Tag: orchard feature

Evaluating the return on investment of optical sprayers for horticulture
Investing in an optical sprayer for horticulture is not a straightforward financial decision. Compared with a conventional boom sprayer, the upfront capital cost is substantially higher, often by an order of magnitude, and most commercial systems require an annual software or service subscription to operate. Despite these barriers, adoption is accelerating, and many growers who have made the investment report very positive outcomes.
To help clarify when and where this technology makes financial sense, I developed a calculator to estimate the return on investment (ROI) of optical sprayers under a range of production scenarios. The goal of this tool is not to promote the technology, but to provide growers and advisors with a structured way to evaluate whether it fits their specific operation.
Note: This calculator was designed for onion and carrot production in Ontario, Canada. Model parameters can easily be adjusted reflect other production systems. However, if you need assistance making these changes you can contact me by email.
New versions may be uploaded as the calculator evolves through experience and based on user feedback, so check back. You can download Version 1.1 (April, 2026), HERE.
How to use the calculator
At first glance, the calculator may appear overwhelming because it requires a fair amount of information to be entered. This is the minimum data required to reflect real-world conditions while avoiding an oversimplification that could lead to misleading conclusions. Cells shaded in yellow are meant for user input. All other values are calculated automatically based on those inputs.
For convenience, the calculator is pre-filled with generic values derived from grower discussions and informal benchmarks. These default numbers are meant only as placeholders and to provide general reference. They are not sufficiently accurate on their own to support financial decisions.
Users should replace all default values with operation-specific data whenever possible. As with any economic model, the quality of the output depends entirely on the quality of the inputs.
The calculator is organized into three spreadsheets (see tabs at bottom).
1. Introduction
This tab provides general instructions and contact information. No data entry is required.
2. Sections Explained
This is a reference tab that explains each section of the calculator in detail. It is intended to help users understand how different inputs affect the results and the intention of each section (small table) withing the sheet. No values should be entered here.
3. Calculation Sheet
This is the main working tab. All data entry occurs here. To prevent accidental changes that could break formulas, the sheet is protected. For most input fields, a brief explanation is provided immediately to the right of the cell. In the results section, short interpretations are often included, such as: “Decrease of 36% ($101,250/year) in hand-weeding cost with optical sprayer.” Within this tab, scenario tables are also provided. These tables are designed to illustrate how different acreages of the two crops analyzed affect each of the calculated financial indicators.
Insights from scenario testing
Even using rough approximations, several consistent patterns emerge from adjusting the calculator inputs:
Herbicide savings alone rarely justify the investment
In high-value horticultural crops, herbicide costs are often a relatively small portion of total production costs compared with labor, equipment, and the overall value of the crop. In many cases, any reduction in herbicide expenditure is largely offset by increased tractor hours resulting from slower operating speeds and narrower effective spray widths typical of optical sprayers.
Labor savings can be decisive
When the technology results in meaningful reductions in hand-weeding, the financial impact can be substantial. This is especially true in crops such as onions, where hand-weeding is both costly and difficult to source reliably. In these situations, labour savings alone can drive a favorable ROI.
Yield protection may outweigh cost savings
Several growers report stand losses and weakening associated with herbicide phytotoxicity as a major production risk. By limiting spray exposure to crop plants, optical sprayers can significantly reduce or even eliminate this issue. In high-value systems, relatively small yield gains resulting from improved crop safety can translate into revenue increases large enough to justify the technology, even if other savings are modest.
Scale matters
When evaluating advanced sprayer technologies, scale becomes a decisive factor. The high capital investment and ongoing service fees may be difficult to justify for small, and in some cases, even medium-sized operations.
What about herbicide resistance?
The long-term implications of optical sprayers for herbicide resistance management are still uncertain. Recent research from the University of Arkansas has raised concerns in field crop systems, suggesting that poorly optimized optical spraying can result in short term gains, but these can be outweighed over time by higher weed escape rates compared with broadcast applications. If these escapes are allowed to grow and set seed, rapid seedbank replenishment and accelerated resistance development may occur.
