Tag: coverage

Crop-Adapted Spraying (CAS) and an Apple Orchard Case Study

An orchard spraying scenario

Here’s a common situation: An orchardist following IPM identifies a pest that poses an economic threat. It’s an annual pest and spraying is really a matter of when, not if. The operation is 150 acres and runs three airblast sprayers; two have a tower and one does not. Multiple varieties are planted in several blocks on different rootstocks and they are at different stages of maturity. The newer blocks are trellised high density trees and the older blocks are semi-dwarfs on different row spacing. Let’s also imagine the pruning team hasn’t finished yet, so some trees are not pruned.

The orchardist turns to the pesticide label to decide how to spray such variable targets. It prescribes a range of doses per planted area (not canopy size), depending on the pest pressure. It advises the orchardist to use “enough water” to ensure “good coverage” without incurring “runoff”.

The orchardist recognizes that the label is vague, and elects to rely on what has worked historically: A water-soluble pouch is dropped into each tank (dose is close enough), and each sprayer operator is instructed to drive at an efficient speed (get it done because rain is coming), spraying until the tank is empty. They say that if a tank is running low before the job is done, speed up and stretch it. If the spray is overshooting a younger planting, they suggest turning off the top nozzles and/or driving faster.

Airblast operators face this situation regularly. The question is: “Is there a problem with spraying this way if it results in a respectable crop of quality fruit?” Agricultural engineers specializing in application technology in Spain, Australia, Great Britain and the United States say there is a problem, and on behalf of Canada, I completely agree with them.

Canopy and Sprayer Variability

The fundamental problem is inconsistent spray coverage and avoidable waste (of time, water and pesticide) due to variability. Our scenario notes multiple sprayer operators, different models of sprayer, and a range of varieties, orchard architectures and canopy management practices. The label does not allow for any of these factors, adhering to a rate based on planted area and remaining silent on water volume.

International peer-reviewed journal articles stretching back to the sixties have conclusively demonstrated order-of-magnitude differences in the area-density of orchard canopies from one acre to the next. There can even be fold-differences in canopy area-density in the same planting as the season progresses. A label prescribing a fixed dose based on the area planted is not appropriate for any vine, bush, cane or tree crop, and the result is that more crops are over- or under-sprayed than receive appropriate coverage.

Let us not forget the variability that comes from a poorly adjusted sprayer. I won’t to attempt to quantify the impact (although some researchers have suggested order-of-magnitude differences from sprayer to sprayer). Instead, let’s illustrate it as a conceptual “before and after”:

Before: Potential spray loss and inconsistency before adjusting sprayer to match the canopy

After: Coverage variability reduced and unnecessary waste mostly eliminated.

Beyond the immediate impact on efficiency, variability makes it difficult to diagnose pesticide effectiveness. As an example, there was a scab outbreak in Ontario in 2009 that elicited questions about timing, weather, product choice and resistance. There was very little attention given to spray coverage, which to my mind should have been the first question if only to eliminate it as a potential culprit. This is because each operation interprets labels differently, and very few confirm coverage in any quantifiable way. This practice makes it more difficult to identify a cause when crop protection fails.

Optimizing pesticide rates

That was a lot of preamble to describe an issue that many orchardists are already aware of. What is needed is a way to adjust the amount of pesticide per unit ground area (i.e. the label’s prescription) to achieve consistent foliar coverage for canopies of varying shape and density. The concept is visualized in the following figure. In addition, the method has to be simple, intuitive and effective.

Many models have been proposed to tackle the dose expression issue, including Tree-Row Volume, Leaf Area Index, Leaf Wall Area, PACE+ and DOSAVIÑA. There are advantages and disadvantages to each method. Standing on the shoulders of giants, we combined aspects of each of these models, including incorporating coverage factor research from USDA ARS work in nurseries, to develop the Crop-Adapted Spraying (CAS) method. It is neither complicated nor sophisticated. It formalizes a series of qualitative calibration techniques and the objective is to achieve a target foliar coverage pattern. When achieved with sufficient accuracy, pesticide efficacy is maintained and waste is greatly reduced.

Caveats

Perhaps I shouldn’t point out flaws before I describe the model’s effectiveness, but it’s important to understand that CAS relies on a few critical assumptions.

The first assumption is that the sprayer operator’s typical ratio of formulated product to carrier is appropriate. We need a starting point for adjusting the amount of pesticide per unit planted area, and unless the label specifies a concentration (i.e. a ratio of formulated product to water) or a minimum amount of product per planted area, this is a reasonable starting point. The appropriateness of this assumption is evidenced by a history of satisfactory pest control in the orchard.

The second assumption lies in defining a threshold for sufficient coverage, and this is a real challenge. Applications can be concentrate or dilute. Some products translocate in the leaf or redistribute on the leaf surface while others do not. Even the droplet size employed (e.g. A mist blower’s fines compared to Medium-Coarse droplets produced by an air induction nozzle) will affect dose, bioavailability and how long residues are active. So, how does one draw a universal line in the sand and say “this much is enough”?

