the plastic hose barb, which can be damaged if the drops detach from the mounting plates. Rather than the current slot positions of “9:30 and 2:30”, “11:00 and 1:00” may prevent detachment. One dealer, however, has redesigned the mounting plate and linkage to compensate.
    • Initially, it was a little unnerving not being able to see the spray but the operator quickly got used to it (see video below).
    • There was no issue folding the boom or driving between fields with the drops installed. They did note that the lugs on the front tires did contact the drops on tight turns, but adjustments were made.
    • There were issues with other sprayer types (e.g. New Holland Guardian) when folding the booms. Drops did not hang plumb during transport. One dealer developed new linkages to account for differences in boom design.
    • The drop hoses rinsed as easily as any nozzle. One dealer developed new hose-end plugs to facilitate rinsing.
    • There were initial concerns that using 015’s nozzles to maintain the target 20 gpa might cause plugging issues, but none occurred.
    • The drops were resilient. The operator bent the hoses by lowering the boom and then dragged them along the ground. They returned to plumb and appeared undamaged. One operator elected to use a NutraBoss Y-Drop mount to stiffen the top few inches of the Belugas (image below) but no other user found this necessary.
    • Once removed, the drops stored compactly and easily on a utility shelf, repacked in their original box or hung on the shed wall.

    Beluga drop hoses mounted on a NutraBoss frame

    Custom Operators

    Some custom operators have also begun to use the Beluga system and have reviewed it positively, but others question the fit. The latter feel this technology makes more sense for a home farm operation where the drops can be cut to a size that aligns the nozzles for a specific combination of boom height and corn variety. The concern is that a custom operator would have to adjust boom height (if not already maxed) or swap drop hoses to configurations that align correctly with the client’s crop. However, four years in, early adopters have collectively sprayed more than 20 different corn varieties with multiple sprayers and have had no issues reaching the target zone.

    Additionally, our study has focused on 20 gpa where some custom operators would prefer 15 gpa. Reducing volume necessitates a change in travel speed (may not be practical) or a reduction in operating pressure (may increase average droplet size). It would be inadvisable to drop from 015’s to 01’s (think plugs and misty spray).

    Both limitations translate to additional cost (currently about $2.00 CDN per acre) to a client. The value proposition becomes the added cost for an efficacious application versus the potential losses should conventional application methods fail to control devastating diseases such as Tar Spot and Northern Corn Leaf Blight.

    Adoption in North America

    Beluga drop hoses are distributed by Greenleaf Technologies in Covington, Louisiana and resold through dealers in the USA and in Ontario. It is not possible to determine how many sets have been sold, but if a boom is 100′ to 120′ and drops are placed every 30”, then a set would be 40-48 hoses. We started reporting on their value in corn protection in 2021. The following sales figures are annual sales (i.e. not cumulative) from Greenleaf Tech. This includes the 36″ hoses, which may or may not be used in corn. These figures will be updated annually:

    Conclusion

    With the exception of 2024, which was essentially parity between Overhead and Directed methods, we saw an annual increase in mean net revenue from corn sprayed using a directed application. The low price point, ease of use, and high rate of return make this an attractive proposition in corn production.

    Thanks to Petker Farm Ltd. and other early adopters for participating in the study. Thanks to Corteva and Syngenta for contributing the pesticides used.

  • Think Before Adding Adjuvants

    Think Before Adding Adjuvants

    It’s odd to begin an article by suggesting the reader consult another, but Dr. Tom Wolf wrote a great summary about adjuvants for SaskPulse in 2023 and you can and should download it here. While I’m at it, also grab this article by Rich Zollinger, Emeritus Extension Weed Scientist, North Dakota State University.

    OK, back to the article at hand. An adjuvant is “any substance in a formulation or added to the spray tank to modify the biological activity or application characteristics”. This means they have an array of functions, such as masking pesticide odor, conditioning carrier water, improving mixing and reducing drift (Utility modifier adjuvants). They can also improve the degree of contact between droplets and the plant surface, or enhance product uptake or rainfastness (Activator adjuvants which include a subset of products referred to as Surfactants [SURFace ACTive agENTS]).

    For example, this short video was filmed in 2015 to demonstrate how a sticker surfactant reduces runoff and how a penetrant surfactant can help a product pass through a waxy plant surface. This video was filmed and edited by former OMAFA summer student, Victoria Radauskas.

    Generally, pesticides already come preformulated with the requisite inerts, which include the utility modifier and activator adjuvants that ensure ease of use and optimal product performance. But sometimes the pesticide label requires the operator to add a particular name brand or category of adjuvant. In this case, the pesticide does not include the adjuvant because it might negatively impact product stability, increase bulk and/or increase expense.

    Canada is seeing an increase in the number of adjuvants for purchase (particularly utility modifiers). Claims of improved performance make it tempting to reflexively and proactively throw them in the mix. The grower is free to use any adjuvant provided it is registered for use on the crop and in combination with the pesticide being applied. You can learn more about the regulatory realities in our tank mix article.

    We suggest that adding any adjuvant is an optional last step in optimizing a sprayer’s performance. Dialing in all other aspects tend to reap the greatest rewards. Here are a few general guidelines when using surfactants in horticultural crops:

    • Do not use penetrant surfactants (including oils) with copper, sulphur or captan fungicides.
    • Do not use penetrant surfactants with contact or surface pesticides.
    • Stickers may impede the movement of systemic products.
    • Stickers may prevent redistribution to newly emerging leaves early in the growing season (but they may be desirable during wet springs).
    • Deposition utility modifiers may negatively affect canopy penetration when employing multi row or alternate row traffic patterns.
    • Spreaders are more likely to incur runoff so adjust volumes accordingly.

    Additional Resources

    The following video presentation was recorded for a 2021 adjuvant conference in Argentina. It’s a primer to introduce what adjuvants are and why we might consider using them. You’ll note that I speak slowly during the presentation – that’s because it was being translated and I wanted to make that process as easy as possible. Also, I think I mistakenly said captan was an insecticide – in fact it’s a fungicide. Oops.

    And here’s a 2022 interview from Real Agriculture’s “The Agronomists” featuring Tom Wolf of Agrimetrix, and Greg Dahl of Winfield United. For the adjuvant-related part of the conversation, you can pan ahead to the six-minute mark.

    And here’s a 2025 interview from Real Agriculture’s “The Agronomists” featuring Jason Deveau and and Austin Anderson of Helena.

