Author: Tom Wolf

Fungicide Application in Cereal, Pulse, and Oilseed Crops
Get ready for a busy fungicide season. If your growing conditions have been good, your crop is dense and vigorous, and soil moisture is adequate, you have yield potential to protect. A bit of moisture and warm temperatures at a critical time, and disease is likely to develop.
Before we delve into how to apply fungicides, let’s review the basics.
1. There is no substitute for an informed decision about whether to spray or not. Seek the advice of a professional to make sure you understand your crop’s genetic susceptibility to disease, the conditions conducive to its development, and the parts of the plant canopy that are affected and therefore need protection. How much yield or seed quality is actually at risk? What do the disease forecasts say for your area?
2. Identify the best fungicide product for your disease situation. Consider inherent efficacy, but also the longevity of the protection and the fungicide’s off-target toxicity (less toxic products can be sprayed in windier conditions without harming susceptible ecosystems). Remember that most fungicides are not curative and must be present on the plant foliage before infection takes place. Also remember that most fungicides are not easily translocated and are at best “locally systemic”. This means that fungicide deposit must cover the plant part that requires protection with an adequate droplet density. If the fungicide is systemic, these deposits must be absorbed through the plant cuticle and will only migrate a small distance within the plant tissue, usually in the transpiration stream, from the point of application.
3. Make proper timing the priority. Disease control is usually only effective if the fungicide is applied in a narrow time frame in which the crop or disease is at a certain developmental stage. A great application at the wrong time is less valuable than mediocre application at the right time. The use of low-drift nozzles should be considered an agronomic tool that permits the correct staging even under marginal wind conditions.
Let’s now review the major highlights of fungicide application in the major cereal and oilseed crops.
Wheat
In wheat, the early growth stagings for foliar fungicides are usually done to protect from leaf spot diseases such as tanspot, septoria nodorum blotch and septoria tritici blotch. Because these diseases are trash-borne, they tend to migrate up from the bottom to the top and good canopy penetration of the spray is important.
Better canopy penetration can be achieved the following ways:
- Higher water volumes. This is probably the most powerful tool in an applicator’s arsenal. More water usually delivers higher doses of active ingredient deeper into the canopy, and whatever dose does get deposited will be present in higher droplet densities. So in short, for any given spray quality (droplet size), more water provides better coverage. We all intuitively know this.
- Slower travel speeds. Moving slower imparts less of a forward velocity on the spray cloud, particularly in the larger droplets. As a result, these droplets move more vertically. In the case of a cereal canopy, more of the spray will reach the lower leaves. The finer droplets in the cloud tend to deposit with the wind direction regardless of travel speed.
- Backward pointed nozzles. If a droplet moves backwards at the same speed as the spray boom moves forwards, then it is basically standing still relative to the crop. It will have a greater chance of moving down towards the lower canopy than a droplet that’s moving forwards. The latter droplet will likely be intercepted by something vertical, like a wheat head or stem.
A single nozzle oriented back, applying a water volume that is at least 10 to 15 US gpa, will be sufficient to get good canopy coverage for leaf spot and rust protection.
Fusarium Headblight (FHB), caused by Fusarium graminearum, is a special case. It infects the wheat head at anthesis, and fungicide must be present on the head, at the glumes where the anthers emerge, at the time of infection. So we have a relatively large vertical target that is at the very top of the canopy. Initial work at North Dakota State University, followed up by work at AAFC in Saskatoon and the University of Guleph at Ridgetown, found the following:
- Angled sprays are essential. Field and lab studies showed that angled sprays were much more effective at depositing the fungicide on heads than vertical sprays. Backward pointed angled sprays provided additional help at targetting the other side of the wheat head. Twin nozzles are available from most manufacturers.
- Use Coarse sprays when angling. Angled and twin sprays have their challenges. The angle at which the spray is released dissipates quickly, particularly for smaller droplets. As a result, more aggressive angles and coarser droplets were found to be more effective. Larger droplets were able to maintain their initial trajectory for a longer distance, increasing the chance that the droplet hit the head from the side rather than passing it by vertically.
- Maintain low boom heights. Even coarse sprays are deflected by air resistance and will eventually stop moving in the direction they were first emitted. In fact, this happens within a short distance. Low booms, less than 25″ if possible, help.
- Watch wind speed and direction. Field observations show that even a moderate wind can over-ride the application practices described above, resulting in most of the spray deposited on the windward side of a target regardless of its initial release.
- Awns intercept small droplets. Many of our modern wheat cultivars are awned, and these fine structures are excellent collectors of small droplets. In early studies with durum, we found a large proportion of the spray volume on awns, where it served no useful purpose. The best way to minimize this awn interception is to ensure coarse sprays and sufficient water, no less than 10 gpa.
It’s important to maintain realistic expectations with FHB. Fungicide chemistry is improving but still offers only suppression. Crop staging is variable. Excellent application practices place the odds more in favour of disease control, but can’t change these facts.
Pulse Crops
