Sprayer math can be intimidating, but the effort gives solid value. When combined with a calibrated sprayer you reap the following benefits:
Estimate how long a job will take.
Estimate how much spray mix is required.
Estimate how much crop protection product must be ordered for the season.
Populate spray records which allow you to review practices, respond to enquiries and satisfy traceability requirements.
There are many ways to perform sprayer math, and you need only look to local pesticide safety courses, industrial catalogues, and extension resource centres for examples. If you’re already comfortable with your current method, don’t mix and match with others. Sprayer math is a series of related calculations that employ constants to keep the units straight. It’s all or none.
Walkthrough
Let’s start with the classic, US Imperial formula for calculating the required nozzle output. In other words, you want to know which nozzle size you need to get the volume-per-planted area you’re aiming for. This is the bread-and-butter formula that seems to be needed most often, so that’s why we list it first.
In order to determine nozzle size (gallons per minute), you’ll need to know your target volume (gallons per acre), your average travel speed (miles per hour) and your nozzle spacing (in inches). The number “5,940” is a constant that handles all the unit conversions. It is what it is.
GPM = [GPA x MPH x W] ÷ 5,940
Of course, this formula can be adjusted to allow you to solve for any factor, as long as you’re only missing one piece of information. Algebra is all about solving for X, or in other words, determining some unknown variable. I know, it’s been a long time since you learned this in school and it doesn’t come easily to most. I propose brushing up on the basics using a series of three great YouTube videos from “Mathantics“
As we noted earlier, you can do a lot more with sprayer math than just pick the ideal nozzle. But before we continue, a warning: If you live where units are strictly US Imperial, or strictly Metric, then Canada’s odd hybrid “Mock-tric” units can get a little confusing. The rest of this article attempts to be globally-relevant by including examples of both Metric and US Imperial formulae, but watch out for unit conversions. If at any time you don’t see the units you’re looking for, you can consult our exhaustive list of unit conversion tables.
Grab your calculator or favourite smart phone app – it’s math time!
Don’t be intimidated. With a little practice, sprayer math gets easier and it’s always worthwhile. The real trick is navigating unit conversions.
Step 1 – How large is the area you need to spray?
Multiply the length of the area you plan to spray times the width. If you are using metres, then divide the product by 10,000, which is the number of m2 in a hectare (ha). For feet and acres, divide by 43,560 which is the number of ft2 in an acre (ac):
Step 2 – How much product is needed to spray the area?
Consult the rate(s) shown on the label. In Canada, rates are often based on planted area (E.g. hectares). In Australia and New Zealand, they may be based on row length (not covered in this article). If you measure your area in acres, you’ll have to convert the rate by multiplying by a constant: 0.4.
Now multiply the area you want to spray (step 1) by the rate (step 2).
Step 3 – How far can you go on a full tank?
You know your sprayer output (determined through calibration) so you divide that into your tank size. Watch your units:
Step 4 – How much pesticide per tank?
Multiply the area that can be sprayed per tank (Step 3) by the pesticide rate (Step 2). Again, watch your units:
Step 5 – How much area is left to spray?
Just subtract what you’ve already sprayed from the total area.
Step 6 – How much pesticide in the last, partially-full tank?
Multiply the area you have left to spray (Step 5) by the pesticide rate (Step 2). Yes, watch your units:
Step 7 – How much spray mix will I need for the partial tank to finish spraying the total area?
Multiply the area you have left to spray (Step 5) by the sprayer output (determined through calibration). Guess what? Watch your units:
Sample problems
Time to test your knowledge. Let’s suppose you want to apply a product rate of 3 L/ha to your blueberries. You calibrate your sprayer and determine your output to be 50 L/ha. Your tank holds 400 L of spray mix. Your planting is 500 m long and 200 m wide.
Q1 – How large is the area you need to spray?
Q2 – How much product is needed to spray the area?
Q3- How much area can be sprayed on one tank?
Q4 – How much product should be added to a full tank?
Q5 – After the tank is empty, how much area is left to spray?
Q6 – How much product to add to the last, partially full tank?
Q7 – How much spray mix will be needed to finish spraying?
Exceptions
Certain situations aren’t covered in this article. If you are spraying a greenhouse, the math is different. If you are performing a banded application, the math is different. And, if you’re an airblast operator trying to reconcile why a pesticide label uses planted area rather than canopy volume for its rates, you’re in for a lot of additional reading. Some of that latter process can be summed up in this infographic:
When you find a method that works for you, write it down and keep it with your spray records. Happy spraying!
We’ve identified and discussed shortcomings in the content and design of today’s pesticide labels in an earlier article. From the perspective of the spray applicator, the information needed most often can be difficult to locate, anachronistic, contradictory, subjective or even missing from the label altogether. To truly encourage an applicator to read and follow the label we need a consistent, concise and clear format that summarizes critical content.
To that end, we have worked with growers, university/government extension and industry to develop a prototype we’re calling the “Label Summary Sheet”, or LSS for short. We presented the concept in a series of public presentations in western Canada as part of the RealAgriculture TechTour Live event in 2018. You can watch a recording of part of that event at the end of this article.