  • RPAS Swathing in Broad Acre Crop Canopies

    RPAS Swathing in Broad Acre Crop Canopies

    This work was performed with contributions from Adrian Rivard (Drone Spray Canada) and Adam Pfeffer (Bayer Crop Science – funding partner). Dr. Tom Wolf is gratefully acknowledged for his editorial support and assistance interpreting the results.

    Introduction

    This research is part of a continuing effort to identify best practices for broad acre crop protection using remote piloted aerial systems (RPAS). Previous work in wheat, corn and soybean has provided insight into how RPAS operational settings and environmental factors affect drift potential, effective swath width and spray coverage. This information, paired with advancements in RPAS design, has helped operators to improve spray deposit accuracy.

    However, RPAS still produce what has traditionally been considered poor (or at least sporadic) broad acre coverage. Many studies have illustrated these shortcomings using herbicides or fluorescent tracers. Contributing factors include inappropriate operational settings, low application volumes (20-50 L/ha) paired with coarser spray qualities, and inaccurate swath widths. In light of these issues, we struggle to reconcile claims of acceptable disease control, which is arguably the greatest challenge in a spray-based crop protection paradigm.

    Tar Spot

    One real-world example of intermittent disease control from aerial applications (not just RPAS) is the case of tar spot in corn. Tar spot is a fungal disease caused by Phyllachora maydis and it is becoming a significant economic concern in Ontario. Left unchecked the disease causes rapid, premature leaf senescence. This reduces photosynthetic capacity, and ultimately, yield. Depending on spray timing, crop variety, environmental stressors, and the product applied, protection should last for up to three weeks.

    In the last few years there have been several reports (both in Ontario and in corn-producing US states) of tar spot “striping” following aerial sprays. Crops seem well protected directly beneath the flight path (green and healthy), but efficacy tapers to failure towards the edges of the swath (brown and desiccated). Fundamentally, this is likely due to inadequate spray coverage caused by an overestimation of the effective swath width.

    Figure 1 Tar spot striping in Western Illinois following two applications from a fixed wing sprayer (2023).
    Figure 2 Tar spot striping from RPAS volume trials. A brown strip can be seen between two passes in each RPAS treatment of 30 and 50 L/ha. The top is an application by a 100 foot horizontal boom. Each treatment is separated by an unsprayed check. (2023).
    Figure 3 – Tar spot striping in Ontario corn following fungicide application by helicopter (2024).

    Effective Swath Width (ESW)

    The measured swath width presents the lowest variability (as indicated by the coefficient of variability, CV) while minimizing the degree of over- and under-dosing. As a matter of operational productivity, wider swaths mean wider route spacing, which is attractive because it means fewer passes and faster applications. Once the agronomics are considered, the effective swath width is that portion of the swath that gives the desired biological result. It may equal, or only be a fraction of, the measured swath width. It is plausible that inappropriate effective swath widths from aerial applications are common, but have not always been detected, because:

    • Generally, fungicides are weakly systemic and give modest yield increases from disease suppression and their “stay green” properties. Until tar spot, a sub lethal dose of fungicide did not lead to rapid and acute crop failure.
    • Most growers do not intentionally leave unsprayed checks, or the check locations do not coincide with disease presence.
    • The applied product rate is sufficiently high to cover regions of under-application.
    • Taken together, deficiencies are often too subtle for passive detection.

    This is not to suggest that pilots intentionally inflate swath widths. Swaths are evaluated during fly-in calibration sessions using established protocols (e.g., Operation S.A.F.E.), and RPAS swath evaluation has emulated these practices. Calibrations take place on bare ground or stubble/grass using two-dimensional samplers (i.e., continuous samplers like string or bond paper, or discreet samplers like water sensitive paper). However, this protocol does not account for any physical interference from the crop canopy itself. This may have negative implications, particularly given the unique nature of the RPAS swath.

    RPAS tend to produce swaths with a very narrow span and a steep profile. To a certain extent, their swath widths share a direct relationship with altitude and headwind speed, and coarser sprays result in narrower swaths (with Dr. Michael Reinke, MSU). The outer edges of the RPAS swath represent the least amount of spray volume along the width, and this coincides with the turbulent dispersion zone of the downwash. Therefore, those extremes should contain a higher proportion of low-energy droplets moving in multiple directions relative the centre of the swath.

    While crop morphology and planting architecture are contributing factors (i.e. part of the agronomic use case), it is generally accepted that the degree of spray penetration falls off exponentially with canopy depth. It follows that this should also be the case for any lateral movement, resulting in a significantly shorter swath in-canopy versus on bare ground.

    Materials and Methods

    Spray Sampling

    Spray deposition was sampled using a 15.8 m (52 ft) Speed Track (Application Insight LLC) loaded with 3-inch bond paper (Staples Canada). The spray mix was 0.3% v/v FD&C Blue #1 Liquid. Bond papers were analyzed using a Swath Gobbler (2nd gen software – Application Insight LLC) at 100 mm sampling rate (i.e., ~150 discreet images per sample). Hue: 32-180. Saturation 17-60. Value: 156-255.

    The Swath Gobbler produces a complete, correlated and ordered record of the cross-section of a swath. For each discreet image, it reports the number of individual droplet stains on the sampler per area. It also reports percent area covered by measuring the total number of pixels with dye divided the total number of pixels in the image.

    The device deliberately does not calculate a Droplet Size Distribution (DSD) of the stains. This is because any DSD calculated from paper collectors relies on assumptions that cannot be validated, such as the fact that all droplets are captured and detected, spread factors are known for that application condition and similar for all stain sizes, there are no multiple hits, etc.

    RPAS

    The sprayer was a DJI T40, calibrated according to the pilot’s standard operating procedure (Drone Spray Canada). Certain operational settings varied with treatment and will be detailed later in this section.

    The flight path was perpendicular to the sampler, aligned with the centre using pin flags as references for the pilot. Spraying began approximately 20 m prior to the sampler to ensure the RPAS was at target speed and continued some 20 m past the sampler.

    Figure 4. DJI T40 approaching sampler on bare ground. Sampler was later moved into the adjacent wheat field (left).

    Defining Coverage

    Swath width will be calculated from two different coverage metrics.

    Percent Area Covered describes the amount of surface area covered by deposit. Given the variable degree of stain diameter (a function of sampler material, spray mix, and droplet velocity) this value can only be used as a relative index (i.e., can only be compared to itself). No conclusions can be drawn about how spray interacts with plant tissue, but generally more coverage correlates to improved crop protection.