Our threshold for suitable foliar coverage has evolved through experience, literature review and independent experimentation in several countries and in multiple 3D cropping systems. We propose 10-15 % surface coverage and a minimum of 85 droplets per cm²on a minimum 80% of the canopy. This standard is intended to be practical, versatile and robust in order to safely represent sufficient coverage for most foliar insecticides and fungicides. It is not suitable for ultra-low volume sprayers (e.g. misters, foggers, air-shear), nor is it intended to be a rigorous, scientific absolute.

For example, a drench application, such as streptomycin or dormant oils, will obviously require more coverage. Plant growth regulators like thinners, stop-drops and foliar nutrients have their own unique criteria. Products that work through vapour redistribution (e.g. some forms of sulfur) and bio-rational products have a minimal dose threshold that must be ensured per planted area, no matter the water volume used. In these cases, Crop-Adapted Spraying may not be appropriate.

So while it is the nature of models that they may not hold in every situation, this threshold has proved successful in multiple Ontario apple (later in this article) and highbush blueberry operations.

The method

The method is a simple and iterative approach that allows growers to adjust the product rate and sprayer output in relation to canopy and sprayer effects on deposits. Follow these steps to adjust the sprayer and optimize coverage. Only do so in conditions you would normally spray in.

Step 1

The sprayer should receive all seasonal maintenance prior to first use and undergo a visual inspection before each spray day.

Step 2

Park the sprayer in an alley between rows of trees and tie 25 cm (10 in) lengths of ribbon along the air outlet. That would be the deflectors on a low profile axial sprayer, the hubs of multifan systems or the ducted outlets on towers. Turn on the air and extrapolate where the air is aimed. Adjust the air to just overshoot the top of the canopy.

Step 3

It is important that the spray slightly overshoot the canopy height. It is less important to spray the lowest point of the canopy as secondary deposition tends to provide sufficient coverage. This may change if fruit weighs down the branches. Ensuring a full swath, turn off any nozzles that are not required. For small and medium canopy sizes, consider using air-induction hollow cones in the top positions of each boom to reduce drift. You may have to increase the rate in those positions to compensate for the fact that nozzles producing larger droplets produce fewer droplets.

Step 4

Affix 25 cm (10 in) ribbons to the upwind and far side of one or more trees. At minimum, affix them at the treetop and along the widest portion of the canopy. With the tank half-full of water, drive past in the spraying gear at the ideal RPMs with the air on. A partner in the next alley should see the highest ribbon move. Ideally the other ribbons will waft as well, but in large, dense canopies they may not. In this case, ensure leaves are moving beyond the trunk. No ribbons should strain straight-out.

This will determine if more/less air is required from the airblast sprayer. The operator can change fan speed (e.g. fan gear), or adjust the sprayer’s travel speed. Lower speed causes air to go higher and deeper and vice versa. In some cases, operators can reduce fan speed by reducing the tractor PTO revolutions by gearing up and throttling down. When air is corrected, determine ground speed in the orchard using smartphone GPS app or a calibration formula.

Step 5

Place and interpret water-sensitive papers per this article. If coverage is excessive, reduce output in corresponding nozzle positions (by replacing them with lower rate nozzles). If you see less than ideal coverage, increase the nozzle rates in those positions.

Be aware that excessive coverage may be unavoidable in the outer edge of the canopy, given that spray must pass through to get to the centre. It is not unusual to see half the deposition mid-canopy when the outside is saturated. Also be aware that ambient wind speed and humidity have significant impacts on coverage. Therefore, only test coverage in conditions similar to your typical spraying conditions.

Step 6

When the canopy grows and fills in sufficiently (usually after petal fall), you may have to reassess coverage to reflect a larger, denser canopy with more surface area. Given the critical nature of early season fungicide applications, it may be preferable to have slightly excessive coverage early season and allowing it to self-correct as the season proceeds. If you are suspicious that the spray is being stretched too thin or you are unsatisfied with the coverage, increase the output.

For high density trees, there may be no need to increase output mid-season. Early in the season, wind travels relatively unimpeded in a high-density orchard and will blow spray off course, reducing coverage and requiring higher water volumes or possibly more air to compensate. As the trees fill in, the average wind speed is reduced and more spray can impact on the target.

Mixing and Work Rate

When the correct sprayer settings and volumes have been determined, the operator will mix their spray tank as they would for their typical application. The sprayer will likely cover more orchard than it has in the past, and the operator will have to re-assess how many tanks are required pre and post petal-fall. If your sprayer is employs conventional hydraulic nozzles (that is, it is not a low-volume sprayer), it is not advisable to go below 400 L/ha (~40 gpa).

This is where OrchardMAX (the free CAS calculator app) can help the operator ballpark the correct rates for each nozzle position and estimate work rate, tanks required, and any potential savings in product.

Apple Orchard Case Study

Three Ontario apple orchards (and one Nova Scotia orchard) agreed to test the model. A block of trees was randomly selected from each operation to serve as the treatment condition. These trees received spray according to the CAS model. The rest of the orchard was sprayed according to the grower’s traditional methods. The orchards included several varieties and represented both semi-dwarf and high density plantings.

