Tag: airblast

  • Closed Transfer for Airblast Sprayers – A Learning Process

    Closed Transfer for Airblast Sprayers – A Learning Process

    As Canadian farmers begin to adopt closed transfer systems (CTS), growing pains are to be expected. Instructions for installation and use are primarily European and field-sprayer centric. We’ve seen precious little in the way of practical advice for incorporating CTS into airblast operations.

    This is a “live” article which we’ll update periodically. We encourage readers to contact us and share their observations and experiences (and photos) so we can all learn from them. We’re happy to keep contributions anonymous if that’s preferred.

    This article does not intentionally imply any brand preference. Our experience is limited at this point and we are using any information we have access to. As the article grows, so will the combinations of sprayer and CTS. Also, we are not recommending or endorsing any of the following approaches. It’s still unclear if modifying the sprayer is the purview of the manufacturer / dealer of the sprayer or the CTS. At this point, we suspect it’s likely the owner that accepts any responsibility.

    Does it matter where the CTS is relative to the sprayer?

    If the system is gravity-fed, the coupler, the fill line and the connection to the tank must be higher than the fill level in the tank. Liquid won’t flow uphill unless it’s pushed from behind (pressure) or pulled (suction or siphon). Be aware this means the entire fill line should be above the tank’s fill level; sags will prevent fluid transfer. If we’re observing best practices, the tank should be half-full of water before you start adding products.

    If the coupler uses suction from the sprayer itself, or employs a pump, relative height won’t affect filling. In this case it is likely part of a separate transfer system (i.e. not permanently mounted on the sprayer). It might be simple, or part of a larger and more sophisticated affair, but in either case it should be level, stable, and easily accessed without the operator having to reach or squat. Two examples are pictured below.

    Here, a CTS is mounted to a hand cart so it can be wheeled into place and then put away. The sprayer provides suction via venturi to pull in the chemistry and a simple garden hose supplies municipal carrier / rinse water. Note the cinder (concrete) block used to stabilize the unit. Simple and effective.
    Here, a coupler is part of a larger tender system. Carrier / rinse water is pumped from an onboard tank, through the coupler, and then into the sprayer.

    How do I plumb the CTS to the sprayer?

    If the CTS is mounted directly on the airblast sprayer, it’s typically a smaller, gravity-fed coupler. The rinse / carrier water is often from an external source (e.g. water tank, tower, pond or municipal water), but there are cases where an onboard water source can be used.

    Provide Agro has attached a gravity-feed coupler to the secondary tank hatch. This is above the fill line, sealed tightly, and it uses an onboard rinse / carrier water source. If considering cutting into a hatch, be aware of the filter basket or any onboard rinse system. Also, note that letting the lid flop open (or setting it aside) should not damage the coupler itself.
    No matter the rinse / carrier water source, it should match the manufacturer’s prescribed pressure range (generally between 3 – 6 bar or 45 – 85 psi) and have an anti-backflow device. There is no such device in this photo.

    Some have suggested cutting a hole in the tank itself, above the highest possible fill line, and sealing the coupler in place. This is not simple. If you find a flat horizontal surface and you are equipped to cut poly, Fiberglas or steel (listed in ascending order of difficulty), doing so could undermine tank integrity and create potential for leaks. We won’t even entertain what would happen to your sprayer warranty… assuming someone still has one.

    If the intent is to couple a fill line to the sprayer, the best approach is to tee a fitting into the suction-side of the sprayer plumbing to draw product in through the pump. Consider accessibility and safety first: Can you safely and easily reach the suction side of the sprayer plumbing? Is the PTO shaft too close for comfort? Will anything stick out past the sprayer that might create a risk of snagging a crop canopy or trellis? If a tee can be plumbed in, will it need to be secured to the chassis in some way to create stability?

    There is no easy or universal answer to these questions.

    On this sprayer, the only easily-accessed point is between the suction filter and pump. Creating a tee that would accommodate a dry poppet fitting is challenging.
    In the case of this 3-pt hitch sprayer, there is no simple way to access the suction side of the plumbing. Perhaps a tee could be added and the fitting extended up-and-out from under the chassis. Securing the fitting might require strapping it to the back of the tank, or to a mast of angle iron (or similar) attached to the chassis. Imagination required. Apply within.