    Deposit Density describes the number of individual droplet stains on the sampler per area. Higher densities can imply more uniform distribution over the plant surface, which is particularly important for contact materials.

    Previous studies (with Dr. Tom Wolf, Agrimetrix Research and Training, data not shown) indicate a higher correlation between deposit density and swath width at lower versus higher spray volumes. Lower volumes are typically comprised of finer droplets, which are more accurately resolved using deposit counts. Swath widths determined by deposit density also tend to be longer than those determined using percent coverage, better aligning with real-world observations of efficacy.

    Wheat

    R40 wheat was planted on October 9th, 2023, at 808,000 seeds/ha (2 million seeds/ac). Wheat height at the time of the trial was 60 cm (25 in). The location was 45180 Fruit Ridge Line, St. Thomas, Ontario. Deposition trials took place on May 23rd. Wheat stubble swath testing also took place at this location on May 15th.

    The RPAS was programmed to apply 50 L/ha using a 260 µm droplet diameter according to the DJI software. Air speed was 5 m/s and the flow rate was 11-12 L/min as it passed over the sampler. Swath was programmed at 8 m.

    Coverage was evaluated for water (control) and for a spray mix containing 0.15% v/v Interlock (a drift mitigating adjuvant – Winfield United) and 0.15% v/v Interlock + 0.125% v/v Activate Plus (a spreader adjuvant – Winfield United). For bare ground, each treatment had three passes (n=3) except for water, which had four (n=4).

    The wheat canopy was only sprayed with water three times (n=3). Limited passes were made because it served as a proof of principle. Any indication of relevant differences in the swath width would justify later trials in corn and soybean. These first passes revealed issues with the experimental design that were later corrected:

    • The RPAS spray tank level was not held constant. The RPAS weight affects the intensity of the downwash. The volume dropped from 30 L to ~20 L over the course of the experiment. In future trials, a tank volume of 20 L was maintained from a premixed source.
    • The wind direction occasionally shifted from a direct headwind to a partial cross wind from the RPAS’s right. In future experiments, we waited for an optimal wind direction before starting each pass.
    • The RPAS altitude was set to 3 m above bare ground. We assumed it would climb to account for the height of the wheat, but the canopy did not register with the RPAS sensors. As a result, spray was released ~60 cm closer to the wheat heads than to the ground in bare ground swathing. In future experiments, we confirmed that the RPAS was 3 m from the top of the crop canopy.
    • Despite best efforts, moving the sampler into the wheat parted and distorted the canopy. As a result, the sampler was not as obscured as it should have been. We developed strategies to minimize canopy distortion in corn and soybean that will be described later.
    Figure 5. Top-down view of sampler in wheat canopy. Note that the canopy did not close over the sampler as intended.

    Corn

    Corn was planted on May 15th, 2024, at 13,300 seeds/ha (33,000 seeds/ac). The sampler was erected in the field on July 3 to allow the canopy to grow up and around it. Deposition trials took place on July 26 and every effort was made to leave the canopy undisturbed around the sampler. Corn measured 2.4 m (9 ft) at the tassel and 1.2 m (4 ft) at the silks. The sampler height corresponded to the ears. The location was 42°40’52.1″N 81°04’45.9″W near 5277 Quaker Road, Sparta, Ontario.

    Figure 6 Sampler erected to 4 ft. Crop grew around the sampler to minimize any canopy disturbance.
    Figure 7 Sampler position relative to ears during sampling.
    Figure 8 Installing Speed Track for swath testing in wheat stubble.

    Soybean

    Soybean was planted on June 30th, 2024, at 80,800 seeds/ha (200,000 seeds/ac) on 38 cm (15 in) centres. Deposition trials took place the morning of August 14. While the densest area was selected for the trials, the field was patchy with crop height spanning 20-25 cm (8-14 in). Each section of the Speed Track was inserted under the canopy separately to avoid disturbing or damaging the plants. The track was elevated ~10 cm off the ground. The location was at 42°46’50.4″N 81°08’20.8″W near 43900 Talbot Line, Central Elgin, Ontario.

    Figure 9 Sampler in soybean.

    Corn and Soybean Treatments

    The following treatments were repeated three times in-canopy (n=3) (Table 1). The actual flow rate (recorded as the RPAS passed over the sampler) was always ~1.5 L/min less than programmed.

    Treatment #Droplet Diameter (µm)Programmed Swath (m)Volume (L/ha)Rate (L/min)Flight Speed (m/s)Spray Mix
    1320102010.510water
    232083010.58.3water
    332085010.55water
    43208305.75water
    550085010.55water
    63208505.750.5% Masterlock
    732083010.58.30.5% Masterlock
    Table 1 RPAS operational settings for corn and soybean treatments

    The following treatments were repeated three times on wheat stubble (n=3) (Table 2). Once again, the actual flow rate (recorded as the RPAS passed over the sampler) was always ~1.5 L/min less than programmed.

    Treatment #Droplet Diameter (µm)Programmed Swath (m)Volume (L/ha)Rate (L/min)Flight Speed (m/s)Spray Mix
    1320102010.510water
    232083010.58.3water
    332085010.55water
    43208305.75water
    Table 2 RPAS operational settings for wheat stubble treatments

    Weather Data

    The RPAS flight path was into the prevailing wind, but minor variations occurred throughout sampling. Weather was recorded as the RPAS passed over the sampler using a Kestrel 3550AG weather meter in a vane mount positioned on a tripod 2 m above ground (Table 3).

    TerrainWind Speed (km/h)Direction Relative to Flight PathTemperature (°C)Cloud Cover (%)RH (%)
    Bare Ground3-5Headwind +/- 25° from starboard20-21060
    Wheat Canopy5-7Headwind +/- 25° from starboard21-22060
    Corn Canopy2-4Headwind +/- 15° from starboard23-26<1075
    Wheat Stubble4-7Headwind +/- 15° from starboard26-28<1065
    Soybean3-4Headwind +/- 15° from starboard22055
    Table 3 Average weather conditions during trials.

    Results

    Raw Coverage Expressed as Percent Coverage or Deposit Density

    Coverage can be presented as raw data plotted by swath position. This is a qualitative means for assessing the swath. The bare ground data has been presented (using both coverage metrics) as an example (Figures 10 and 11).