Orchard	Typical spray volume (Control)	CAS spray volume (Treatment)	% Savings	Varieties (age)	Orchard Structure	Years in study
Orchard 1	486 L/ha	373 L/ha	23%	Gala + g. Del (~10 yr old)	High density	3
Orchard 2	748 L/ha	478 L/ha & 608 L/ha = 543 L/ha	28%	Macs + Empires (~30 yr old)	Semi-dwarf	3+
Orchard 3	577 L/ha (660 L/ha)	407 L/ha	39% (38%)	Gala + Fuji (~20 yr old)	High density	2
Nova Scotia	544 L/ha	416 L/ha	33%	Jonogold (~10 yr old)	High density	1+

According to the model, each grower sprayed anywhere from 20-35% less per hectare in the CAS block than in their traditionally-sprayed block. In many cases, the overall canopy coverage was improved in the CAS block compared to the traditional method simply by aiming formally wasted spray into the canopy, and reducing volume in those areas that were unnecessarily drenched.

A scout was dispatched to monitor insect and disease activity each week for ~15 weeks. They observed a typical IPM scouting protocol and were not informed which block was the traditional control and which was CAS treatment. Data was transformed where appropriate for analysis of variance. In almost every case, there was no significant difference in counts between the CAS treatment and the grower’s traditionally-sprayed control (p=0.05). In those few cases where a pest had higher counts in the CAS block, the counts were so far below a spray threshold as to be insignificant.

If we look more closely at the three (of 128) ANOVA comparisons of control to treatment, we see that economic thresholds are rarely an issue, and essentially, difference between control and treatment are moot.

This study was repeated over three years. Having examined the data to determine if three years of optimized doses had any effect on pest populations, results suggest no such effect.

Apples were randomly sampled for destructive analysis at harvest and the total counts of any and all damage are shown below. This is simply a tally, and no statistical significance is implied. Note that Orchard 3 was only involved in the study for two years, and unfortunately a killing frost destroyed their harvest in their second year, so we didn’t have much to harvest.

An important part of knowledge transfer is whether or not growers will choose to adopt a method once the instructor is gone. By year two the biggest challenge was ensuring the orchardists in the study continued to spray the control block at their traditional volumes! They were more than willing to adopt the method wholesale and all three did so starting in 2016. Further, colleagues in Nova Scotia performed their own CAS trial for two years, and reported no significant difference in pest activity or apple quality. They accomplished this simply by following a written protocol.

The orchardist’s enthusiasm, the ability for the study to be replicated without my direct involvement, and the successful results speak to the viability of the method.

We would like to thank the researchers that developed the methods CAS is based upon, statistician Behrouz Eshani, the orchards that cooperated in the study, my OMAFRA colleagues and the OMAFRA summer students that scouted those orchards for three years.

More information

This method of application is really no more sophisticated than the pro rata practice of turning off nozzles that are aiming at the ground or above the target. It will take time for operators to get comfortable with the new volumes (and potentially reduced dosage) and regular scouting is highly encouraged to confirm they are achieving control.

The maintenance, calibration and operation of an airblast sprayer is an involved process. Collectively, the sprayer setup, weather and crop morphology all influence the coverage obtained from an application. A fundamental understanding of application technology is required before attempting to optimize dosage using the CAS method. We suggest grabbing a copy of the second edition of Airblast101 – Your Guide to Effective and Efficient Spraying. The digital version is a free download, but you can buy a hardcopy as well.

Finally, take a few minutes to watch this video by AAMS-Salvarani. In many European countries such as Belgium , France and Germany, sprayers must be calibrated regularly. While there is no mention of air speed adjustments, many of the steps in this video correspond with the airblast adjustments relating to Crop-Adapted Spraying.

