Spraying asparagus in fern

Prologue

This research was performed in 2012 and since then there have been considerable advances in application technology for asparagus in fern that should be considered. Be sure to read the epilogue at the end of this article.

Introduction

Diseases such as purple spot can have major economic impacts for asparagus growers, and the best line of defence is spraying the appropriate control products. The good news is that asparagus growers know this. The bad news is that there are few things harder to spray than asparagus in fern.

Asparagus in fern can stand 1.5 m (5 ft) high by 1.0 m (3 ft) diameter and is typically planted on 1.2 m (4 ft) centres. Asparagus in fern has a very dense canopy full of needle-shaped leaves. This dense canopy slows air movement, making conditions still, humid and very difficult for a spray droplet to penetrate.

Spray coverage is a combination of two factors: the area of the target contacted by spray droplets, and the distribution of spray droplets over that target. For most insecticide and fungicide applications, reasonable coverage is reflected by 10-15% surface area covered paired with an even distribution of approximately 85 medium sized droplets per square centimeter. This is not a rule, but a guideline.

In order to determine the best way to spray, we have to be able to compare the coverage achieved. To do this, we used water sensitive paper, which is yellow until contact with spray turns it blue. Three sets of three targets were placed in approximately the same location for each pass.

We tested five popular nozzle types, at two ground speeds using three carrier volumes to answer three questions:

1. Does spray volume impact spray coverage?
2. Which nozzle style gives the best coverage?
3. Does travel speed impact spray coverage?

Does spray volume impact spray coverage?

Five different nozzle types were used to spray three volumes onto the targets at 16 kmh (10 mph). This was repeated three times and target coverage was determined both as droplet deposits per cm² (see Figure 1) and total % covered (see Figure 2).

Cards in each position consistently received a significantly higher average deposit per cm² and significantly higher average percent coverage at higher spray volumes. The relatively low coverage in the middle position was anticipated given the orientation of the targets to the sprayer.

Therefore, it would appear higher volumes result in better coverage, at least up to 280 L/ha (30 gpa). Generally, there is a threshold where exceeding a given carrier volume results in a diminishing return.

Which nozzle gives the best coverage?

Coverage from five different nozzles was compared: the Hollow cone, Flat fan, Dual flat fan, Guardian Air and Air-induced hollow cone. Given that 280 L/ha (30 gpa) resulted in the best coverage, the following figures illustrate droplet deposits per cm² (see Figure 3) and total % covered (see Figure 4) at 280 L/ha (30 gpa).

The graphs show that each nozzle followed a similar trend, with more droplets at the top of the canopy, less or par at the bottom of the canopy, and considerably less in the middle of the canopy (which is not surprising given the orientation of the target around the stem).

The trend in droplet density from highest to least coverage is:

1. Hollow Cone
2. XR flat Fan
3. Guardian Air
4. Dual Flat Fan
5. Air Induced Hollow Cone

The percent coverage data was less clear. The top two nozzles for each position were:

Top Target:

1. Guardian Air
2. All other nozzles approximately the same

Middle Target (around the stem):

1. XR flat Fan
2. Hollow Cone

Bottom Target:

1. XR flat Fan
2. Hollow Cone

It can be argued that the target at the top of the canopy is easiest to spray, and therefore does not have as much importance as the middle and bottom targets. As such, it would appear that the XR flat fan and Hollow cone nozzles give the best overall coverage. It is debatable whether the higher droplet count from the Hollow cone is more important than the higher percent coverage of the XR flat fan.

Does travel speed impact spray coverage?

Hollow cone nozzles and XR flat fan nozzles were used to spray targets at two travel speeds and three volumes. Target coverage was determined both as droplet deposits per cm² (see Figure 5) and total % covered (see Figure 6).

The variability in deposit density and percent coverage from medium/fine droplets created by the hollow cone nozzles make it difficult to determine statistical significance, but the trend suggests that higher ground speeds improve coverage in the middle and bottom of the canopy. This is likely due to the wake of the sprayer and the vortices created by its passage stirring fine droplets into the canopy.

Overall recommendations

The data suggest that coverage was improved when the sprayer travels at 16 kmh (10 mph) rather than 8 kmh (5 mph). Coverage was also improved at higher spray volumes, where 280 L/ha (30 US g/ac) provided the best overall coverage for all nozzles. As for the best nozzle, this depends on the application; the hollow cone created higher droplet densities than the XR flat fan, but the XR Flat fan created higher percent coverage. Higher droplet densities may be preferred when controlling disease with contact products, but spray drift becomes a significant concern. Higher percent coverage might be preferred with locally systemic products where complete coverage is less of a concern and preventing spray drift is a priority.

Epilogue

This work was performed in 2012. Since then there have been significant advances in sprayer design for spraying asparagus in fern. Dr. Torsten Balz (Bayer Application Technology Manager) kindly provided an example of such a sprayer (see below) and a video link to watch it in action. Drop arms that bring the nozzles closer to the target at all canopy depths are an ideal solution as long as the row spacing allows clearance without snagging the drops. Further, there have been developments regarding the use of hollow cones in an overhead broadcast application. Over- and under-laps in the hollow cone swath lead to double-dosing and gaps respectively that are referred to as “Technical Strip Disease”. Combined with considerable drift potential, hollow cones are not recommended.

Special thanks to Max Underhill Farm Supply (Vienna, Ontario) for use of their sprayer and their assistance both spraying and placing water sensitive papers in the field. Thanks to Mr. Ken Wall of Sandy Shore Farms Ltd. (Port Burwell, Ontario) for providing the site and hosting the associated workshop, and thanks to TeeJet Technologies for their donation of parts and supplies.