    Figure 10 Swath coverage data for water on bare ground expressed as percent area covered. All four passes are plotted.
    Figure 11 Swath coverage data for water on bare ground expressed as deposit density. All four passes are plotted.

    Repetitions were similar enough to imply that environmental conditions were consistent during sampling. By averaging the repetitions, coverage in-canopy can be more easily compared to that on bare ground Figures 12 and 13).

    Figure 12 Average swath coverage data expressed as percent area covered. Bare ground (n=10). Wheat canopy (n=3).
    Figure 13 Average swath coverage data expressed as deposit density. Bare ground (n=10). Wheat canopy (n=3).

    The magnitude of coverage on bare ground exceeded that in-canopy, tapering to similitude and near-zero at the edges of the pattern. It can therefore be concluded that the entire swath was captured, and that spray was filtered by the canopy before reaching the sampler within.

    The difference between bare ground and the wheat canopy was greater when the data were presented as percent area versus deposit density. Differences in the number of deposits from finer sprays were more accurately resolved using deposit density than percent coverage. Since it can be expected that smaller droplets penetrate a canopy better than coarser droplets, it may be more appropriate to use deposit density to document their presence. We also saw indications of wider swaths when data were presented as deposit density, as well as a bimodal distribution that reflected the positions of the two rotary atomizers.

    While informative, this raw coverage format did not allow empirical comparisons. Each pass must be converted to a swath width.

    Converting to Swath Width

    Each pass was transformed by averaging Swath Gobbler data to a single value every 0.5 m. Data were then entered into the www.sprayers101.com swath width calculator and the SW was manually determined for each pass. Criteria was the lowest overdose, lowest underdose and lowest CV for an idealized threshold coverage of 90% that of the highest value in the swath. In the following histogram, the SW from all treatments have been averaged for ground and canopy terrains (Figure 14).

    There was a significant reduction in swath width in a wheat canopy compared to stubble or bare ground. There was a 41.2% reduction in swath width in a canopy when measured as percent area covered and a 26.6% reduction when expressed as deposit density. As previously stated, deposit density better reflects the contribution of finer deposits, which tend to penetrate deepest into crop canopies.

    Figure 14 Average effective swath width for all treatments on all terrains. Swaths expressed from both percent coverage and deposit density metrics. Standard error bars presented. Canopy (n=45). Ground (n=22).

    When the data is considered by terrain and by crop, we see that swathing on bare ground or in wheat stubble doesn’t have a significant impact. This justifies combining those data as “Ground” in subsequent analyses.

    Another observation that supports the use of deposit densities is the difference between the intended (i.e., programmed) swath width and the detected swath width on ground (Figure 15). The SW on ground was closer to the intended 8 or 10 m swath width when expressed as deposit density. It was approximately half the desired width when expressed as percent coverage, which is considerably less than common practice.

    Figure 15 Average effective swath width for each crop and terrain. Swaths expressed from both percent coverage and deposit density metrics. Standard error bars presented. Ground 8 m swath (n=19). Ground 10 m swath (n=3). Canopy 8 m swath (n=39). Canopy 10 m swath (n=6).

    Canopy Effect

    By percent area, corn had the biggest reduction in swath width compared to bare ground, then soybean, then wheat (Table 4 and Figure 16). This suggests the SW shares an inverse relationship with the canopy depth. However, the relationship reversed when SW was expressed as deposit density. The relationship between droplet size, crop physiology, planting architecture and canopy penetration is complicated, and no conclusions can be drawn beyond a reduction in SW in-canopy.

    Crop% Reduction in SW (% area)% Reduction in SW (deposits/cm2)
    Corn44.020.6
    Soybean32.228.3
    Wheat21.731.5
    Table 4 Reduction in average effective swath width in-canopy by crop compared to on ground. Swaths expressed from both percent coverage and deposit density metrics.
    Figure 16 Average effective swath width for each terrain. Swaths expressed from both percent coverage and deposit density metrics. Standard error bars presented. Bare ground (n=10). Wheat Stubble (n=12). Corn Canopy (n=21). Soybean Canopy (n=21). Wheat Canopy (n=3).

    Effect of Volume on SW

    The effect of spray volume on swath width is not immediately clear. When the data were expressed as deposit density, volume shared an inverse relationship with SW in canopy (Figure 17). There appeared to be no effect when expressed as percent coverage. The inverse relationship is weakly expressed, if at all, for both metrics on bare ground.

    Figure 17 Average effective swath width by volume and terrain. Swaths expressed from both percent coverage and deposit density metrics. Standard error bars presented. Canopy 20 L/ha (n=6). Canopy 30 L/ha (n=18). Canopy 50 L/ha (n=21). Ground 20 L/ha (n=6). Ground 30 L/ha (n=3). Ground 50 L/ha (n=13).

    Effect of Speed on SW

    For most RPAS designs, lower volumes are applied at higher flight speed (Table 5). Previous work demonstrated that higher flight speeds tended to result in wider swaths and an increase in drift. Do higher speeds cause wider swaths in-canopy, despite lower volumes?

    Volume Applied (L/ha)5 m/s Flight Speed8.3 m/s Flight Speed10 m/s Flight Speed
    203 treatments9 treatments
    309 treatments12 treatments
    5034 treatments
    Table 5 – Number of treatments for each flight speed by volume applied.

    Flight speed had a clearer impact on swath width than spray volume did (Figure 18). There was a positive relationship between flight speed and swath width as measured by deposit density in canopy and on bare ground.

    Figure 18 Average effective swath width by speed and terrain. Swaths expressed from both percent coverage and deposit density metrics. Standard error bars presented. Canopy 5 m/s (n=27). Canopy 8.3 m/s (n=12). Canopy 10 m/s (n=6). Ground 5 m/s (n=16). Ground 8.3 m/s (n=3). Ground 10 m/s (n=3).

    Just as with volume, there appeared to be no significant effect on swath width in either canopy when expressed using percent coverage. This was likely because finer sprays were better able to penetrate a canopy and deposit density is better able to resolve their presence.

    Conclusions

    There was no difference in SW between stubble and bare ground. The SW on-ground was far closer to the programmed 8 or 10 m swath width when expressed as deposit density.

    There appears to be a significant reduction of SW in-canopy versus on-ground. A crop canopy created a 26.6% reduction when expressed as deposit density. Specifically, corn was -20.6%, soybean was -28.3%, and wheat was -31.5%. Previous work has demonstrated diminishing coverage with canopy depth in corn, but it is difficult to make comparisons between agronomic use cases (e.g. different planting architectures and plant physiologies).