This highlights an important limitation of short-term ROI calculations. A single-year economic benefit may look attractive, but if the system allows even a small number of weeds to consistently escape and reproduce, the long-term consequences can be severe.
On the other hand, optical sprayers may eventually enable new resistance-management strategies. It is possible that new active ingredients, higher labelled rates, or novel use patterns could be registered specifically for targeted spraying in horticultural crops that would not be feasible with broadcast applications. Such developments could significantly improve resistance management tools. As always, it is essential to remember that the label is the law: only registered products and rates may be used, regardless of perceived crop safety.
ROI implications beyond herbicide spraying
Optical sprayers can deliver value beyond herbicide applications, even though weed control is their primary use. These additional uses may improve overall ROI. However, because their economic impact is still difficult to quantify, they have not been included in the calculator.
Depending on the model, additional value-generating capabilities can include:
- Creation of weed maps: Some systems can generate weed maps automatically while spraying, at no additional operational cost. These maps can support future management decisions.
- Application of fertilizers and other pesticides: Although optimized for herbicides, optical sprayers may also be used to apply other inputs, such as fertilizers or non-herbicide pesticides.
- Crop thinning: Certain manufacturers have developed algorithms for automated crop thinning, particularly in crops like lettuce.
Conclusion
Even using approximate inputs, it is clear why optical sprayer adoption is expanding rapidly in Canada.
- For medium to large-scale operations, the ROI can be highly attractive, and the range of potential benefits continues to grow.
- As the technology matures, more equipment options are emerging to serve a wider diversity of crops and farm sizes.
- Manufacturers are introducing wider and more flexible platforms, and Ontario-based companies are actively developing alternative machines and service-based business models that may better suit smaller operations.
It is difficult to argue that optical spraying is a passing trend. While it’s not a universal solution and must be implemented carefully, the technology is clearly here to stay. It will reshape weed management and production economics over the long term.
January 16, 2026
Airblast Nozzles – The Nozzling Process
Establishing an airblast nozzling solution is an involved process. We must first define the working parameters and flush out any special circumstances. Then we use an iterative approach to identify suitable nozzle combinations that require minimal changes to the sprayer.
This article outlines my process step-by-step and then applies it to a hypothetical orchard scenario. If readers wish to delve deeper into the variables or the reasoning, several links to supporting articles are provided. Be aware that nozzling the sprayer is the penultimate step in establishing optimal sprayer settings. Operators should first adjust air settings, which includes identifying a suitable travel speed. The last step in setting up any sprayer is to verify you are achieving threshold spray coverage.
Step One: Establish sprayer parameters
1. Is there more than one sprayer available? In diverse plantings, it may be more efficient to assign a sprayer to blocks that require the same nozzling solution.
2. How many nozzle positions are there on one side of the sprayer? If the nozzle bodies are roll-over style the operator can alternate between two different nozzles in each position. Some designs have twice as many nozzle bodies as needed. The intent is to assign two unique nozzle solutions in an alternating A-B set-up. This additional capacity gives us some flexibility if needed.
3. Is this a tower or a low-profile axial sprayer? Generally, we distribute nozzle flow evenly over a tower boom but distribute ½ the flow in the top 1/3 of the boom on a low-profile axial sprayer (depending on canopy shape and density). Air-shear and one-sided sprayers are special cases that are not addressed in this article.
4. What is the average travel speed, and can the operator easily change it? This process assumes the selected speed achieves a reasonable work rate while optimizing the interaction between sprayer air and the canopy.
5. What is the average operating pressure, and can the operator easily change it? For sprayers with positive displacement pumps, pressure is easily changed via the regulator. Not so for sprayers with centrifugal pumps. Pressure-based rate controllers empower an operator to dial in their desired volume and are easiest of all .
Step Two: Establish target parameters
1. What is the row spacing (or spacings)? Some operations include a variety of canopy morphologies and planting architectures.