Lentils and peas are increasingly important crops. They appear spindly in their early stages of development and are poor weed competitors. But under the right conditions, lentils soon form an impressive set of leaflets that creates one of the most impenetrable barriers in our cropping systems.
Here are some pointers for fungicide application in pulse crops:
- Understand the disease in your crop. Do you need to protect stems (anthracnose), leaves and stems (ascochyta complex, mycosphaerella), or senescing leaves or flowers (sclerotinia)? This is where the spray needs to go.
- Understand the time of disease development.
  - Trash-borne diseases like anthracnose and ascochyta will start at the bottom of a lentil canopy, and early treatment before canopy closure will be important to arrest or at least delay disease development as long as possible.
  - Late season diseases like sclerotinia and botrytis push the application timing towards a closing or closed canopy. Success of such sprays is more elusive because of the rapid development of new biomass.
- Take a bird’s eye view of the canopy.
  - If you can see the target you need to spray, the job is pretty straightforward and conventional water volumes and nozzles will work.
  - If the targets are hidden from view, it will take more water and slower travel speeds to get the required coverage. Consider the higher end of the recommended water volumes (15 gpa in most cases), slower travel speeds (10 mph).
- - When a canopy has many layers of cascading leaves, it is very difficult for a spray to get past these “umbrellas”. We’ve observed many times that a leaf is a very effective shield for anything below it. Large droplets have a hard time changing direction because of their mass and resulting momentum. But small droplets, especially those below 100 microns, can move with slight changes in air movement and get around these obstacles. Use higher pressures (to generate the finer sprays) or select finer nozzles to improve canopy penetration.
- Look at the size of the plant part you need to target. Large targets like leaves can capture almost any droplet size, but small targets like petioles or vertical targets such as stems may benefit from finer sprays, especially if they’re hidden in the canopy.
Generally speaking, dense pulse canopies will require higher water volumes and finer sprays than their cereal counterparts. Although twin fan nozzles have not been shown to provide an advantage in our studies on chickpeas, higher water volumes proved very effective at improving deposition and disease control.
Canola
Canola has two main diseases for which foliar sprays are used. A small number of producers choose herbicide timing for control of blackleg. Because the crop canopy is small and the spray targets are exposed, general herbicide application guidelines (Coarse sprays from a venturi nozzle, 7 – 10 US gpa) will provide good targeting and adequate coverage.
Sclerotinia control requires that the spray reaches buds and petals of canola that is between 20 and 50% flowering. Work at AAFC in Melfort compared conventional and low-drift sprays at two pressures, and showed that droplet size had no effect on disease control. In fact, the Fine spray produced by hollow cone nozzles at high pressure did not significantly improve sclerotinia control compared to a venturi nozzle at its recommended pressure of about 60 psi.
Subsequent lab work showed that the proportion of the applied spray that was retained by petals and buds was statistically identical for all tested sprays.
Water volumes may need to be increased for modern canola hybrids that have significant biomass at flowering. Such cultivars may grow over 1.5 m tall and present a large range of canopy positions in which buds and petals appear. As with the other crops, when a spray needs to cover more area, and especially when this area presents itself in layers, more water volume is appropriate.
Fine Sprays for Coverage
Conventional wisdom says that fungicides require finer sprays for coverage and best effect. This is certainly true in some cases, particularly where the leaf area index is high and leaves are arranged in cascading layers. But it’s time to retire this notion as general advice and adhere to research results for guidance. For FHB, the recommended angled sprays benefit from being applied in coarser, not finer sprays. And in pulses and canola, research showed that there was no benefit from finer sprays. In fact, finer sprays can impair proper timing because of their propensity for drift and rapid evaporation under dry conditions.
Modern coarse sprays produced by air-induced nozzles are less susceptible to these environmental conditions and therefore offer an important advantage: they allow for better timing accuracy. For this reason, I view them not so much as drift control tools, but rather as agronomic tools.
There is a downside to the coarser sprays – they do require more water. Volumes should always be above 10 US gpa, and many recommendations go to 15 gpa if the canopy is dense. In some cases, 20 gpa may be beneficial. These higher volumes are a reasonable price to pay to protect a valuable crop, and we certainly have the equipment to make this price bearable.
Aerial Application
Aerial application is an important way to apply fungicides. An aircraft’s chief advantage is to cover large areas with no crop trampling, and can do so even in wet conditions. As a result, they offer the timing advantage we so often mentioned in this article.
A producer hiring an aircraft for spraying ought to have a conversation with the pilot and discuss water volume and droplet size. Aircraft, out of practical necessity, apply less water and distribute it in finer sprays to offer the required coverage. Although this has been shown to be effective, it creates drift and evaporation potential. It is worthwhile to ask for higher water volumes if it means that the spray can be applied somewhat coarser, creating less drift.
The rotary atomizers on many aircraft produce fairly uniform droplet sizes and do a good job of eliminating the larger droplets. This makes even more droplets available for coverage. However, even with this technology spray drift still matters and all steps to prevent it should be taken. This means using larger average droplet sizes and increasing water volumes accordingly to their label recommendations.
June 24, 2016
Pallet of Roundup – Parody
Pallet of Roundup
Sung to the tune of “Stairway to Heaven”, by Spirit…..er, Led Zeppelin