February 24, 2021

Optimizing Sprayer Air Settings – Part 2
This is part two of a two part article on how to optimize the match between the sprayer air and the target canopy. You can find the first part here. For a more fulsome description of the process, consult chapters 3, 9, 10, and 11 of Airblast101.
A close up of an airblast gear box. There are usually two options – high or low.
Evaluating air energy – Ribbon test part 2
Air behaviour can change radically between stationary operation and driving. We learned in part one of this article that slower travel speeds increase the throw and the spray height. The simplest way to monitor where air is going is for a partner to watch the leaves in the target canopy. Leaves that are ruffling indicate that air is reaching them.
A more informative method, and one that works during dormancy, requires a length of flagging tape tied to the end of a long stick. The partner (wearing eye and ear protection) can move the ribbon around in the air wash, extending it into areas of interest. The ribbon’s behaviour will indicate gaps, the air angle and relative air energy. The ribbon can be interpreted using the following figure.
Work with the sprayer oriented to blow into any crosswind. Extend the ribbon into the sprayer air while the sprayer is stationary, or preferably, while driving. The ribbon’s behaviour will show what you couldn’t otherwise see. Here are a few possible outcomes: A. The angle and air energy are appropriate while the sprayer is stationary. B. The air energy is not sufficient to reach the tree top when the sprayer is driving. C. Obstructions or deflector misalignment can create gaps. D. Air is angled too low for the target canopy.
Evaluating canopy penetration – Ribbon test part 3
This final diagnostic accounts for the influence of any intervening canopy (or canopies for multiple-row strategies). It confirms that the air energy has the potential to carry droplets the full extent of the swath. Evaluating one side will give you a lot of insight but if you have the time it’s better to do both sides. Since most sprayers have at least some imbalance in air handling, the results may surprise you.
1. Choose a canopy that is upwind and on the lift side of the sprayer (if applicable).
2. Move the sprayer a distance into the row to allow it to reach target speed and to avoid wind effects on the periphery.
3. Attach 25 cm (10 in.) lengths of flagging tape on the far side of the target canopy. Do this at the top, middle and bottom of the canopy. In tall canopies this might require a ladder, telescoping pole, or sections of galvanized pipe to raise the ribbons.
4. With deflectors/spray outlets adjusted and the desired fan gear (or fan speed) selected, start the air without spraying and bring the sprayer up to the target travel speed. A partner wearing eye and ear protection will stand in the next alley and observe the ribbons as the sprayer passes (preferably recording a video for the operator).
Three ribbons are positioned on the far side of the upwind target canopy. In this case, an every-row traffic pattern is depicted. The observer watches or records the ribbons as the sprayer drives past with the air on (not the spray). For an every-row traffic pattern, the air energy is too high if the ribbon strains at 90⁰. It is ideal for the ribbon to briefly flutter (0⁰-60⁰). If the ribbon does not move (0⁰), the air energy may still be sufficient as long as it penetrates to the centre of the canopy. This is often the case with particularly dense/wide trees like nuts and citrus.
Tying ribbons on the up-wind side in an apple orchard just past green-tip. The red vest has lots of pockets to hold supplies and sprayer operators can see it clearly for safety. The Hawaiian shirt is because it was a Friday.
Repeat this process this for EACH significantly different crop sprayed with the sprayer. As with air direction settings, multiple set-ups might be needed to reflect each block, or you might choose to group of similarly-sized blocks and calibrate air to the worst case scenario. Record the set-up for each sprayer/block combination and keep a copy in the tractor cab(s).
Interpreting the ribbon tests
Interpreting the ribbons is not always straightforward. When they don’t behave as anticipated they may be indicating one or more of the following problems:
1. The air angle is incorrect.
2. The air energy is too low.
3. The air energy is too high.
There might be a single cause or several contributing factors. As you diagnose and attempt to correct these problems be aware that addressing one may create others. If the problem cannot be corrected, the sprayer configuration (or design) may be inappropriate for the canopy or the environmental conditions.
Ribbons that don’t point from the sprayer to the canopy may indicate a misalignment of spray outlets or deflectors. The bottom of the air should align with the bottom of the target. More critically, the top of the air should slightly overshoot the top of the target. We want to avoid spray drift, but we must account for wind speed increasing with height and vertical booms that rock on uneven alleys. If the spray does not slightly overshoot the top of the target, it may miss it entirely.
Adjusting horizontal alignment, when possible, can significantly impact sprayer performance. It can be tricky to optimize the angle because it represents the sum of several complicated interactions. Air outlets on wrap-around sprayers may be positioned too close to the target canopy to permit a ribbon test. However, you can still use the ribbon-on-a-stick technique to visualize how the air is behaving. Consider the following when positioning air outlets on either side of a canopy:
Unresponsive ribbons are often observed during a ribbon test. Depending on where the ribbon is located, this may or may not indicate a problem. Ideally, the top ribbon should always move in response to sprayer air. In larger canopies, this location represents the greatest distance sprayer air must travel and the highest wind speed it will encounter. The middle and bottom ribbons may or may not move in response to sprayer air. This is common in larger, denser canopies. To confirm this, an observer would have to stand at the trunk and watch the leaves rather than the ribbons.
Shingling and canopy distortion