The LSS does not replace or interpret the current label, which is a legal document. It is a summary intended to accompany it. At this stage the LSS is simply a proposal. These documents are not intended for use right now; we hope they will grow and change for the better as they stimulate discussion.
Consider this metaphor: You have just purchased a laptop. When you unbox it, you get an in-depth instruction guide that covers everything from operation to trouble shooting and includes all the legal riders. It’s a daunting technical document that you likely won’t read unless something goes wrong. Knowing that, manufacturers include a graphic and accessible quick start-up guide that summarizes the most common and critical issues. It doesn’t replace the instruction manual, it just augments it. If you can’t find what you need in the quick start-up guide, you are referred to the more fulsome description in the instruction manual. Think of the pesticide label as the instruction manual and the LSS as the quick start-up guide.
Some agrichemcial companies recognize this need and have developed short documents to summarize key aspects of the label, but they are inconsistent and brand-specific marketing documents that do not always contain the information we are proposing. Here, for example, is the technology sheet for Integrity herbicide.
We tested the versatility of our LSS format by summarizing four diverse pesticide labels. Our selections are not intended to imply that these labels are particularly deficient. Only that they are commonly used, somewhat complicated and represent the spectrum of pesticide categories and application methods.
Download and look at the variety of labels we have summarized as examples. They are available here:
Note that each LSS features the same section headings and a relatively consistent layout, no matter the manufacturer. Generic icons are used to illustrate content and make it easier for users to navigate without language barriers. The LSS are black and white to facilitate reproduction and refer back to their respective pesticide labels (i.e. the online PDF, not the booklets that come with the pesticides).
LSS Sections
Here is the Pristine LSS broken down by section to highlight the key features.
1. Banner Section
The banner is at the top of every LSS. It gives the commercial product name and the date to ensure the LSS reflects the current pesticide label. Four icons represent the most common application technologies: Horizontal boom sprayer, airblast, aerial and handheld. If an application method is prohibited, a banned symbol appears (such as aerial in this case). Note we have left room for RPAAS (UAV’s) anticipating the day we have products registered for that technology. The table notes the type of pesticide (e.g. fungicide, insecticide, adjuvant, etc.). The mode of action and active ingredient(s) are noted, as well as the formulation and the Pest Control Product number.
2. Resistance Management / Planting Restrictions
Intended to provide key information on managing pesticide resistance, this section reflects label content about carry over and the rotation of active ingredients. Further, to aid in application decisions, it reflects any restrictions around maximum number of applications, sequential applications or plant back issues following use.
3. Environmental Conditions
Any restrictions regarding weather conditions during or after application are noted here. This includes set-backs or buffer zones that reflect method of application and the nature of the adjacent or downwind area in question.
4. Sprayer Settings
This section includes the six most commonly asked questions an applicator has when calibrating or adjusting their sprayer prior to use. It is organized by target crop and method of application. When the label provides a high level of detail, the user is referred to the correct page. Note the use of graphics to quickly direct the reader to the information they need. Any additional qualifications found in the label relating to sprayer settings are indicated in the notes beneath the table.
5. Handling Safety (PPE)
The concept for this simple and graphic table originated in France, and was communicated to us by Dr. Carol Black of Washington State University. This unambiguous format encourages the use of PPE while ensuring the handler uses the appropriate level of protection for each activity.
6. Mixing
As operators tank mix more products to curtail resistance, improve efficacy or improve productivity, there is a greater chance of chemical or physical incompatibility. This section summarizes any restrictions noted in the label. Learn more by downloading Purdue Universities’ publication “Avoid Tank Mixing Errors“.
7. Rates and Restricted Entry Intervals
This table can be quite complicated depending on the pesticide label. It summarizes the rates, volumes and restricted entry intervals by crop. It reflects the broadest range of product rates listed in the label. Restricted entry duration is affected by the post application activity, and this is captured in the REI column. If more detail is required, the user is referred to the appropriate page(s) of the label. Any additional qualifications found in the label relating to rates, volumes or REI are indicated in the notes beneath the table.
8. Equipment Cleanout
Finally, equipment cleanout is summarized (where possible) in a sequence of steps. When the pesticide label is silent on the cleanout procedure, the user is provided with the triple rinse protocol, which is generally held to be the industry best-practice.
Adoption
To date, this proposal has been made to Croplife Canada, the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) mirror committee (Equipment for crop protection) and more than 1,400 growers and stakeholders across Canada.
Our suggestion for adoption of the LSS (in its current form or something similar) is that regulatory agencies commission a working group comprised of representatives from grower groups, industry and government to oversee the process. The working group would support registrants as they populate (or update) the LSS template when a new product is submitted for registration, or as part of the natural review cycle.
Should the registrant encounter duplicate, missing or contradictory information while completing the LSS, it should be considered an opportunity to remedy the problem on the pesticide label. This will clarify the safest and most effective use of the pesticide for the applicator, who is currently forced to selectively ignore or interpret such errors. To our minds, this was the intent of the original labelling system, and the inclusion of the LSS is a simple and effective way to achieve that goal.