There’s a farmer who’s sure all canola is gold
And she’s buying a pallet of Roundup.
When she gets there she knows, if the Co-op’s all closed
With an axe she can get what she came for.
Ooh, ooh, now she’s stealing a pallet of Roundup.

There’s a tweet on her phone but she wants to be sure
‘Cause you know how few words have no meaning.
She hurries on-line to hear a scientist pine:
“Sometimes glyphosate causes resistance.”

Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it makes me wonder.

There’s a feeling I get when I look to the shed,
And my John Deere is crying for spraying.
In my thoughts I have seen clouds of drift through the trees,
And the voices of hipsters from T’rawno.

Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it really makes me wonder.

And it’s whispered that soon, if we all call the tune,
Weed resistance will lead us to reason.
And a new day will dawn for crop rota-tion,
And the fields they will be more di-verse.

If there’s a kochia in your hedgerow, don’t be alarmed now,
Glufosinate will probably get it clean.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There’s still time to change your crop sequence.
And it makes me wonder.

Your Handler’s foaming and it won’t slow, in case you don’t know,
The sprayer’s calling you to join it,
Dear lady, can you hear the wind blow, and did you know
Your pallet waits at the CPS?

And as we spray on down the field
Our booms higher than our yield.
There walks a corporation we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show
How everything’s still controlled by Roundup.
And if you listen to research
The truth will come to you at last.
When integrated weed management
Protects us from weed resistance.