    As for the fitting, what style is best? A cam lever style fitting will work, but it will leak a volume of liquid when it’s detached. A quarter-turn valve will also be required on the sprayer, and preferably another on at the end of the feed line, so that’s two more valves in play when loading. And, for the sake of safety, best practice would to be to use a cam cap on the sprayer just in case the quarter-turn valve gets snagged and opens. Far safer and more efficient, a dry poppet style fitting will ensure minimal spillage when the hose is disconnected, with no additional valves or caps required.

    Finally, what of the fill line itself? We’re seeking confirmation, but we have been told of a situation where the pump suction was sufficient to collapse the feed line. This is why some CTS manufacturers provide the hose and fitting with the units. At minimum, check the CTS manufacturer’s instructions and ensure the hose is rated for the degree of suction created by the pump.

    Send us your experiences

    And that’s all we have for now. We encourage you to reach out to us with your successes and failure and we’ll update this article for others to learn from.

    Happy Spraying.

  • Alternate Row Spraying

    Alternate Row Spraying

    Alternate Row (aka Alternate Row Middle [ARM]) spraying is an application method where the air-assist sprayer does not pass down every alley during an application. The sprayer operator is relying on the spray to pass through one or more rows and provide acceptable coverage to the entire canopy (or canopies) on a single pass.

    Some state agencies promote this spraying strategy to various degrees, and many sprayer operators (whether they admit it or not) have used this method of spraying. I have advised it myself for very young and/or very sparse vineyard and orchard plantings, but never without confirming coverage. When I tell operators that I have serious reservations about alternate row spraying, they defend it. Here are the most common justifications I’ve heard over the years, and my response:

    JustificationReply
    “I do not have enough spray capacity to spray every row when time is short.”You need more sprayer capacity. Get another sprayer so you can get spray on in time or invest in a multi-row sprayer is possible.
    “ARM spraying saves money and reduces environmental impact because I use less pesticide.”Technically, if you travel every second row with a sprayer calibrated to travel every row, you have indiscriminately reduced your carrier and chemical inputs by half (or more). Without close monitoring you may compromise your efficacy.
    “I only perform ARM spraying early in the season when canopies are empty, or only on young plantings.”I grudgingly grant this one as long as coverage is closely monitored. I’ve prescribed it myself in young or sparse plantings where I couldn’t get the sprayer output low enough to prevent drenching the targets.
    “The spray plume in the alley beyond the target row must mean the spray is providing adequate coverage. More is better!”If the spray is blowing through the canopy, it isn’t landing in the canopy. Further, if the air speed/volume is too high, droplets can ‘slipstream’ past the target without impinging on them. I’ve removed water-sensitive paper from canopies with barely any spray on them despite the plume in the downwind alleys. It looks like a magic trick, albeit an unhappy one.
    “Uncooperative weather doesn’t always leave me enough time to spray the entire crop, and it is the lesser of two evils to spray alternate rows than not at all. I’ll make sure I come back to spray the other rows later.”Choosing to do half a job requires an understanding of the products’ mode of action. If you are spraying an insect at a particular stage of development, there’s no “coming back later” to get that generation – if you missed, your window has closed. If it’s a protective fungicide that offers no kick-back, then once the disease has infected tissue, the damage is done. Get the spray on as best you can, but if it washes away before it has a chance to dry sufficiently, be prepared to reapply at the earliest opportunity as long as the label allows it.
    “ARM has always worked in the past.”Would you mind picking my lotto numbers for me? You’re a very lucky person!

    My reservations about ARM spraying come from published research and personal experience that show that coverage is almost always compromised when spraying from one side of a canopy. The spray must pass through the canopy to reach the far side, and the canopy filters droplets from the air as it passes through. This reduces the number of droplets available to cover the far side. In addition, high velocity spray will create “shadows” where any targets on the immediate far side of a leaf or branch become shielded and receive little if any coverage. Further still, fine droplets slow quickly as they leave the nozzle and take a long time to settle. As the entraining air slows and becomes erratic, the droplets float and change course, making their behaviour hard to predict.

    The cumulative impact can be seen in this infographic I built in 2016. The orchardist was a dyed-in-the-wool ARM applicator and he was resistant to driving every row because it took so much time. I wanted to show that he could claw back some of the lost time by spraying less pesticide every row versus his current volume every second row. He would need fewer refills, and save a LOT of unnecessary pesticide. The water sensitive paper does the talking, and while I’d like to think I’ve convinced him, I’ll bet he’s still out there dicing with fate.