2. What is the target volume (or volumes)? Operators often use a range of volumes to reflect the product being applied and the canopy area-density. This process assumes the volume will provide threshold, uniform coverage without misses or excess.
Step Three: Are there any environmental, geographical or adjacency concerns?
Each operation is unique, including conditions that may influence nozzling. For example, open water, sensitive crops, or residential areas adjacent and downwind of the planting may warrant drift-reducing nozzles or require the operator to only spray inward from one side of the sprayer. In another example, dry and windy conditions may require nozzles that produce a coarser spray quality will improve their survivability. Rolling hills and uneven alleys may cause sway that prevents the upper-most nozzles from consistently reaching the target.
Step Four: Find out why the operator is re-nozzling
The answer may reveal the operator’s willingness and ability to make changes to sprayer settings. For example, if their objective is to improve the match between sprayer and canopy it implies a willingness to take a more active role in spraying. Conversely, a less experienced operator might be satisfied with a more robust (i.e., wasteful) set up that does not require many changes between blocks.
Step Five: Determine the highest and lowest boom flow requirements
The following formulae relate travel speed, row spacing, and the desired volume sprayed per planted area to the output from a single boom. I recommend downloading this Excel-based calculator to make the process easier.
US Imperial Formula
Output from single boom (gpm) = [(Sprayer Output (gpa) × Travel Speed (mph)) ÷ 990] × Row Spacing (ft)
Metric Formula
Output from single boom (L/min) = [(Sprayer Output (L/ha) × Travel Speed (km/h)) ÷ 1,220] × Row Spacing (m)
Using the formula with the appropriate units, enter the highest desired volume, the fastest travel speed and the longest row spacing. This will give the highest rate of flow the boom must satisfy.
Repeat this process using the lowest desired volume, the slowest travel speed and the shortest row spacing. This will give the lowest rate of flow the boom must satisfy.
The ultimate objective is to select a combination of nozzles that can produce these two flows, distributed sensibly along the boom, with no gaps or excessive flow relative to the target. Ideally, the operator should be able to alternate between these two flows with as few changes as possible.
Step Six: Satisfy the highest flow
This step requires a nozzle manufacturer’s catalogue and a calculator (or the downloaded Excel spreadsheet). We must assume the range of available nozzle positions are oriented to span the target canopy with no over- or under-spray.
Divide the highest flow requirement by the number of available nozzles. Hypothetically, a nozzle size that produces this flow would satisfy the highest flow requirement while providing an even distribution along the boom.
Using the nozzle manufacturer’s catalog, find the flow table for the nozzle you want. Generally, a molded hollow cone nozzle is the preferred choice (e.g., TeeJet’s TXR ConeJet or Albuz’s ATR). If drift is a concern, there are also air induction (AI) hollow cones available. AI nozzles are most effective in the top two or three nozzle positions where drift potential is highest. However, they may require higher flow than calculated to compensate for a reduced droplet count.
Find the operating pressure (it may be in either the column or row heading) and find a flow rate in the body of the table that is as close as possible to your calculated ideal. It’s almost never an exact match, so choose the option that is less than the target rate – not higher.
Imagine placing that nozzle in every available position. Add up all the rates to determine how close you are to the ideal flow. It will likely be less. To compensate, replace the top nozzle on the boom with a higher rate and re-calculate the total flow. Repeat this process, substituting for nozzles with a higher rate, moving top-down along the boom until the flows match.
You have now satisfied the demand for the highest flow.
It is important to note that this process assumes the flow distribution along the boom should be relatively even, perhaps skewed towards the top. However, it is sometimes appropriate to distribute the flow differently to reflect each nozzle’s distance-to-target and the density of the corresponding portion of canopy it needs to spray. This tends to be the case when pairing low-profile radial sprayers with large or trellised canopies, and you can read more about that process in this article.
Step Seven: Satisfy the lowest flow
This is the art-and-compromise part of the nozzling process.
Confirm that the range of available nozzle positions still corresponds to the target. Quite often, the lowest flow is intended for smaller canopies. If so, we may no longer have as many nozzle positions to work with.