When possible, do not position laminar air outlets in direct opposition. The convergence creates a high pressure zone that reduces spray penetration. Laminar flows will deflect unpredictably around this pressurized area and carry droplets back out of the canopy. Unless the canopy is narrow and sparse, turbulent air handling systems do not typically create this problem. In both cases, canopy penetration is improved when fans are staggered and/or are angled slightly forward or backward.
When too much air is vectored directly at the canopy face, it may close and compress that canopy rather than penetrate it. This is more likely when air is high energy, has a narrow air wash or is more laminar in nature. When leaves shingle, the overlap blocks spray and creates resistance to sprayer air. Air will then take the path of least resistance and either deflect around the canopy or channel through any openings. Shingling can be corrected by angling air outlets slightly forward or backward. A little goes a long way as small changes can have big effects.
Dr. Bernard Panneton (formally with the Horticultural R&D Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) performed a series of experiments exploring the relationship between potato canopies and wind and his observations extend to all broad leaf crops. Bernard showed that as wind speed increased, the percent of leaf surface area exposed to spray also increased, but only to a point. If the wind got too fast, the percent of leaf surface exposed to spray dropped significantly: ~20% less!
His interpretation was that low to moderate air speeds just ruffled the leaves, exposing their broad surfaces to spray more consistently. When air speed became excessive, leaves and twigs aligned with the wind, exposing only their thin edge to spray. The take home lesson is that spray will be more likely to impinge on all target surfaces when air speed and volume are calibrated correctly.
Bernard summed this article up succinctly: “More air is not better!”
Potato canopy distortion in an air tunnel. Research by Dr. B. Panneton.
Video summary
We’ll finish the article with a light-hearted video describing how the process works. It doesn’t explore the second ribbon test, but that’s more of a concern with distant targets or alternate row spraying strategies where the sprayer must penetrate one or more canopies in a single pass.
January 25, 2021
Optimizing Sprayer Air Settings – Part 1
This is part one of a two part article on how to optimize the match between the sprayer air and the target canopy. For a more fulsome description of the process, consult chapters 3, 9, 10, and 11 of Airblast101.
Why is air so important?
Air handling is the most important and least understood mechanical system on a sprayer. Most air-assisted sprayers for three-dimensional perennial crops produce droplets that are Medium or smaller according to the ASABE S572.3 droplet size classification standard. These small droplets have very little mass relative to their surface area, so they don’t have much kinetic energy. Without air to impart speed and direction, most droplets would never go where we want them to. In addition, air opens and moves a canopy, exposing otherwise hidden surfaces to the droplets it’s carrying.
Imagine throwing a feather. Now imagine throwing it as hard as you can. It may travel a little farther, but not much relative to the extra effort. Even then, an errant gust of wind might change its direction entirely. Similarly, we cannot rely on hydraulic pressure to propel small droplets. This is the primary reason for the “air” in air-assist spraying.
Air-assist spraying attempts to replace the empty air within a canopy with droplet-laden air (and then get it to stay there). If we don’t have enough air energy, we won’t displace enough empty air and the throw will fall short. Likewise, if we have too much air energy, the throw will extend beyond the the target, wasting spray and likely compromising coverage. Ultimately, we want the air to expend all its energy, spreading, stalling and depositing droplets inside the target canopy.
Travel speed
Travel speed can have a significant impact on work rate. However, the effect of travel speed on air behaviour (and ultimately coverage) should be the sprayer operator’s primary concern. There will always be a trade-off between travel speed, coverage and work rate. Travel speed is the first and easiest adjustment to throw, spray height and canopy penetration. Just as travel speed modifies the liquid rate per row, it also modifies air energy per row.
Environmental and canopy conditions
Whenever calibrating or adjusting a sprayer, it is critical to do so in the crop, in environmental conditions you would typically spray in. You would not expect a sprayer to achieve the same results in high winds in a dormant vineyard as it would in calm conditions in a mature citrus orchard.
I recommend using a handheld weather meter because local weather reports often don’t match the conditions in the planting. For temperature and relative humidity, take readings in the shade. For wind conditions, face into the prevailing wind and hold the meter as high as you can. Wind speed increases with height and we want to evaluate the most challenging part of the target – the top third of the canopy.
Evaluating vertical air angles – Ribbon test part 1
The air angle (or direction relative to the target) is the first concern. Research has shown that low profile radial airblast sprayers without effective straightening vanes or deflectors make the air go up on one side and down on the other. In extreme situations, this might compromise the spray job (e.g. miss the lower portion of the target on one side of the sprayer) or it might simply waste spray and stir up debris. Here’s how you can see if this is happening on your sprayer:
1. Park the sprayer in an alley between the rows.
2. Affix 25 cm (10 in.) lengths of tape along the air outlets. Tie them to nozzle bodies or use duct tape to position them so that they stand out in the sprayer-generated air.
3. Bring the fan(s) up to the desired speed but do not spray. Stand back behind the sprayer and use the ribbons to extrapolate the air angle relative to the target canopy. Look for asymmetries and wasted air (i.e. angled above the canopy or into the ground.)