    2016_ARM

    A very popular argument in favour of ARM spraying comes from orchardists that are shifting from semi dwarf to high-density plantings. They ask “How it is different to spray a four foot diameter tree from one side compared to an eight foot diameter tree from both sides”? 

    Well, we know coverage is reduced as a factor of distance. Spraying from one side gives a single opportunity to cover the middle and far side of a canopy, whereas spraying from both sides provides an opportunity for an overlap in coverage. Essentially, the centre of a canopy receives the cumulative benefit of two sprays. Coverage is therefore always improved when spraying from both sides, period.

    Spraying from one side gives a single opportunity to cover the far side of a canopy. However, spraying from both sides provides an opportunity for an overlap in coverage. In other words, the centre of a canopy receives less spray than the outside, but is essentially sprayed twice resulting in a compounding effect.
    Spraying from one side gives a single opportunity to cover the far side of a canopy. However, spraying from both sides provides an opportunity for an overlap in coverage. In other words, the centre of a canopy receives less spray than the outside, but is essentially sprayed twice resulting in a compounding effect.

    Why, then, do some sprayer operators claim that alternate row applications work? Because sometimes, they do! Just because coverage is reduced doesn’t mean it isn’t sufficient to protect the crop. It simply means that the potential for poor coverage and reduced dose is dramatically increased by alternate row applications. A sprayer operator might perform alternate applications successfully for years before conditions conspire to defeat the application: unfavourable wind, poor timing, increased pest pressure, poor pruning practices, excessive ground speed, high temperatures, low humidity, insufficient spray volume, and several other factors might occur simultaneously and reduce coverage below a minimal threshold for control. This confluence of bad luck may not happen the first year, or the second, but eventually…

    Product failure isn’t the only concern. Repeated reduced dosages may play a role in developing resistance. In those situations where the operator recognizes insufficient coverage, they may have to spray more often to compensate, negating any savings in time or product. Reduced dosage is a common error when a sprayer operator elects to use ARM.

    If you still aren’t convinced, at least perform alternate row spraying the “right” way. Here are three situations that I’ve heard operators refer to as alternate row spraying. Situation 1 is most common, but to my mind only Situation 2 would be considered acceptable. Even then, confirming coverage is a must.

    Situation 1:

    The sprayer has a typical calibration for spraying every row, but only drives alternate rows. The first application (solid line) covers different rows from the second application (broken line). The operator will claim to spray more frequently, but generally does not perform the second application unless there is high pest pressure. The result is half-a-dose per hectare per application.

    The sprayer has a typical calibration for spraying every row, but only drives alternate rows. The first application (solid line) covers different rows from the second application (broken line). The operator will claim to spray more frequently, but generally does not perform the second application unless there is high pest pressure. The result is half-a-dose per hectare per application.
    The sprayer has a typical calibration for spraying every row, but only drives alternate rows. The first application (solid line) covers different rows from the second application (broken line). The operator will claim to spray more frequently, but generally does not perform the second application unless there is high pest pressure. The result is half-a-dose per hectare per application.

    Situation 2:

    The sprayer is calibrated for double output compared to a typical every-row situation, and the operator drives alternate rows. The result is that the hectare gets the whole dose per application, but coverage is always inconsistent.

    The sprayer is calibrated for double output compared to a typical every-row situation, and the operator drives alternate rows. The result is that the hectare gets the whole dose per application, but coverage is always inconsistent.
    The sprayer is calibrated for double output compared to a typical every-row situation, and the operator drives alternate rows. The result is that the hectare gets the whole dose per application, but coverage is always inconsistent.

    Situation 3:

    Since the sprayer will only drive alternate rows, the operator mistakenly sets the sprayer to emit half the output compared to a typical every-row situation. The first application (solid line) covers different rows from the second application (broken line). The result is a quarter-dose per application, and if the operator chooses to spray a second time, the hectare will only ever get half-a-dose. Yes, this happens.

    The sprayer has a typical calibration for spraying every row, but only drives alternate rows. The first application (solid line) covers different rows from the second application (broken line). The operator will claim to spray more frequently, but generally does not perform the second application unless there is high pest pressure. The result is half-a-dose per hectare per application.
    The sprayer has a typical calibration for spraying every row, but only drives alternate rows. The first application (solid line) covers different rows from the second application (broken line). The operator will claim to spray more frequently, but generally does not perform the second application unless there is high pest pressure. The result is half-a-dose per hectare per application.