The Confusicol Sketch
In 2018 we participated in Real Agriculture’s TechTour Live event that toured four major cities in Western Canada in four days. We presented the “Confusicol sketch” as a light-hearted way to open a discussion with the audience on the strengths and weaknesses of Canadian pesticide labels and how the Label Summary Sheet might be a viable supplement. Here’s one of the live takes, warts and all. Turns out live sketch comedy is tricky…
As originally published by The Grower, August 2020.
Pests such as insects, diseases, and weeds can affect our quality of life in many different ways. Pests can represent a threat to public health and the environment as well as create substantial negative impacts to the economy if they are not sufficiently managed.
Crop protection products or pesticides play an important role in agriculture and other sectors in managing pests. These products can be very broad in scope; they include, as defined by the federal government:
“A product, an organism or a substance, including a product, an organism or a substance derived through biotechnology, that consists of its active ingredient, formulants and contaminants, and that is manufactured, represented, distributed or used as a means for directly or indirectly controlling, destroying, attracting or repelling a pest or for mitigating or preventing its injurious, noxious or troublesome effects.”
While dealing with pests is an important aspect of society, crop protection products can also represent a hazard. If not properly managed, their use has the potential to pose risks to the health and well-being of Canadians and to our environment. As such, crop protection products are highly regulated. So how do we ensure the safety of these products in Canada?
The federal government has the responsibility of reviewing and registering pest management products before they can be sold or used in Canada. This is covered by the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA). The primary objective of the PCPA is the prevention of unacceptable risks to human health and the environment resulting from the use of these products. The PCPA also recognizes that pest management is an important factor to both the economy and quality of life in Canada; however, these are considered secondary objectives to health and the environment.
It is the mission of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) based in Ottawa to execute the implementation of the PCPA and its objectives. Of the 450 employees at PMRA, 73% are scientists, including biologists, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and chemists. Evaluations of products by PMRA are extensive and use a weight of evidence approach that considers the nature and quality of scientific sources in their decision making.
Before the PMRA approves any product for use, regardless of origin, it must undergo a thorough science-based risk assessment and meet strict health and environmental standards. If the proposed use of a product poses unacceptable risks to human health or the environment, it is not registered for use in Canada. It is the responsibility of the company or individual seeking registration to prove their product does not pose unacceptable risks through scientific studies.
During evaluation or re-evaluation of a product, PMRA considers a comprehensive toxicology database to assess potential health effects. Both shorter term and longer-term effects are considered. These include, but are not limited to, studies to characterize acute and chronic toxicity, carcinogenic potential, reproductive and developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, genotoxicity, and endocrine disruption potential. The PMRA assessments are also informed by epidemiological evidence, general scientific knowledge, and published scientific information.
In exposure assessments, sensitive populations and life stages are specifically addressed, including infants, children, and women of child-bearing age. Consideration is given to different activities, dietary habits, food intake, and body weight of children versus adults. A product will only be registered if this estimated exposure raises no concerns. Once this is determined, the PMRA will ensure the label directions indicate the appropriate use instructions to best minimize exposure.
Exposure to a product may occur through different routes (oral, dermal, and inhalation) and pathways (dietary, drinking water, and non-commercial uses). In order to fully assess potential risks, the PMRA conducts aggregate assessments which consider these different pathways and routes. Where it has been demonstrated that a group of pesticides share a common mechanism of toxicity, they are subject to a cumulative risk assessment in which the combined aggregate risks are assessed. In occupational settings such as agriculture and forestry, exposure may occur while handling or applying pesticides. As well, workers re-entering treated areas may be exposed to pesticide residues. These occupational risks are also assessed during the PMRA review.
The PMRA also sets science-based maximum residue limits (MRLs) on food commodities to ensure the food Canadians eat is safe. These limits are enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The MRLs established for each crop are set at levels well below the amount that could pose a health concern.
Environmental risk assessment integrates the environmental exposure and ecotoxicity information to evaluate the potential for adverse effects on non-target species. This integration is achieved by comparing estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) with concentrations at which adverse effects may occur. The EECs are concentrations of product in various environments, such as in food, water, soil, and air. The EECs can be estimated using standard models, which take into consideration the application rate(s), chemical properties, and environmental fate properties, including the dissipation of the product between applications. In re-evaluations of registered products, EECs can be taken from empirical data.
Ecotoxicity information includes acute and chronic toxicity data for various organisms or groups of organisms from both terrestrial and aquatic habitats including invertebrates, vertebrates, and plants. Toxicity endpoints used in risk assessments may be adjusted to account for potential differences in species sensitivity as well as varying protection goals such as protection at the community, population, or individual level.
A vast amount of scientific data is reviewed when evaluating the safety of crop protection products in Canada. These extensive reviews are posted publicly and include consultations where any stakeholders are invited to submit comments. There is good reason to have high confidence that crop protection products are safe for Canadians and the environment under the conditions of registration.
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 canopyAfter: 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.
Yes. There’s an app for that.
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.
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.