The ribbons on the LPR sprayer in this photo are twice as long as they should be, but fortunately it was a calm day. Note the angles of the lower ribbons compared to the “ideal” broken white lines. The asymmetry corresponds to the misaligned bottom right deflector. Observe the ribbons while adjusting deflector positions. Any ribbons above the upper broken white lines indicate wasted air energy (and likely spray). Large upper deflectors, positioned horizontally, would reclaim wasted air and focus it into the crop.
By observing the ribbons, you can extrapolate where deflectors or fan heads should be aimed. Air should be adjusted to slightly over- and under-shoot the target canopy. For ducted outlets, such as low profile Turbomist sprayers, the air outlet is not a uniform width – it’s widest about half-way down. Using ribbons to extrapolate air direction, aim the widest part of the outlet at the densest part of the canopy. This automatically repositions the booms as well, facilitating the next calibration step where we turn off nozzles that will significantly over- or under-shoot the target. This is discussed in another article.
Using a piece of scrap wood with a ribbon on the end to demonstrate how deflectors would channel air on an Economist airblast sprayer. Once convinced, this grower fabricated and installed deflectors and has been very pleased with their performance.
When repositioning the air outlets on a Turbomist with no towers, aim the widest part of the outlet towards the densest part of the canopy, then turn off unneeded nozzles. Lubricate the nuts and bolts that hold the outlet bands tight.
Video Extras
These videos are a bit long-in-the-tooth now, but the concepts are still sound. If you hear anything in the videos that contradicts what’s written in the article, go with the article. Live and learn. Thanks to Penn State, the University of New Hampshire and Chazzbo Media for producing these 2014 videos.
</h3>
This article will conclude in the second half:
Optimizing Sprayer Air Settings – Part 2
January 25, 2021
Don’t try this tempting shortcut
There’s a call that I’ve been getting for 20 years now. It came again this week. Someone has a twincap with two small air-induced tips, and they’re applying herbicides and fungicides with low water volumes, often 5 gpa, sometimes less. They call because they want to know how much wind they can spray in. Is 30 km/h OK? They want my blessing.
I don’t need to hear much more. Some nozzles are sold entirely on the premise that they provide superior coverage – more droplets per square inch – and that this improved coverage permits the reduction of water volumes. Furthermore, the claim goes, when water is reduced, the spray concentration increases and the whole darn package just works a lot faster and better.
This line of thinking is as old as spraying itself. Applicators seek pesticide performance as well as productivity, and this approach gives them both. The proponents are well aware of their customers’ desires, and sell into it. “Use these tips and cut back on water. Any more than this just runs off anyways. You’ll get better coverage and better performance, get more spraying done.” It’s a convincing argument. Get an edge on your neighbour, the person who’s not in on the secret and is wasting time and water.
Why don’t I embrace it? There are a few reasons.
First, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Invariably it involves a twin nozzle setup. Use two nozzles, get more droplets, right? If that were true, believe me, I’d be advocating for quintuples.
Fact is that the only factors that change droplet numbers are droplet size (spray quality) and water volume. Want more droplets at the same water volume? Make the spray finer. Want to keep spray quality and add droplets? Add water (not nozzles).
The easiest way to improve coverage at the same volume is to use a finer nozzle, or to increase spray pressure. Depending on how far you go, you could make the spray finer and cut water, and still have more droplets per square inch.
The hardest way to improve coverage is to purchase a twincap and buy two nozzles, each of them half the size. True, within any given nozzle type, smaller sized tips usually generate finer sprays. But why bother with two tips? They’re more expensive and plug more.
If someone asks me how to improve coverage without changing water volume, I usually tell them to speed up a few mph. The rate controller will increase pressure and the spray gets finer. If speeding up is not possible, get one size smaller nozzle and run at higher pressure, same speed. Or keep nozzle and speed, and add some gpa, pressure will go up. It’s that easy. No twins necessary.
Second, the twin nozzle/low volume approach exaggerates the value of the twin nozzle for herbicides. With small plants and relatively open canopies in the early season, plus our high booms and travel speeds, the twin tips are not adding a lot, if anything at all, to coverage. It remains a sum of droplet size and water volume, the angle is not important at this stage. Deposit is by turbulence and wind, most of the time.
Third, low volume believers ignore a few potential problems. Drift is a big one. Low volume, fine spray operators are surrounded by nervous neighbours. They have fewer hours per day during which drift is acceptably low. And they definitely should not be on the field when wind is at 30 km/h. Basically, they’re a bit uncomfortable (at least they should be) and get less done per day.
Another potential problem is evaporation. Most sprays, even when applied at lower volumes, are still 90% or more water. The same volume of water evaporates much quicker when atomized into smaller droplets. This has two main downsides: On their way to the canopy, small droplets evaporate and become even more drift prone, and may not impact at all. Those that impact evaporate shortly thereafter. Research has shown that pesticide uptake is better from wet than dry deposits.
When Delta T (dry bulb minus wet bulb temperature) is high, evaporation can be so strong that it reduces pesticide performance or causes solvent burn. Fine sprays make it worse.
I also hear about the use of oily adjuvants to control evaporation from small droplets. This could be even more dangerous. Small droplets drift, and evaporation to dryness is actually helpful in reducing the impact of that drift. How? It makes the small droplets disappear, with their remnants dispersing into the turbulent atmosphere. With oily adjuvants, the small droplets stick around and stay potent and their drift damage is much worse.