    When the data were expressed as deposit density, spray volume shared an inverse relationship with SW in-canopy, but the effect on SW on-ground was less clear. However, RPAS speed had a clear inverse relationship with SW in-canopy and strong trend on-ground.

    It is understood that finer spray is better able to penetrate canopies. One reason is because finer droplets are able to become entrained the downwash. Another is simply mathematical advantage, given that finer sprays are comprised of exponentially higher numbers of droplets than coarser sprays, increasing the odds of deposition. Conversely, coarser droplets (which have the greatest influence on percent area covered), are more likely to impinge on the canopy structure before reaching the sampler. Deposit density appears to be the more accurate metric for calculating SW both on-ground and in-canopy.

    The reduced SW in-canopy versus on-ground explains, in part, why striping is occurring in aerial corn fungicide applications. The route spacing reflects on-ground swath width, where it should reflect the shorter, ESW.

  • Fungicides with a Custom Applicator: Drive-Along Diaries #4

    Fungicides with a Custom Applicator: Drive-Along Diaries #4

    In this fourth installment of the Drive-Along Diaries, we’ll shift our focus a little. I’ll continue to share observations about real world spraying practices, but we’ll also dip a toe into the business side of custom application. Every contractor’s situation is different, but perhaps you’ll be able to relate to some of these experiences.

    4:30 am

    Once again, I found myself driving through Ontario in the wee hours, sipping life-giving coffee and marveling at the total absence of traffic. I was headed to Grande Pointe near Chatham to meet with Paul Delanghe, who’d invited me to tag along with him. I was looking forward, but I was also experiencing a little dread as I imagined subjecting my posterior to another day in the buddy seat. When I arrived at 7:00, I found Paul and his staff in the office. Handshakes were shared all around. Then I dove right in by asking how he got started and how his business worked.

    Hello darkness my old friend. I’ve come to sit on you again.

    An evolving business model – fertilizer and/or fungicide?

    Paul’s family has farmed cash crops, including field tomatoes and sugar beets, for four generations. When he left the aviation industry in 2015, he invested in a high clearance sprayer and a set of Y-drops to apply fertilizer on the family farm. It wasn’t long before he was doing neighbouring farms as well. By 2017 he was saw potential in custom fertilizer work and started Acres Unlimited (AU), which incorporated in 2019.

    The original business proposition was straightforward. A split fertilizer application with optimal timing can increase yield while saving fertilizer dollars. For example, perhaps a customer would lay down 150-175 lbs of fertilizer early season, and then call on Paul for another 25-50 lbs using his Y-drops. They might request a single rate, or a variable rate depending on soil type and yield potential (or none if hail or drought wreaked havoc).

    This worked well for a few years, so Paul expanded into fungicides. He observed that many corn growers didn’t want to invest in their own high clearance sprayers and preferred to let a contractor worry about minimizing the trample (~4% of the yield). In the case of wheat, many growers were too busy planting to thoroughly clean their sprayers after herbicide applications and were happy to make that the contractor’s problem.

    Paul found that fertilizer applications weren’t as lucrative as fungicide applications. High volume fertilizer applications meant spraying 300 ac/day instead of the 5-700 typical of herbicide or fungicide applications. That loss in productivity bit deeper when he had to rely on the client to load UAN because it meant chasing refills and waiting on small-capacity pumps.

    Those delays created scheduling conflicts. Typically, as June slips into July, the window for fertilizers closes as the window for fungicides opens. But when there’s a wet spring (like we had this year) it stretches the planting window. Paul would get calls for fertilizer applications in late July, overlapping the fungicide sprays that extended into early August.

    So, was offering custom fertilizer still worth it? Fungicides represent the biggest opportunity for profit and are relatively low risk. UAN is hard on equipment and machine prices and depreciation costs have increased significantly (Paul figures $200.00 CAD/engine hour). He calculated that he would have raise his prices to $25/ac for custom fertilizer applications, and that just wasn’t feasible. So, for all these reasons, he decided to leave custom fertilizer applications behind.

    Staff roles and coordination

    Today, Acres Unlimited consists of Paul, two full time employees (one sprayer operator and one tender truck operator) and one part timer. In addition to working for AU, employees have personal endeavours, such as running their own farms or hauling tomatoes. That means work assignments must be flexible because availability isn’t always a given. Paul sprays from April to November and when he works on his own, he can handle 3 to 500 acres a day. As long as everyone is on board for the peak spraying season in late July / early August it all seems to work.

    Staff coordinate their activities through their phones. They drop pins in Google Maps, use a group chat and call regularly to stay in touch. Each employee is trusted to operate semi independently, using their own judgement to establish the safest, most effective, and most efficient means to get the job done. I was left with the impression that the business functioned almost as a cooperative under the Acres Unlimited banner.

    7:45 am – The yard

    This was great office conversation, and I was so engrossed that I didn’t notice when the staff left for the yard to get ready for the day. We followed behind and Paul showed me their spraying equipment.

    The Sprayers

    Paul has experience with several asset tracking packages (e.g., AgLeader, Raven), but he likes John Deere’s Op Centre the most. When he started spraying, Deere was the most expensive North American option, so he went with Miller and Hagie. However, the cost of sprayers has increased in recent years and closed the price gap sufficiently for him to justify buying a 412R in 2023. AU also runs a 2022 Miller Nitro 7310, and that’s used by their second operator.

    According to Paul, Deere really isn’t interested in producing a high clearance machine for corn (he was encouraged to go buy a Hagie) so he had to add tall tires and a lift kit to climb from the 1.53 m (60”) stock clearance under the frame to 1.82 m (72”). He also protected the hydraulics behind the tires by covering them with canvas bags. Other growers use 5 gallon pails or even car mats to accomplish the same thing.

    Tendering equipment

    AU recently upgraded to a Phiber DASH 4.4 on their 15,900 L (4,200 gallon) tender truck. It caused a little sticker shock but paid for itself very quickly. The sprayer was no longer idling while the operator filled the bowls, saving on engine hours. Plus, the less than eight-minute fill time added to their overall productivity.

    The tender truck itself was designed for the operator to forklift totes onto an overhead platform and gravity feed chemistry into the inductor bowls. Paul likes the bulk format over the jugs and uses it whenever it’s feasible. However, he installed transfer pumps because they’re faster than gravity feed and do a better job emptying the totes completely. Paul prefers to trust the embossed sight gauge on the side of the bowls over a flow meter; Variability in product viscosity makes the flow meter inaccurate, and that adds up over several loads. In fact, when using totes, they’ve seen discrepancies as high as 50 L (13 gallons) at the end of a day.