And she’s buying a pint of Roundup.
June 14, 2016
The Case for Low-Drift Sprays
This article was written by Tom Wolf for “PEI Potato News Magazine”, a publication of the Prince Edward Island Potato Board (http://peipotato.org/). It is reprinted with permission.
PEI Potato News Magazine
“Should I be using low-drift nozzles?” It seems like a simple question with an obvious answer. We all want to reduce spray drift, and this easy-to-use technology is the fastest way to get there.
And yet, the question is more complicated than it first appears. Yes, all applicators want to reduce drift, but many worry about the coarse sprays produced by low-drift nozzles. As a spray volume is divided into coarser (i.e. larger) droplets, there are fewer of them, and that can reduce coverage. It’s a legitimate concern.
Let’s start with our shared value first – the desire to reduce spray drift.
Given the economic, environmental and health impacts of spray drift, the importance is hard to over-state. That’s why spray drift management is a primary concern of our federal regulators whose job is to protect the public interest. It’s also a concern for the neighbours who have a right to keep unwanted products off their property, whether it’s residential or agricultural.
Conventional flat fan nozzles (XR8004) operating at 40 psi
Glyphosate drift with 20 km/h side wind, XR8004 40 psi
Low-drift nozzles (TD11004) operating at 60 psi
Glyphosate drift with 20 km/h side wind, TD11004 60 psi
For these reason, managing drift should be a foremost concern for applicators. The technology is vital to the crop production industry, and if we don’t take care of the issue, someone else will take care of it for us. That’s not the best path.
Much has been written about how to reduce drift. The key points are:
- choosing days with better weather,
- lowering booms and travel speeds,
- watching spray pressure,
- protecting the spray with shields,
- using coarser spray qualities on the whole.
Of these, the most economical and practical is using coarser sprays via low-drift nozzles. Engineered to emit fewer fine droplets, they are proven to reduce drift by anywhere from 50 to 95% compared to a standard flat fan of the same size. When it comes to reducing drift, they work.
When these tips first hit the mainstream as “pre-orifice” nozzles in the late 1980s, and later as “venturi” nozzles in the mid 1990s, we were impressed with their ability to reduce drift. And the obvious question was, what about product efficacy? Can fewer, larger droplets do the job? The answer, to our initial surprise, was yes.
In the late 1990s, the crop protection industry (including governments, universities, and the private sector), participated in studies throughout Europe, Australasia, and North America looking at low-drift spray performance. In Canada alone, we conducted over 100 studies and concluded that pesticide efficacy was not harmed when a properly adjusted low-drift nozzle was used. A surprising result showed that fungicides did not seem to need finer sprays, contrary to popular opinion, as long as water volumes were sufficient to provide adequate coverage.
As we did more and more studies, it became apparent which points were critical:
- When using venturi nozzles, spray pressure had to be increased from the industry standard of 40 psi to about 70 psi. This is because of a venturi nozzle’s two-stage design. The high pressure compensated for an internal pressure drop inside the nozzle. Sprays remained low-drift, but patterns and overall efficacy were better at this higher pressure.
Spray pattern of conventional spray (XR8002, 40 psi)
Spray pattern of low-drift spray (ULD12002, 60 psi)
Spray deposit of conventional spray (XR8002, 40 psi. ~10 gpa)
Spray deposit of low-drift spray (ULD12002, 60 psi, ~10 gpa)
- Spray pattern overlap needed to be greater with low-drift sprays – a full 100%. In other words, the edge of one nozzle’s spray pattern should reach the middle of the adjacent nozzles’ patterns. The pattern width at target height was now twice the nozzle spacing and this ensured good distribution of not only the spray volume, but droplet numbers, along the boom.
- We needed to pay attention to the target plant architecture and leaf surface properties. Plants such as grasses (with vertical surfaces and difficult-to-wet leaves) often had less spray retention with coarser sprays. Low-drift nozzles worked, but we couldn’t go as coarse in these cases. Careful selection of low-drift nozzles as well as more attention paid to operating pressure solved these issues.
- Our minimum water volumes had to increase slightly to compensate for the fewer drops produced by low-drift sprays. This was especially true for contact modes of action where too few droplets-per-area reduced performance. Using an Extremely Coarse spray at a very low water volume was asking for trouble.
Much of my efforts in recent years have been to advise applicators just how coarse they can safely go without harming product performance. This involves things we’ve touched on in this article, like water volumes, modes of action in the tank mix, target plant or canopy architecture, growing conditions, and the like. We’ve arrived at a few rules of thumb, like those above, but as always, it’s dangerous to oversimplify and there are always new situations to grapple with.