    So, my final word on alternate row applications is that they should be performed with extreme caution. I’ve used them myself in early season applications in new plantings, but never without confirming coverage with water-sensitive paper, and never in conditions that might further compromise coverage to the point that the application does not give control.

    Caveat Emptor!

    Well, I thought it was funny. My apologies to J. Luymes from British Columbia (pictured) and Obi Wan Kenobi (not pictured… or is he?)
    Well, I thought it was funny. My apologies to J. Luymes from British Columbia (pictured) and Obi Wan Kenobi (not pictured… or is he?)
  • Airblast Spraying in Poor Conditions

    Airblast Spraying in Poor Conditions

    Some springs are tougher than others. This article was originally written in 2019, which was particularly challenging. The frequency and duration of rain events left limited opportunity for orchard sprays. Even then, the periods between rains were transitions between warm and moist conditions and cold fronts, which makes wind gusty and changeable. These same periods leave wet alleys prone to rutting and compaction, and conditions that favour spraying may also favour pollinator activity.

    In response, applicators get frustrated. Some may be tempted to spray in sub-optimal conditions and risk drift thinking even a little coverage is better than none. But the adage that “there is no wasted fungicide spray” does not apply here. Some may disagree, but spraying in wet and high-wind situations:

    • greatly reduces coverage and subsequently, crop protection.
    • may result in repeated sub-lethal doses that can encourage resistance.
    • greatly increases the degree of surface run-off and off-target drift, risking environmental, commercial and residential
      contamination.

    The argument itself may be moot because the decision to spray is not strictly a consideration of economics, productivity, and risk tolerance. When environmental restrictions exist on a pesticide label they are inviolate. That is, they are not suggestions but legal requirements. Statements might include:

    • Not spraying when rain is forecast within 12 hours following application. This is, in part, to prevent water-soluble products from moving in surface or channel run-off.
    • Not spraying in calm conditions (generally <3 km/h, as measured at the top or outside of the orchard). This is to prevent airborne spray from moving in unpredictable directions during a thermal inversion, or downhill with stratified air.
    • Not spraying in gusting or windy conditions (generally >10 km/h, but there is no Canadian standard). This is to prevent airborne spray from moving with the wind. This is of particular import when there are sensitive downwind areas that can bring buffer zones into play

    Technologies exist that extend the spray window, but they require long-term planning and may not be economical (or even completely proven). They are generally a combination of orchard architecture and sprayer design. Examples include:

    • Tented orchards (more common in Australia) designed to exclude pests and insulate against hail, wind and inversions.
    • Shrouded vertical booms (e.g. Lipco) designed for trellised orchards.
    • Solid-set emitters (more common in Europe and still experimental in parts of the northern US) that reduce drift and can spray large areas quickly.
    • Vertical towers with downward-oriented fans (e.g. Curtec Proptec or Sardi sprayers) that rely on the orchard itself to filter
      lateral/downward-directed spray.

    Assuming the pesticide label does not prohibit application, there are adjustments that can improve coverage and reduce drift in sub-optimal conditions, but only marginally. These are compromises that sacrifice time, money, effort and/or the level of crop protection. Further, they are only intended for sprayers with towers (i.e. not low-profile axial sprayers):

    • Convert to air induction nozzles (at least in the top two nozzle positions, and likely at one rate higher than you usually use).
    • Be certain to turn off any nozzles spraying excessively over the top of the canopy. A little can’t be helped and is actually a best practice to ensure spray reaches the treetop. Be reasonable.
    • Reduce fan speed to only reach just past the middle of the canopy on the upwind side.
    • Turn off the boom on the downwind side of the sprayer and adjust airspeed and nozzle rates for upwind alternate row spraying only. Especially on the last three downwind rows, which you may have to leave unsprayed entirely.

    The best advice is unpopular: Park the sprayer until conditions improve. Like hail, there are environmental factors that are out of the farmer’s control. They are inconvenient and highly frustrating, but do not be tempted to takes risks on what might ultimately result in poor coverage and accusations of pesticide drift.

  • Adjusting Orchard Airblast Sprayers for Spring

    Adjusting Orchard Airblast Sprayers for Spring

    For those on the fly, hit play to hear a shortened, narrated version.