Imagine the sprayer is still nozzled for the highest flow per the last step. Leaving the highest effective nozzle on, imagine turning off every second nozzle. Add up the flows and determine how close you are to the lowest rate of flow. It is often still too much. Do not turn off any more nozzles or you may create gaps in the swath.
Instead, return to the nozzle catalogue and re-calculate the flows for the same nozzles, but using a lower operating pressure. Can you make that work? If not, you may have to go back further in the calculation (Step five) and recalculate the lowest flow required using a faster travel speed. This will reduce the demand for flow.
If none of those options are viable you will have to consider re-nozzling. Perhaps that’s swapping a few nozzles to lower rates. Hopefully this only requires the operator to flip a roll-over position, but it may mean using a wrench to remove caps and swap nozzles.
Once you’ve satisfied the lowest flow, the hardest part of the process is complete.
Step Eight: Satisfy the other permutations
The last step is no different than what we’ve already done. Go back to Step Five and calculate the flow for each spraying situation. That is, each unique combination of row spacing, travel speed and target volume. Using the nozzles already on the sprayer, adjust the pattern of nozzles in use (and pressure and/or travel speed if required) until each unique flow requirement is satisfied.
Step Nine: Record the setups, nozzle the sprayer and test the coverage
Be sure to clearly record the sprayer settings required to achieve each flow. Purchase the nozzles and take the time to test each set up using water sensitive paper to ensure coverage is achieved.
A working example
Let’s apply this process in a hypothetical orchard. I’ve included a screenshot of the spreadsheet I use to record the final nozzling solution (below) but feel free to design your own. It includes the nozzling solution for this example.
Our orchard is a 50 acre operation with both 11 and 15 foot row spacings. They have one tower sprayer with 15 nozzle positions on one side and they are not roll-over bodies. The operator wants to apply a 40 gpa volume (concentrated) and a 100 gpa volume (dilute). Their preferred travel speed is 4.5 mph and preferred operating pressure is 140 psi, but they are willing to change them if required.
We use the Excel calculator to work out the ideal highest and lowest demands for flow:
Highest boom flow (gpm) = [(100 gpa × 4.5 mph) ÷ 990] × 15 ft
Highest boom flow = 6.8 gpm
We’ll call this “Situation A”
Lowest boom flow (gpm) = [(40 gpa × 4.5 mph) ÷ 990] × 11 ft
Lowest boom flow = 2.0 gpm
We’ll call this “Situation D”
I usually shut off the lowest nozzle position because it almost never aims at the target. Let’s divide the high flow of 6.8 gpm by 14 available positions to give us an average output of 0.48 gpm per nozzle. This operator wants to use TeeJet TXRs, so using their table (below) we see that at 140 psi the Orange ’02 is too low and the Red ‘028 is too large. If we drop the operating pressure to 120 psi, the Red ‘028 is much closer at 0.465 gpm, so let’s do that.
A quick check gives us our current boom flow: 14 positions × 0.465 gpm per nozzle is 6.51 gpm of boom flow. We wanted 6.8 gpm, so let’s go up to the Grey ’03 in the top three positions. Now it’s 4 × 0.517 gpm + 10 × 0.465 gpm = 6.72 gpm. That’s close to our ideal 6.8 gpm, so let’s lock that down. If you want to see what this is in gpa, you can plug the value into the Excel calculator to discover it’s 99.6 gpa. Pretty darn close to our target 100 gpa.
Now using that nozzling arrangement, let’s see if we can satisfy the lowest flow requirement by shutting off every second nozzle position, leaving the highest position on. Doing so reduces us to two Greys and five Reds, totaling 3.36 gpm. That boom flow is much too high compared to the 2.0 gpm we need. However, in our hypothetical orchard, this block has shorter trees so we don’t need the highest nozzle. That drops us to only one Grey and a new total of 2.84 gpm. Good try, but it’s still too much.