Lastly, the practice is possibly off label. Water volume and spray quality label statements are designed to offer good performance and acceptable drift risk. While that part of the label is often a bit dated, it does provide better support from the manufacturer should something go wrong.
If you’re spraying under hot, dry and windy conditions, the low volume, fine spray approach is irresponsible. Use sufficient water (7 to 12 gpa) to allow low-drift sprays, at least Coarse to Very Coarse, in some case, even coarser.
Agronomists provide the best possible information for their clients, based on scientific evidence and experience and in accordance with their professional code of ethics. Sometimes the news we deliver aren’t what the customer wants to hear. But we have to represent the interests of all of us, collectively. I find that pretty important.
June 12, 2020
Six Spray Technology Skills for Agronomists
Press play to listen to an audio version of this article
Agronomists help farmers manage their crop with advice on everything from crop cultivars to fertilizer rates to marketing. It’s challenging to be an expert on everything, but a few core competencies can go a long way to improving the level of service.
Agronomists are also responsible for communicating environmental best practices. Along with fertilizer rates come messages of source, time, and place, the 4R principles. The same is true for spraying, with messages of spray drift, resistance management, and economic thresholds part of the consultation. Let’s remember that we should not be indifferent to the potential consequences of our recommendations.
Here are six skills that an agronomist should know about spray technology.
1. Recognizing major nozzle models and their spray quality and pressure requirements.
Application technologists are often asked to identify nozzles and recommend spray pressures for clients. It’s a skill that anyone can develop with just a bit of homework.
First, learn the colour-coding of nozzles – colours identify flow rates and follow an international standard that all manufacturers have adopted.
ISO Colour coding of major nozzle sizes, as well as application volumes at benchmark speeds.
Next, focus on the common nozzles on the major sprayers. John Deere sprayers will typically have three main air-induced nozzles, made for John Deere by Hypro, the Low-Drift Air (LDA), the Ultra Low-Drift (ULD), and the GuardianAIR Twin (GAT). Those with ExactApply, John Deere’s PWM system, will see the non air-induced 3D, the Guardian (LDX), and the Low-Drift Max (LDM). Recall that PWM flow control should not be used with air-induction tips.
Almost all Case sprayers have PWM, called AIM Command. Case uses Wilger ComboJet bodies and nozzles, with the ComboJet ER, SR, and MR most common, sometimes the DR or UR for dicamba.
New Holland/Miller with PWM (called IntelliSpray) are also likely to have these tips, but because these brands have TeeJet bodies on their booms, they require an adaptor for the proprietary ComboJet caps.
Otherwise, PWM units often use TeeJet’s TurboTeeJet (TT), Turbo TwinJet (TTJ60), and Air-Induced TurboTwinJet (AITTJ60), the only air-induced tip approved for PWM use by TeeJet.
Conventional spray systems (i.e., no PWM), will commonly have (in alphabetical order) the Air Bubble Jet (ABJ, actually labelled BFS for their manufacturer, Billericay Farm Systems), the Greenleaf AirMix (AM), the Hypro GuardianAIR (GA), and the TeeJet AIXR.
Many sprayers will have a twin fan for fungicides, primarily for fusarium headblight (FHB) management. The Greenleaf Turbo Asymmetric Dual Fan (TADF), the Hypro GuardianAIR Twin (GAT), and the TeeJet AI3070 dominate, as well as a number of custom configurations using splitters and twincaps.
Where dicamba is applied on Xtend trait soybeans, some special nozzles may be used to meet label requirements for coarseness. The TeeJet TTI is very common, but Greenleaf developed a special set of tips called the TurboDrop XL-D and the TADF-D. Wilger’s version, mentioned earlier, is the UR. John Deere has just announced their new ULDM.
That covers 95% of what you’ll encounter in the North American market. In Europe, add some Lechler nozzles (ID3, IDTA, IDK, IDKT) to the mix. In Australia, Arag is gaining ground.
Identifying the nozzles on sight is the prerequisite to finding out their average droplet size, called spray quality. Often, the inscriptions are worn off, so visual recognition is required to get there.
We’ve published a visual identification guide with pictures of the major nozzles here.
Knowing the relative spray qualities produced by these various nozzles will get you bonus points, but you’ll need to do some extra research to get there.
2. Using a spray calibration chart
This skill will make you popular on the farm and at the office. A very frequent question is “what size nozzle do I need for this new sprayer?”. The best way to approach the answer is to ask several questions.
- Does the sprayer have 20” nozzle spacing? (90% of sprayers do).
- What is the desired water volume?
- What is the expected average travel speed?
The first question guides you to the appropriate calibration chart, which can be downloaded here or can also be found in all sprayer catalogues. We explain how to use these charts here.
Calibration chart for 20: spacing, in US units.
If you don’t have a chart handy, use this shortcut: on a boom with 20” spacing, at 5 mph, every 0.1 US gpm capacity at 40 psi delivers 6 US gpa. So if you need to apply 12 gpa at 15 mph, an 06 size will get you there at 40 psi. That’s ballpark.
In metric, with 50 cm spacing, at 10 km/h every 400 mL/min (01 size) at 3 bar delivers about 50 L/ha. To deliver 200 L/ha at 20 km/h would require an 08 (white) tip.
Of course, if the tip is air-induced, make adjustments to speed or size to accommodate the higher pressure requirement of these types of nozzles.
Remember that spray pressure is key to performance, therefore the operator needs to drive at a speed, or use a volume, that results in the correct spray pressure.
3. Understanding Pulse Width Modulation
PWM technology has been on the North American and Australian market for two decades, but it remains poorly understood by those who do not use it. PWM will continue to gain popularity and has implications for nozzle selection and sizing.