    There was also a humble 1994 cube truck to service the other sprayers with diesel and chemistry, and a 27,250 L (7,200 gallon) water truck. AU gets their water from municipal stations, and one was conveniently located across the street from the yard. It’s a fast fill, and while there’s rarely a line up, they still make sure to fill each night to ensure an efficient start the next morning.

    Float trailer

    Chatham-Kent and Essex are big counties. When Paul ran the numbers on engine hour depreciation, the operator’s time, fuel, maintenance, and tire wear, floating the sprayer between jobs made sense. So, he uses a 12,100 L (3,200 gallon) float trailer to transport his Deere 412R.

    He chose the two-bowl Phiber DASH 2.4 because they use a lot of jug formats with this sprayer. The left bowl (J) is a push-to-rinse system and on the right (R), a knife. This is handy for co-packs. For example, Veltyma DLX is a co-pack with one larger and one smaller jug. The smaller jug gets upended on the rinser and the larger jug gets spiked on the knife. Spiking is faster, but there’s always a chance of stabbing yourself, so better to spike the larger jugs.

    8:05 – Heading out

    While I waited, Paul circle-checked the float trailer. Then he flipped open the tractor trailer hood and climbed inside to get it to start! He explained that he had to manually operate the fuel pump because the electrical was cranking too slowly. This truck had almost 1,000,000 km on it and fixing the pump was going to be ~$7,000.00, so this little work-around was fine with Paul. Plus, it’s great anti-theft security.

    We drove on narrow county roads which required us to lean on the gravel curbs. Paul noted that it typically kicks up a lot of dust and aggravates the people driving behind him. It can spur them to passing unsafely. But since we’d had so much regular rain this season, there was no dust and people seemed more patient.

    This isn’t actually Paul, but only a few weeks after spending the day with him I ended up driving behind a sprayer. The photo op was too good to miss. and yes, I passed him.

    8:18 am – Loading

    Now at our destination, Paul found a safe and accessible place to park and began untethering the sprayer. That consisted of removing the four chains with turnbuckles that secured the sprayer to the trailer. He always does this first, so he doesn’t forget before backing it off… ask him how he knows. This took about two minutes to complete. Then he hit a switch under the sprayer to send up the airbags and grabbed some gloves to start filling the inductor bowls.

    As Paul was pouring chemistry into the inductor bowls his phone started ringing. He said he never answers when he’s focused on loading. It takes time and attention to ensure it’s done right, and he didn’t want any distractions. Paying a little extra time and attention now means avoiding costly issues later.

    This was a 54 ac job, but Paul was adding enough for 60 acres because he didn’t want to run short. A little leftover fungicide on the next job (soybeans) would be a nice bonus for the client. Each jug was emptied, rinsed immediately, had the cap replaced and was dropped back in its cardboard box. The water truck operator would grab them later when he came with our refill. Removing caps and labels for recycling is a rainy-day job.

    Prepping jugs and cardboard for recycling is rainy day work.

    The loading process

    Perhaps I should have explained sooner, but here’s a short and generic description of the chemical loading system. Product gets added to a conical inductor bowl. This can be via jug (poured or knifed), or from bulk containers via gravity or transfer pump, or dry products get blended with a recirculating agitator. One of several bowls might be filled, each with their own product, or one bowl can be filled and emptied serially. Then the operator starts the carrier pump and begins pushing carrier (usually water) into the sprayer tank. Once enough is loaded, a valve at the bottom of the bowl is opened and the Venturi effect creates suction to draw the chemistry into the carrier stream. Then a second valve is opened to activate a rinse head in the bowl, or this is done manually using a hand-held hose. This process can then be repeated to separate products and control mixing order. Finally, it’s followed up by more carrier to rinse the lines and finish filling.

    Alternately, the suction pump on the sprayer itself can draw in carrier and the induction bowl on the side of the sprayer can be used to add chemistry. In a similar fashion, onboard water is used to rinse the jug and the bowl.

    Paul used a hybrid of these two methods by engaging the pump on the tender system and the pump on the sprayer simultaneously to speed up the process. There are some caveats to doing this. The concern is that some formulations may cause damage to the sprayer pump, but Paul feels there’s so much carrier water following behind the chemistry that it flushes the pump and the entire line. Here’s how he did it.

    Paul backed the sprayer off the trailer and hooked up to the front-fill. He started the pump on the DASH to add about 750 L (200 gallons) of water to the 4,540 L (1,200 gallon) sprayer tank. This was not the ideal “half full”, but unless he’s anticipating a mixing issue, that’s all he uses. In situations when he’s pushing multiple products into the sprayer, he’s found that the tank can fill before he’s done. Ironically, that’s when it’s so important to start with more water, but I’ll get off my high horse now.

    He had already poured or knifed products into the bowls, so he opened the valve under the first, drawing the contents into the water stream before rinsing the bowl down. Then he did the second. Then he walked over to the sprayer and started the sprayer pump to add a “pull” to the “push” and speed up the fill before returning to the DASH to wait.

    Paul said he’d installed an Accu-Volume on his Miller sprayer (and loves it) but saw no need for it on the Deere. He said the float in the tank quickly and accurately responds to the level in the tank. At that point the sprayer registered as “full”, the sprayer pump automatically shut off and the valve closed. You could hear it happen. But the DASH was still pushing and would quickly stretch and damage the hose, and even cause leaks.

    That sound was Paul’s cue to quickly shut off the DASH pump. Then he closed the Banjo quarter turn valves on either side of the connection and disconnected the feed. He said he never pushes UAN through this system. Ag retailers don’t use flow meters with UAN because they can be inaccurate – instead they use weigh scales. However, it was too hard to navigate an oversized tender truck onto a scale, so UAN got loaded directly.

    At 8:32 we were filled and ready to go. That was 14 minutes from the time Paul started untethering to when he started backing the sprayer off the tender truck. And it would have been a lot faster if he hadn’t taken time to explain it to me.

    8:35 am – Job 1

    At the edge of the first corn field, Paul unfolded the boom and set up the monitor. We would be applying 20 gpa at 60 psi and travelling about 12 mph. When spraying corn, Paul tends to travel between 10 and 14 mph. He double checked that the pneumatics he’d switched on earlier had lifted the sprayer high enough to clear the corn.