    I have far too many photos and videos of airblast sprayers blowing straight up through treetops, or downwind through the last row, during spring applications. I chose not to include any in this article to avoid people recognizing the operations. If you haven’t seen anyone doing it, maybe it’s you!

    I recognize that it can be a tricky balance to adjust a sprayer for spring applications. It’s counterintuitive, but a bare tree can be difficult to spray. Young and/or bare trees represent small targets which have a very low catch efficiency, so a lot of spray will miss. Switching nozzles to adjust rates doesn’t help much in this regard – it’s far better to adjust travel speed and air settings, and we’ll get to that in a moment.

    That lack of foliage also means wind moves through the orchard unabated, so the sprayer may have to blow a little harder into the wind to compensate. In the case of a low-profile axial sprayer, which blows laterally and upward, that means creating greater risk for blowing too high, and blowing through downwind rows.

    That off-target deposition represents a huge loss of materials and potential for drift incidents. To add insult to injury, many of those early season applications often have oil components, which require a drench (higher volume) and are more easily seen by bystanders (opaque droplets). All in all, it’s a bad time of year for crop protection PR. Learn more about drift and drift prevention here: BeDriftAware.

    Air Adjustments

    So, let’s start with air. Air carries spray droplets, so perform a ribbon test to ensure the air outlets are oriented correctly. This is achieved by adjusting deflectors (e.g. low-profile axial), the air outlets on a tower, or the entire head on a wrap-around design with individual fan/nozzle combinations.

    Spray height should always exceed the canopy height by a small degree. This compensates for the increase in wind speed with elevation, the potential loss of spray height with faster travel speeds, and uneven alleys that cause the sprayer to rock, which changes the spray angle.

    It is less critical that spray align with the lower portion of the canopy. As air energy wanes, or as droplets begin to lose momentum, finer droplets will slowly fall, depositing on random surfaces. Coarser droplets will quickly fall towards the bottom of the canopy, settling primarily on upward-facing surfaces. This secondary deposition can also occur from the cumulative impact of blow-through from upwind rows.

    Nozzle Adjustments

    Now pay particular attention to which nozzles are on or off. Park the sprayer in an alley. Stand behind the sprayer and extrapolate a direct line from each nozzle to target canopy. Nozzles that point at the canopy should be left on. Nozzles that point above or below can be blocked, or turned off, via valves or rotating roll-overs.

    Some roll-over nozzle bodies can be swiveled up or down 15 degrees to fine tune the spray angle. An alternative would be to permanently rotate the nozzle body fitting in the boom line. When aiming nozzles using a roll-over nozzle body, be careful not to swivel them too far or the valve will partially close and compromise the spray pattern.

    When extrapolating, remember that the centre of a nozzle only indicates the centre of the spray pattern. Cone and fan angles can span 60 to 110 degrees, depending on the influence of air. Therefore, even though the centre of the lower-most nozzle intersects the bottom of the target canopy, you may still be able to turn it off because the nozzle above has that portion covered.

    Travel Speed, Wind, and Coverage Assessment

    Now let’s consider travel speed. If the wind is blowing hard through the orchard, you can increase the air speed or slow down the sprayer to focus longer. However, in both cases, you run the risk of overblowing the downwind rows by a considerable margin. Easily three rows in a high-density orchard.

    This downwind coverage is cumulative, so when you assess your coverage (preferably using water sensitive paper), don’t do so until you’ve made a few upwind passes. So much of that spray ends up on the orchard floor, and still more evaporates or blows up, but some of it will hit and it adds up.

    Downwind Boundary

    Finally, pay attention to where you are in the block. It may be necessary to turn off the downwind bank of nozzles on the final downwind three (or more) rows. That means you’ll be performing the dreaded alternate row (one-sided) application, and I’ll be the first to say that’s not ideal. However, in this case, the spray will blow back and help cover the unsprayed side. Again, use water sensitive paper to confirm the job you’re doing.

    Final Thoughts

    And, of course, seriously consider when it’s time to wait for better conditions. No one likes to do that, especially when rain is imminent and the ground stays soft, but the alternative is a lot of waste and a poor application. If this always seems to be the fight you’re having, maybe it’s time to consider the return on investment of a tower sprayer, or a shrouded sprayer. Towers improve matters since they more easily reach the treetop without having to blow as hard, and without angling air upward. Shrouded recycling-style sprayers (if they fit the architecture) help even more.