Traditional rate control in the field involves the use of spray pressure to match liquid flow rates to travel speed. The rate controller knows the width of the boom (entered by the user), the travel speed (from gps), and the desired application volume (entered by the user). It does some math to identify the flow rate it needs, and compares that to the sprayer’s current flow meter reading. If the current flow is less than what’s needed, the sprayer increases pressure to increase flow. This happens continuously in the background.
When an operator speeds up, the pressure increases, and vice versa. As a result, the pressure (and therefore droplet size) will fluctuate with travel speed, and that can result in inconsistent spray patterns, coverage and drift.
PWM involves the installation of electronic solenoid valves at each nozzle body. These valves pulse on and off at 10, 15, 50, or 100 Hz, depending on the manufacturer. Each pulse contains a brief, complete shutoff of the flow. The proportion of the time the valve is open during a pulse is called the Duty Cycle (DC), and this is proportional to the flow through the nozzle.
Capstan PWM solenoid on Case AIM Command
When the system requires more flow, it no longer increases pressure. Instead, it increases the DC. The advantage of this approach is that nozzle pressure can now stay constant, ensuring consistent coverage and drift.
There are other advantages of these systems. Each nozzle can be controlled independently, offering high resolution sectional control and turn compensation.
Nozzle selection and sizing are both affected by this technology. Nozzles need to be sized larger, with about 30 to 40% more flow capacity ideal. The DC will therefore run at 60 to 70%, optimal for speed fluctuations and turn compensation. Air-Induced tips are not usually recommended because their pattern deteriorates with pulsing.
We’ve written about PWM here, here and here to get you started.
4. Validating coverage of the target
A very useful indicator of the success of a spray operation is an assessment of “coverage”. This term refers to a qualitative combination of droplet density and percent area covered, and can be quickly assessed using water sensitive paper. We’ve explained the use of WSP here and here.
It’s very useful to have some of this paper on hand (available from any retailer that sells TeeJet or Hypro products, or on-line from Sprayer Parts Warehouse in Winnipeg or Nozzle Ninja in Stettler, AB). The coverage can be assessed in four different ways:
Water-sensitive paper being used to assess spray coverage.
- using the “SnapCard” app (gives % coverage only);
- using the “DropScope” scanner (gives a comprehensive assessment of coverage, density, size, plus image editing tools);
- using a template of coverage examples;
- using experience built on years of doing this.
Water-sensitive paper is also useful as a record, for quality assurance. A spray application is conducted and part of the record is an image of the deposit. Should a performance issue arise, this will help settle it.
5. Understand basic sprayer plumbing
Often, a sprayer problem can be traced back to an issue with its plumbing. There could be mysterious sources of contamination. The pump might not be building pressure. The agitation isn’t running. Or you need to drain all the remaining liquid from the tank.
Sprayer plumbing seems intimidating for a number of reasons. It’s become complex on most modern sprayers. It’s hidden under the sprayer belly. All the lines are the same black colour, so they’re hard to tell apart.
But it’s not as bad as it seems. Basic plumbing is the same on all sprayers. The pump draws the spray mix from the bottom of the tank, the sump. It may also have options to draw clean water from an external supply, or from the clean water tank for wash-down.
The pressurized supply goes to three places:
- to the booms, via sectional valves;
- back to the tank, via a control valve that can be used to adjust the spray pressure;
- to the wash-down nozzles.
Typical sprayer plumbing for a centrifugal pump (Courtesy TeeJet).
When spraying, the less is returned to the tank, the higher the boom pressure. There may be several ways back to the tank, via agitation, via bypass (sparge), or via wash-down (used only when the pump draws water from the wash-down tank). Usually engineers can’t help themselves and introduce several what-if features that complicate the situation. But with a bit of know-how, and a flashlight, the plumbing system can be deciphered.
Pro tip: A centrifugal pump’s inlet (suction) is always the centre of the pump, its outlet (pressure) is at the periphery.
6. Matching a pesticide recommendation with application advice
It’s commonplace to recommend a specific crop protection product that matches the crop and pest situation. Recommending an ideal crop or pest stage improves the recommendation. But a truly successful outcome requires one additional step, advice on the application method. The customer may need to know if product performance depends on water volume and droplet size. Some products are more sensitive to this than others. Perhaps there is a specific nozzle type that may be helpful.
The classic example for application method is Fusarium headblight in wheat. The basics are straightforward. An agronomist recommends the fungicide, and guides the tight application window with a field visit to stage the crop, plus a look at the disease risk forecast map. But true application success requires an angled spray, with a coarser spray quality plus relatively low boom height to make it all worthwhile. That’s a full-featured recommendation.
Common herbicide applications also benefit from additional information. Some tank mixes and weed spectra allow for coarser sprays than others, and the ability to spray coarser means a wider application window and therefore more accurate timing. Other tank mixes may pose a significant risk to drift damage, requiring special measures to prevent a problem. Identifying those opportunities adds value.
Water volume and spray quality recommendations for major herbicide mode of action groups.
Newer labels for dicamba (Xtendimax, Engenia, Fexapan) and 2,4-D (Enlist Duo) have very specific instructions for drift prevention. This information must be shared with customers to ensure that their drift liability is covered.
Are there other skills that you feel agronomists should have? Please share them with us by contacting us at the bottom of this page.
February 3, 2019