Let’s reduce the operating pressure from 120 psi to 100 psi, which is as low as I like to go. According to TeeJet’s table, the Grey produces 0.473 gpm and the Red produces 0.426 gpm at this pressure. This gives us a new total of 2.60 gpm. Still too high! Well, let’s raise our travel speed from 4.5 mph to 5.0 mph and recalculate the lowest flow for Situation D:
Lowest boom flow (gpm) = [(40 gpa × 5.0 mph) ÷ 990] × 11 ft
Lowest boom flow = 2.2 gpm
This still won’t do it, and driving that fast (even if it’s possible) would change our air settings too drastically. Having exhausted all the easy options we have no choice but to re-nozzle the sprayer for the original lowest flow requirement.
Returning to the TeeJet table we see the best fit is to spray at 100 psi using one Red TXR80028 and five Orange TXR8002s. It’s a lucky break that our 1.98 gpm has come so close to the 2.0 gpm of flow we wanted.
Now let’s work out the best arrangement for the other permutations, Situation B and C. We need 5.0 gpm and 2.7 gpm, respectively. For Situation B, let’s use the nozzling solution from Situation A. We see that shutting off four nozzles gets us very close at 4.81 gpm or 97.3 gpa where we wanted 100 gpa. As for Situation C, let’s work from the nozzling for situation D. By adding a few more nozzles from that set, we can manage 2.71 gpm or 40.2 gpa.
Finally, we record all the settings (refer back to the spreadsheet image). We will need four Grey TXR8003s, ten Red TXR80028s and six Orange TX8002s per side, so 40 nozzles in total (plus a few spares for each rate). We will need to spray at 120 psi for Situation A and be prepared to shut off a few nozzles for Situation B. Situation C will require 100 psi and an entirely different nozzling and we will have to shut a few of them off for Situation D. Not only have we determined a nozzling solution, but we have revealed an efficient order for spraying the blocks that will require as little manual change to the sprayer as possible.
Summary
There is no one right answer to the question “which nozzles do I need” but there are certainly wrong answers. Bear this in mind when you buy a sprayer and the dealer offers you a factory-standard nozzle setup. Apply this process to your operation and be sure to use water sensitive paper to confirm the coverage and to make informed changes where required.
March 1, 2022
Assessing Airblast Coverage
This article describes a method for assessing airblast sprayer coverage based on a protocol developed by Dr. David Manktelow (Applied Research and Technologies Ltd., NZ). It was co-written with David Manktelow and Mark Ledebuhr (Application Insight, LLC, USA). An older article describing canopy coverage assessment can be found here.
Why assess coverage?
Airblast sprayer configuration can require a lot of guesswork. There’s too much time between spraying and observing the results for operators to evaluate adjustments. They need timely feedback to assess the fit between sprayer and target.
Achieving adequate coverage of target surfaces (e.g. fruit, wood, inner canopy, etc.) is the basis of effective crop protection. Assessing coverage as soon as possible alerts the operator to correctable problems. The following three methods are helpful, but they have limitations.
The shoulder-check
Shoulder-checks can identify leaks and plugs, but operators cannot detect variation in flow from nozzle-to-nozzle (even when it’s over 50%). The vantage point also makes it difficult to determine if spray is passing under, over or through the target row. It is better to perform an inspection with the help of a partner outside the sprayer as part of a formal pre-spray check.
Shoulder-checks are fine for detecting plugged or leaking nozzles, but the vantage point makes it hard to discern much else.
Run-off
Unless specified by the pesticide label (e.g. drenching bark with oil), spraying to run-off usually means excessive and non-uniform coverage. It’s been demonstrated in trees and vines that when the outer canopy begins to drip, the inner has only received about half the spray volume.
Efficacy trials confirm that spraying to run-off will provide protection, but it’s unnecessarily wasteful. Loses of 10-15% have been measured at the point run-off. Additional spray volume may increase coverage in the inner canopy, but the saturated outer canopy receives no additional deposit. The excess simply drips off. Further, there are potential phytotoxicity issues at the drip-points where residues concentrate as they dry.