    Plan to do all of this (especially the capital investment number crunching) before the season starts and be prepared to change sprayer settings on the fly, as required. Don’t be the subject of my next spring drift photo.

  • Airblast Spring Start-up and Winterizing

    Airblast Spring Start-up and Winterizing

    Any description of airblast sprayer start-up must, contextually, make assumptions on how it was winterized for long-term storage. This cyclic relationship is why I use a chicken-and-egg title slide when giving this presentation.

    Answer: It was the rooster.

    The inability to describe one process without the other is further complicated by the possibility that the sprayer is brand new and was therefore never winterized. So, what follows is an attempt at a logical sequence of pre-season maintenance activities to restore a winterized sprayer, or initiate a new sprayer.

    New Equipment

    If this is a new sprayer, you have an opportunity to perform some preventative maintenance.

    Loosen, lubricate and re-tighten clamps. Always back gears off before tightening to avoid stretching them. (Image from Purdue Extension publication PPP-121: Preparing Spray Equipment for Winter Storage and Spring Startup)
    Use double clamps on pressurized lines for added safety. Wider clamps are better and T-bolt clamps are better than worm-gear.
    Put thread release on bolts and re-tighten with a torque wrench (not an impact tool). Use a paint pen to mark nut, washer and bolt for future visual checks. This is called a “Witness Mark”.
    Protect hoses and wires at rub points. Follow hoses and with a paint pen, number the hose-ends and connections for future reference.
    Using a new tractor? You may have to re-calibrate to account for different gear ratios. When hitching a new sprayer, note that the distance from the ball on the drawbar hitch to the tip of the PTO should be ~14″. Don’t exceed maximum working angles for PTO shafts (usually <25 degrees). If your tractor or implement manufacturer says differently, go with that. And get it in writing.

    Winterizing (Long-term storage)

    If you are preparing the sprayer for long-term storage, follow the normal rinsing process, but don’t reinstall strainers and nozzles.

    Look in the nozzle bodies for debris. Discard worn or broken nozzles.
    Soak, scrub, rinse and store nozzles and nozzle strainers. You may replace them once the sprayer is clean, but I prefer to store them separately since they have to come back off during start-up.

    With the agitation on, circulate undiluted plumbing antifreeze (the sprayer already has 5-10 L (1.25-2.5 gallons) of water in the system from the decontamination process) for five minutes and drain it through the plumbing system (not the booms).

    Disconnect hoses where they attach to the booms and drain as much liquid from the sprayer as possible. (Image from Munckhof Sprayers). Take the time to examine any hose fittings.
    Clean the sprayer (Triple rinse with a detergent) and scrub the exterior. Do not use pressure washers on bearings, fittings, pumps or any lubricated or moving parts.
    Examine fan blades for cracks, build-up or nicks that can cause imbalance. Replace (not just repair) punctured entrance grills.
    Don’t ignore tank damage. Poly tanks are prone to sun damage and cracks. Never climb into a tank to repair it. Quite often, replacement is the best option.
    Clean and inspect wheel assemblies. It’s best to do this during winterization to prevent bearing corrosion as the sprayer sits all winter.
    Remove any rust and repaint (or just touch up). Paint not only looks good, it protects.
    The excellent YouTube channel Ask Tractor Mike proposed storing the PTO shaft indoors in two pieces, and to cut away a portion of the interior guard to facilitate reassembly later on. Also, use a paint pen to mark the splines on the shaft for easier hook-up (see inset top-right of image).
    RV antifreeze is a 50% solution of antifreeze and water with a rust inhibitor. It should not cause phytotoxicity if sprayed or dumped, but be sure to dispose of it away from water sources during start-up. Turn the pump manually to get antifreeze throughout the system. Close the nozzle bodies, loosely fit the tank lid and store indoors. (Image from Purdue Extension publication PPP-121: Preparing Spray Equipment for Winter Storage and Spring Startup).

    Spring Start-up

    Most operators are guilty of neglecting their airblast sprayers and babying their tractors. Sprayers are precision tools that must be kept in good operating order to prevent costly breakdowns, improve their performance, and increase their lifespan.

    Your car is serviced based on distance travelled. Your sprayer should receive regular maintenance based on working hours, per the manufacturer’s recommendations. Daily sprayer inspections are part of regular maintenance since the operator will (hopefully) find small problems before they become big problems.

    Never assume your sprayers is ready to go right out of long-term storage. Parts seize, scale breaks away from surfaces, and small beasties sometimes choose to eat, or make their homes in, cozy sprayers.