While we were learning how to tweak low drift nozzles to get them to perform, we also learned there were significant advantages to using coarser spray qualities.
1. Foremost, there was an immediate reduction in drift. One applicator told me years ago that switching to a low-drift spray removed a huge burden of worry from him, and that alone was worth it.
2. Low-drift sprays made it easier to spray on-time, even if weather conditions were marginal for conventional sprays. The result: the timely removal of weeds, or the correct staging of fungicides and insecticides. This has paid large dividends in terms of protected yield.
3. Coarser sprays can protect product performance from some adverse conditions, such as days with high evaporation rates. On such days, fine sprays evaporate to dryness so quickly that uptake can be limited. Larger drops stay liquid longer, with more uptake the result.
4. Directed sprays, be they banded sprays or twin fan nozzles for fungicides, make more sense from coarser nozzles. The reason is that these coarser sprays go where they’re pointed, whereas fine sprays lose their path in wind or through travel-induced deflection, very quickly.
5. We also learned about the air-entrainment that coarser sprays can produce. Large droplets dragged air with them, and smaller droplets could hitch a ride in their wake. This provided a form of air-assistance that reduced drift and carried small droplets into the canopy. Finer sprays had a harder time producing this type of drag, and sustaining it in the canopy.
When we analyzed the droplet size spectrum of coarse and fine sprays, we confirmed that the total number of droplets produced by any given volume of water had been reduced. Not a surprise. But two things struck us.
First, even though the average size of droplets in coarse sprays were very large, they still contained a population of small droplets. In fact, if you counted every single droplet in the spray, the vast majority were small and they were still taking care of coverage.
Second, the critical amount of coverage (measured as the percent of the surface area covered by spray deposits) that was necessary for a given product to work was lower than what we’d been aiming for. In other words, we didn’t need as much coverage as we thought we did, and any excess didn’t actually add to product performance in most cases.
We later analyzed the relationship between spray coverage and herbicide performance and found that the uniformity of the deposits was actually more important than the amount of coverage per se. So, if we focussed on proper overlap and spray pressure there was greater benefit than increased coverage alone. Deposit uniformity has become our research focus of late.
So, should you be using low-drift nozzles? By adopting the changes in pressure, overlap, and water volume outlined above, and paying more attention to the plant architecture and pesticide mode of action, we’ve been very successful in implementing low-drift sprays in all field crops. In my view, we can safely retire Fine sprays for all field crop pesticides. This means conventional flat fan nozzles, hollow cone nozzles, and the like. Get rid of them. All they do is add drift potential.
It’s safe to adopt low-drift sprays. Research and experience from the field prove that they work. Low-drift sprays should be viewed as an agronomic tool that improves application timing and accuracy. And with less drift, we show that agricultural practice can be both efficient and environmentally responsible. That’s going to be a very important story to tell, now and in the future.
May 20, 2016
Sprayer Nurse Truck Designs Part 2
One of our recent posts highlighted some great producer designed tender systems for the sprayer. We posted four submissions, and are continuing the series with new submissions in this post.
Our fifth submission comes from the folks at Pattison Liquid Systems of Lemberg, Saskatchewan
I recently saw Phil Lingelbach of Pattison at a sprayer clinic. Pattison has been designing and building transfer systems for years, and have valuable experience to share.
I asked Phil and John Young these questions about transfer system designs:
1. Why is filling faster important? How does it reduce your operating cost?
“Idle time costs money. Consider that trade in cost of an average high-clearance sprayer is approximately $185/hr on the meter. So 100 hours of idle time per year is costing nearly $20,000 in reduced trade-in value.
We also need to maximize “best spray condition” time. We know that application timing is critical to success, and need to take advantage of good weather conditions. Spraying under marginal conditions reduces the chance of good pesticide performance.
Efficient filling can also reduce labour costs, this is a “snowball number”. Every unnecessary hour spent spraying could be used to do something more productive, in essence a wasted hour costs you two.”
1. When designing a transfer system, what are the key considerations that separate a good from a bad system?
“Make sure that the water pumps pushes water to the inductor system. Do not use a water pump to pump chemical. Contamination is a huge issue with this.
Keep your transfer system away from the rear of an open deck to minimize dust exposure.
A good transfer system will be easy to clean and very user friendly, valves separated and clearly marked.