Dripping is an unreliable coverage criterion because the threshold for run-off depends on the nature of the target surface (e.g. waxy, hairy, vertical) and the product formulation (e.g. oils, stickers, spreaders) and droplet size.
Run-off is not a reliable indication of good coverage.
Inspecting wetting and residue
Inspecting targets for wetting or residue can give a broad indication of whether a target received spray, but it’s hard to see on some plant surfaces. Dry fluorescent tracers and kaolin clay can help operators visualize deposits on actual plant surfaces, but they are messy, time-consuming and after-the-fact (i.e. too late too correct sprayer settings).
Helpful Tip: Look for residue on high-contrast infrastructure, like trellises or black irrigation lines. Remember, they are sill only subjective indicators.
The preferred method
Water sensitive paper
This method relies on water sensitive papers to help visualize spray coverage. The yellow side can resolve droplets >50µm in diameter, turning blue where it contacts moisture. With the aid of smartphone apps such as SnapCard (as of 2026, may no longer be available), or portable scanners such as DropScope, water sensitive papers can be used to characterize droplet density and droplet size up to 30% total coverage.
These surrogate surfaces do not show the spreading effects that can occur on plant surfaces (especially where surfactants are used). They also show lower deposits than leaves, which move freely in airblast air. Nevertheless, they give a useful indication of potential coverage.
To avoid fingerprints, wear gloves or handle them by the back and edges. They will slowly turn blue in humid conditions, so keep them sealed in their foil package when not in use. Packages of 50, 25x75mm (1×3 inch) papers are available online or from local agrichemical retailers for about $50.00.
Preparing water sensitive papers
You will need ten pushpins (five dark coloured, five light coloured), ten papers and a resealable plastic bag. The following process may seem like close-up magic but with practice you can quickly prepare multiple sets of papers.
1. Remove eleven papers from the foil package.
2. Stack them yellow-side-up and flip the top paper
  over.
3. Using the flipped paper, carefully fold the
  stack in half. Now ten are folded yellow-side-out.
4. Expose 1/4 of the middle paper. Pinching the
  stack firmly will flex it and give support as you pierce the corner with a
  pushpin (twist as you push).
5. Use the pushpin as a handle to slide it from the
  stack and drop it into a Ziploc bag. Repeat the process for the remaining nine
  papers (return the outside one to the package for later use).
6. They will remain viable in the sealed bag for
  several days before they are used in the target canopy. Once placed in the
  canopy, ten folded papers provide 20 target surfaces.
Six steps to preparing and attaching water sensitive paper.
Placing the papers
To avoid boundary effects, don’t place papers in the periphery of the planting. To make sure the sprayer is up-to-speed and the canopy is not overly exposed to wind, go a short distance into the target row and pick a representative tree or vine. The pins will hold the papers to stems, twigs and leaf petioles. Shadowing from leaves is inevitable, but try to avoid placing them up against fruit, leaves or wood. Relative placement within the canopy depends on canopy size:
Small canopies
For grape, pin five dark pins into stems next to inner bunches deep in canopy. Pin the five light pins around the outer bunches, oriented with one side of the paper exposed to the sprayer. When you stand back, it should be hard to see the inner papers.
Similar positioning can be used for berry canes and bushes. Pin five dark pins in the inner canopy, spanning the height but oriented randomly. Pin five light pins in the outer canopy, spanning the height but oriented with one side exposed to the sprayer.
Helpful Tip: Keep the papers clustered in a 1-2m (6 ft) row and tuck the Ziploc bag into the dripline to mark where they are. They shouldn’t take long to find after spraying.
Medium canopies
For high-density orchards and larger trellised canopies, a ladder might be required. Pin five dark pins in the inner canopy, spanning the height but oriented randomly. Pin five light pins in the outer canopy, spanning the height but oriented randomly
Large canopies
For large trees (e.g. tree nut, citrus, sour cherry), a modified approach is required. Instead of dark pins, use sections of plastic or galvanized conduit. Note the wire clips developed to affix papers to the conduit in the image below. Any method of firmly affixing the papers is acceptable.