    One of the chemical companies had given him a set of Low-Drift Air 11005 flat fans (PSLDAQ1005) to try, and this was his first time using them. We immediately saw that they were not all pointing in the same direction (or even alternating). They were just on willy-nilly. We figured it wouldn’t matter since we were only just clearing the tassels, but it tweaked both of our latent OCD personalities and we decided to fix them next chance we got.

    Nozzles tilting at windmills – just not all in the same direction.

    We finished at 8:59 am and found we’d covered 51 of the estimated 55 acres, due in part to a few missed strips and rounded-off corners. Why did we miss them? Read on.

    Fungicides versus herbicides and fertilizers

    I’d tagged along during fertilizer and herbicide applications, so I began to notice that overhead fungicides in corn seemed to follow different rules. Here are some observations I made throughout the day:

    1. It’s not ideal to have to stretch a tank of herbicide, but you can if it’s not too dilute. And you can always go top up if you really must. However, for fungicides, you absolutely do not want to run short because that means increased trample. You can stretch the tank a little, but if it means running over corn, then leaving a few “test strips” and unsprayed corners is the profitable choice. Quote from Paul: “The most important part of fungicide in corn? Don’t run over the corn.”
    2. Paul felt sectional control was more than enough resolution for fungicide applications in small/medium sized fields. The uniformity and product-savings associated with nozzle-level resolution (e.g. PWM with turn compensation) pays with herbicides and expensive fertilizer, but not fungicide.
    3. A low and steady boom is ideal, but not critical for corn fungicides. Increased drift potential and a loss of coverage uniformity are still bad practice, but rather than slow down and drop the boom, we leaned into maintaining our speed and raised the boom ends until they were clear of the tassels. Even then, the centre rack was still deep in the canopy. C’est la vie.

    9:00 am – Job 2

    Job two was the for the same customer, so all we had to do was cross the street to a 60 acre soybean field waiting for an application of Delaro Complete. This time we were full in seven minutes (because I didn’t ask silly questions) and we were starting to run short of water. We called for more.

    I haven’t mentioned it, but the Deere was equipped with Precision Planting’s ReClaim recirculating booms. He was actually one of the prototype testers, having installed it on his old Patriot a few years back and his Miller as well. I’ll discuss the system in more detail later on. So, at 9:10 am we started recirculating the boom to dilute the residual Veltyma DMX and prime the Delaro Complete. Veltyma DMX has some “greening effect” on soybean, so while a full dose wouldn’t hurt anything, it would leave a conspicuous green triangle at the edge of the field that no one wants to see.

    We drove the perimeter manually. The ruts left from such a wet year kept tugging the sprayer, so Paul steered with a light touch, correcting when the wheels pulled. Once we got to the interior, we were applying 20 gpa at 13 mph. Paul relied more on autosteer (although he still fought the ruts a bit) and took the opportunity to text customers and get in touch with staff. Just as when he’s focused while loading, never taking a call, he doesn’t take them when spraying field boundaries. At 9:39 we were empty and done.

    Acquiring and scheduling customers

    I asked how AU found and scheduled customers. Paul said that roughly 40% of their business came from contracts with ag retailers and the remainder was direct. AU works with a few ag retailers, and they don’t all operate the same way. Here’s how it was explained to me.

    Ag retailer 1 acquires a customer and sells them any number of agronomic services, including crop inputs. Then they use their own sprayer, or subcontract someone like AU to spray those crop inputs. AU has the option to decline a job (perhaps it’s too small, too distant, or generally undesirable), but they can’t do that too often. If they accept, they pick up the chemistry and apply it within 24 hours to avoid long-term storage.

    Ag retailer 2 has a different arrangement. In this case Paul refers to a project management app called “Monday.com” which allows him to review and select open jobs. Once again, they pick up the chemistry and apply it within 24 hours.

    AU also takes on customers directly. Weather events and breakdowns are problems for farmers but represent opportunities for contractors. AU is often hired by large farming operations (e.g. >1,000 ac) when they can’t keep up, and this is far better than chasing 10-15 ac fields.

    Juggling all these customers can be challenging. In the winter, the core, repeat customers are penciled into the schedule. However, in the chaos of fungicide season, the ag retail customers get priority because of contractual obligations. And, of course, AU is always open to opportunities and slots in new jobs as best they can. They take advantage of social media while operating because Paul believes it’s important to stay involved in the community, but also because it’s a means of free advertising. People see when they’re in the area and it’s resulted in lots of jobs.

    Duck hunting

    I debated including this in an already epic article, but it was too interesting to leave on the cutting room floor. Paul also described a long-standing niche job working as a land manager for a few private “duck-farm” operations. Nearby Mitchel’s Bay is some of the best duck hunting in the world because of strategically placed duck-farms next to marshes or lakes. They grow corn to attract the ducks, then mow parts down to make pathways for boats, and then flood the fields using dikes and pumps.

    These clubs aren’t necessarily big revenue generators. They’re perks for businesses to offer employees, or locales for casual business meetings, or maybe just status symbols for the wealthy elite. Given that they spend a lot of the year flooded, the ground is tough to spray because it’s always soft. Sprayers can’t go in full, and that tends towards premium fees for crop management.

    Paul sprays for a few of these operations because he finds the whole practice fascinating. And, as a duck hunter himself, he’s permitted access to places most never see. There’s no such thing as free corn, Daffy.

    9:43 am – Water fill

    The water truck arrived and six minutes later we were topped up. Then it left to go support the Miller about 30 minutes away, promising to come back to us right after. Paul appreciated not having to go back to the yard for water – how can you ever be satisfied with coach after you’ve flown first class? We headed off to the next job.

    Paul made this look easy.

    9:51 am – Job 3

    This 50 acre soybean field abutted a tomato field, and after seeing this sort of thing all season I wondered aloud if buffer zones were just a white lie that we tell ourselves. Paul chuckled and said there’s generally no stress when spraying fungicide this close to a sensitive crop, but herbicide would be tense. He changed fields on the monitor, verified that he was applying the right amount and started spraying. He noted there was a soft area in the field where the owner replanted soybeans. We avoided it.

    This was one of the direct customers and not an ag retail client. The customer was a tradesman that left the crop protection choices to Paul. Custom operators can have a lot of influence on their client’s product choices because they spray so many acres with so many chemistries. In order to better guide his clients, Paul makes an effort to get involved in product testing and performance trials. But, as a sprayer operator, he’s not only interested in efficacy and price, but also ease-of-use.