Get the biggest, fastest pump available. Loading water after the chemical is in is key.
Make it simple to operate, there is lots of hired help on the farm.
Design it to keep operator from being exposed to chemical. Keep trip hazards to a minimum.
Include fast product induction. There is no point filling water quickly and having to wait on a slow product pump.”
1. You mentioned the speed of filling product. What flow meters are most accurate and reliable?
“The Banjo Mag meters and the Raven FloMax 110 (combined with the 60P) and 221 are the most accurate that we have available, the Banjo is limited to non-petroleum based products though.
Both the Raven 60P and Flomax 221 are turbine style meters, to be used with all ag chemicals, – 2” models.
Banjo Mag meters should only be used with water based products – this meter is the best for measuring water when filling, comes in a 3” model.”
1. What are the best ways to clean a transfer system?
“The best way to clean your jug rinse tank is THOROUGHLY!! There is no such thing as overkill when it comes to cleaning this tank, we use a tank that has no bulkhead (total drain, no bulkhead for product to get hung up on) in the drain, a rinser designed for an 800 gallon tank, and very minimal fittings for chemical to get hung up on.
Use lots of water, when you think it’s clean, rinse it one more time!!
All our inductor systems come with a quick attach clean water rinse system, that allows the operator to flush the complete metering/inductor system.”
1. What is usually the limiting factor when trying to fill a sprayer faster?
“Hose size, pump size, venturi efficiency, and planning are most critical. Consider your needs – a system should be designed specifically to the needs of the operator.”
1. Do you need more than one inductor to handle multiple products in time?
“Usually one will be sufficient so long as the suction line is of sufficient size and length.
Our inductor systems are configured to handle more than one bulk product at one time. With just the turn of a valve you can switch from metering one product to another, or quickly change from metering a bulk product to handling jugs.”
April 1, 2016
Continuous Rinsing
We’ve recently been talking about how to save time while cleaning a sprayer. Although it’s very important to be thorough while cleaning, and to take the necessary time to do the job properly, there is always an opportunity to fine tune and spend less time. This is especially true when diluting the tank remainder down and pushing clean water to the booms. A method promoted in Europe, and coming to us via Joachim Herfort of Agrotop, is called “Continuous Rinsing”.
Continuous Rinsing requires a dedicated pump that delivers the clean water (which may contain a cleaning adjuvant) to the tank via wash-down nozzles. It works like this:
1. The operator, having carefully measured the pesticide mixture, has only a small remainder in the tank when spraying is complete.
2. This remainder is sprayed out in the field, either on a set-aside area, or over the already sprayed field at a reduced rate, product permitting (the operator would pay attention to crop tolerance and carryover issues)
3. As soon as the tank is empty, indicated by the boom spray pressure dropping, the operator switches on the clean water pump which delivers the clean water via the wash-down nozzles.
4. Soon, the main product pump starts delivering the wash-down liquid to the boom and the return lines.
5. Because the clean water pump will deliver less than the boom flow, the cleaning mixture is delivered somewhat intermittently. We are told that this helps with the cleaning action of the lines. Be cautious that the main pump does not run dry long enough to damage its seals.
6. Once the clean water tank is empty, the pressure drops again for the final time and the tank rinsate is now very dilute.
7. Testing in Europe has shown that the whole process takes only about half as long as batch mode. One key time-saving feature is that the sprayer never has to stop, and the operator never dismounts. These data also show that a significantly lower water volume is required to achieve a greater dilution of the remainder than a batch mode would have achieved.
8. For example, the European tests (we believe these were done by the Landwirtschaftskammer of Nordrhein-Westfalen, a German regional government) used a single rinse of 80 L, as well as four batch rinses of 20 L each. As expected, the four-batch process was superior to the single rinse, but took a lot of time. They then tested a continuous rinse with 40 L. The continuous rinse resulted in greater dilution than the 4 x 20 L rinse, in less time. In this case, the quality went up, and the time went down.
Our challenge in North America is to roughly match the clean water pump, wash-down nozzles, and main sprayer pump capacities so the system works. Our larger sprayers easily deliver 30 gpm, and some adjustments may be necessary.
Dilution of the tank remainder is only one aspect of sprayer cleaning. The other aspect, decontamination of surfaces and components, is also important and the process depends on the active ingredients and formulations in the tank.
An animation developed in Germany and shared via Agrotop is available here.
Note that Agrotop has suggested components to convert a sprayer to a continuous rinse system here.
March 22, 2016