    When planning spring start-up, never assume the winterized sprayer is ready for immediate hook-up. Expect a minimum half day per sprayer.
    Attempting to loosen or shift something that hasn’t moved in several months is risky. Pressure gauges snap off, fittings crack, welds break. Expect the unexpected and either have spare parts on hand, or a plan to get them quickly.
    Parts are most likely to seize during the first spray. Bearings and PTO universal joints, especially.
    Start-up is a good time to lubricate parts. Grease the guard ring bearing every 100 hours, the universal joint cross every 25 hours and the shaft and shear bolt regularly.
    Insects, birds and rodents eat, or make homes in, sprayers. Professional rodent bait/traps, steel wool and peppermint oil/gel are possible solutions.
    Check belt tension, alignment and wear. (Image from Purdue Extension publication PPP-121: Preparing Spray Equipment for Winter Storage and Spring Startup).

    Pump specific maintenance is beyond the scope of this article. Hypro recommends changing oil after 40 hours of break-in operation and every 500 hours after that. The diaphragms should be replaced every 1,000 hours. Generally speaking, EPDM (black) diaphragms are a better choice for airblast sprayers, while the Desmopan (amber) diaphragms are really for lawn care sprayers.

    Pump maintenance is beyond this article, but change the oil every 500 hr or 3 months. Use a paint pen to write on the pump what type of oil it requires, and then date the filters. Note the “winterized” sticker.

    At minimum, check the tire pressure. Hard tires drive faster, but leave compacted ruts. Soft tires drive slower, but disperse weight better. Airblast sprayer wheel assemblies should be cleaned and inspected as part of regular annual maintenance. Wheel bearing maintenance before long-term storage may prevent water from corroding the bearings.

    Ensure tire pressure matches the ideal stamped on the tire. Or, if using less pressure to avoid spring soil compaction, ensure both tires have the same pressure.

    The relief valve on your sprayer should always be in the bypass position during start-up. If your gauge spikes then the gauge may always read high afterwards and should be replaced.

    A reminder to always set the relief valve to the bypass position when starting up the sprayer. This is one reason why pressure gauges spike and can eventually fail.

    Replacing leaking, opaque or inaccurate gauges improves sprayer performance. Be sure to use the oil-filled variety of gauge to eliminate a bouncing needle. You can also get suppressors that fit between the gauge and sprayer to prevent pulsing. Consult the article on testing airblast pressure gauge reliability.

    Use a wrench to turn gauges at the nut. Don’t twist them by hand holding the face. Ensure they are not opaque, leaking, plugged or resting above the zero pin.

    Many spray materials do not mix well and one of the common causes of uneven application is poor agitation. If you find deposits at the sump in the bottom of the sprayer after an application, your agitation is insufficient. For mechanical agitators, check for propeller wear and ensure paddles are secure on the agitator shaft. Learn more about agitation here.

    If the agitator shaft is leaking a little, tighten the packing. The packing gland is a common source of leaks. Keep it properly greased. If a leak occurs you can usually repair it by tightening the bolts on the packing gland by ½ a turn, but if that doesn’t work you may have to remove and repack (or replace) it.

    On sprayers with mechanical agitators, look for prop wear and loose or damaged paddles. Fill the sprayer with water and looks for tank leaks. Tighten the bolts 1/2 turn if the packing gland on the agitator shaft is leaking. You may have to remove and repack the gland if the leak persists.
    Look for signs of hose wear and examine the sprayer for leaks while under pressure. Be careful when pressurizing the sprayer for the first time in the spring; this is when lines are likely to come loose or burst. (Image from Purdue Extension publication PPP-121: Preparing Spray Equipment for Winter Storage and Spring Startup).
    Minerals chelate (i.e. scale) more readily on stainless steel than plastic tanks. In either case, the first tank of water and leftover antifreeze should be sprayed from the nozzle bodies with no line or nozzle strainers, and no nozzles. Replace them once the tank is sprayed out.

    The last step is calibrating the sprayer, and that process really depends on your definition. If the preceding steps conflict with those of the manufacturer’s, always follow the manufacturer’s. Do this for reasons of safety and to preserve any warranty.

    Thanks to Fred Whitford (Purdue University), Gail Amos and Mark Ledebuhr (Application Insight LLC) for reviewing the content of this article and for their helpful edits.