    Running a product comparison trial

    For example, powdered manganese plugs a sprayer horribly while liquid formulations are far more forgiving. Another example, perhaps one product is 1 L/ac while another is 2 L/ac. Handling less is always easier. Or perhaps all this is trumped when a customer is swayed by loyalty points, which are issued by some registrants to reward a customer for using their suite of products.

    We were done at 10:11 and found we’d covered 47.5 of the 50 acres because we skipped that wet, replanted area. That left about five acres worth of spray mix in the tank that we’d have to consider on the next job.

    Recirculating booms

    Paul secured the sprayer to the trailer, and we hit the road. While we drove, he talked about why he felt a recirculation system was necessary. Beyond the savings in chemistry and water, he said it was tricky charging the boom on some of the farms in the county. Severed lots meant more homes and private gardens, and that limits where it’s safe to prime.

    Precision Planting released their aftermarket ReClaim recirculating boom a few years ago. We’ve written about it. Basically, it relies on dropping the pressure below the ~10 psi required to open the check valves in the nozzle bodies. So, no shut-off valves required. However, some Deere pumps won’t operate under 20 psi, which requires a work-around. Despite having that fix in place, we still saw nozzles dribbling while we were recirculating. Obviously not ideal, but Paul said it cost about a seventh of what the factory option would have cost, so he could live with it.

    But there are other points to consider. For example, the sprayer doesn’t know the feature is there. So, when recirculation is engaged the sprayer “thinks” it’s spraying, and as liquid passes the flowmeter, the display shows the volume dropping… but it isn’t. As a result, the operator must know how much liquid circulated and manually adjust the volume prior to spraying.

    And this system isn’t plumbed to flush the lines from the clean water tank. And it increases the length of hose that needs to be rinsed. And while you can recirculate glyphosate and UAN, many operators won’t do it with sticky products like atrazine or dicamba, preferring to just prime normally and keep them out of the recirculation lines.

    While Paul and I were discussing all of this, and you can’t make this stuff up, the second operator called to say they broke an elbow on their recirculation line. To their credit, Precision was out there like a shot and had it mended in an hour (amazing service). But the delay meant we had to redistribute some of the remaining jobs. It was decided that Paul would take on some extra work and then both operators would meet up at the end of the day and split the last job.

    10:50 am – Job 4

    We parked, dismounted from the trailer, loaded and taxied to the headland. Paul said it was another 50 acres of corn, but I saw something was different. He treaded out the tires to a 138″ spacing to align with what I was told was a 23” corn spacing. Until now, we were on a typical 30” planting architecture. I soon learned that I didn’t like 23” corn. Tracking between such tight rows without trampling everything was a nightmare.

    Here are two videos. We’re driving 30″ corn in the first and 23″ in the second.

    I asked if Paul had tried row feelers, but he said they didn’t work on such tight spacing. In any case they got in the way when he used his float trailer. So, I watched as Paul studied the row ahead and referred to the feed from the cameras, micro-adjusting the steering for the entire 47.8 acre field as he fought to stay between the rows. It felt like forever, but we were done at 11:24 and back on the road for tendering a few minutes later.

    11:38 am – Job 5

    As we drove alongside this 45 ac field to get to the entry, we saw rows of sweet corn planted on the perimeter (surprise). Paul said there was a variety trial planted in the centre of the field somewhere as well and that we weren’t supposed to spray it. And it was another 23” row spacing.

    Once again, we found it hard to stay on course. Just for added fun we got pulled by the planter draft and the occasional guess row. We finished at 12:10 pm and planned to meet the water truck. As we left, Paul reset the treads to 120” from 138”. Never good to forget that bit – again, ask Paul how he knows.

    1:07 pm – Job 6

    After a short and uneventful drive to the next client, we parked, loaded, and unfolded at the headland of a 45 ac cornfield. As we sprayed, Paul was on the lookout for a bridge that would give us access to another, smaller field. It turned out to be a substantial land bridge, which disappointed Paul because he was hoping to take me over a rickety little wooden bridge. The buddy seat was rough enough without testing its absorptive qualities as well, so I was good with it.

    There were plenty of obstacles in this field. Paul was well acquainted with “the tree”. They’d had dealings in the past. I asked about wind turbines, which were all over the county, and I was surprised that he liked them. All turbines in the area have associated hard-packed lanes leading through the field. Paul took advantage by parking on them and filling there if needed. Plus, he watched them to monitor wind speed and inversion situations.

    Still on the subject of obstacles, we found a field of peppers hidden in the corn. We left the test strip there. As we made these on the fly decisions, Paul wondered how an autonomous sprayer would handle all these little surprises. A good question.

    I was finding the rows a little hypnotic and said so. Paul said corn was hard to spray day after day. In windy conditions, the tassels sway and it can make an operator dizzy. Some operators slow down to 10 mph or use row feelers to stay on track. We finished at 1:37 and when we got back to the trailer, two new jobs came in over the phone. Paul decided that his other operator could absorb those. We got ready for what might be our last job – rain was forecast

    1:58 pm – Job 7

    Full again, this 74 acre corn field would also get a test strip. Paul reiterated that it’s better to trample a field once, and not go in and out to get more spray mix. So, we filled for 70 acres spraying at 17 gal/ac and 9.6 mph to empty a single tankful as accurately as we could.

    I watched as the pollen and anthers broke in waves over the hood and onto the steps. The radiator fan periodically reversed to blow it all out, but not as frequently as we needed. Paul occasionally did it manually. The sound of corn scraping and hitting the sprayer was loud. Paul said corn can beat the paint off a sprayer and damage the side induction bowl – wow. Carbon filtered cab or not, my pollen allergy was driving me crazy, and I was glad this was our last job. We were done at 2:37 and back on trailer five minutes later.

    3:30 pm – Back at the yard

    As we pulled into the yard it looked like rain was indeed coming. We weren’t worried about the fungicides we’d applied because they were rainfast in an hour. But it did put a premature end to the spray day. We’d covered more than 365 acres in the Deere, which was a light fungicide day for Paul. Combined with what the Miller did, AU covered 735 acres.

    As I was packing to leave Paul asked if I was interested in seeing his new battery-powered backpack sprayer. I was, but I didn’t realize he’d put me to work spot spraying weeds. So, I suppose we actually covered 736 acres that day: 735 in sprayers, and one manual. Worth it.