Stand at the trunk and raise the conduit section by section to reach the full height of the canopy. Attach five papers as you erect the conduit mast with one at the top, one at the bottom and the other three evenly distributed. A wrap of electrical tape may be required to help hold sections together. Then, pin five light pins in the outer canopy, oriented randomly and spanning as high as can be conveniently reached.
Helpful Tip: Tie a length of flagging tape near the papers to make them easier to find and replace between assessments.
Use lengths of metal or plastic conduit to create a mast that can span the height of large canopies. Distribute papers evenly along the length as it is assembled.
Larger trees, like nuts, citrus and sour cherry make it harder to assess all canopy positions (and to spray them).
Spraying
It is preferable to spray clean water from a rinsed sprayer, but you can assess coverage during a chemical spray if label restrictions permit re-entry. Always wear PPE when required.
Spray the target row as you normally would (e.g. both sides, alternate row middle, multiple rows) in weather you would normally spray in. Retrieve the papers as soon as they are dry enough to handle.
Assessing canopy coverage
Coverage assessment form
Download a copy of the Canopy Coverage Assessment form.
Complete the top section, being sure to describe the sprayer set-up, application volume and weather conditions at the time of spraying. Either staple or glue the recovered papers to the form. Try to arrange them relative to their original positions in the canopy.
Helpful Tip: Glue sticks work very well but avoid lumps that will show through.
What do you think of the coverage seen on the 20 surfaces in this example? Seven of the 20 surfaces (35%) show almost no deposit, and 10 (50%) have visibly low numbers of relatively large droplets – that is usually an indication of inadequate coverage.
Assessing each paper
Research and experience suggest that a droplet density of about 85 Fine/Medium-sized droplets per cm² and about 15% overall coverage is adequate for most foliar insecticides and fungicides. With experience, this can be judged by eye. Note: only 80% of all papers require this minimal threshold coverage. This is described later in the article.
Helpful Tip: It is sometimes helpful consider the amount of yellow left between the blue.
Grade each of the 20 surfaces as (E)xcessive, (A)dequate or (I)nadequate by circling the corresponding letter on the form.
- Adequate satisfies minimal coverage.
- Excessive will provide crop protection, but
  often indicates unnecessary waste.
- Inadequate includes non-uniform coverage and nil
  coverage.
There are a few notable exceptions:
- Make allowances for papers where potentially
  Adequate coverage has been masked by an adjacent obstacle (see paper number 5,
  below).
- Finer sprays will have very high droplet counts
  and less volume. Paper number 6 (below) would be Inadequate for a high volume,
  dilute application. However, this uniform distribution is Adequate for a low
  volume, concentrated application (e.g. mistblower).
- Coarser sprays may have lower droplet counts or coalesce
  into blobs (see paper number 2, below). Focus on even distribution and the 15% overall
  coverage.
Unless using a scanner, visually assessing papers can be subjective. Rely on droplet density, overall coverage and the product’s mode of action when making a determination. Paper number 6 is Adequate for a mistblower due to the high droplet density and uniformity.
Assessing the canopy
Spray coverage can be highly variable. This method employs 20 surfaces and semi-random orientation to offset some of that variability. Minimal coverage (i.e. Adequate and Excessive) should be achieved on 80% of the papers.
Complete canopy coverage is not required. Studies in New Zealand winegrapes showed a direct correlation between the percentage of Inadequate papers and levels of bunch botrytis. Disease levels increased as the number of Inadequate papers increased over 20%.
Watch for the following in the overall coverage patterns:
Clustered gaps in coverage
This occurs when spray fails to reach the targets. Gaps often occur in the top third of large canopies and deep in dense canopies. This could indicate problems with air speed/orientation, dense canopies, or inadequate flow from corresponding nozzle positions.
Uneven coverage
In medium and large canopies, the outer canopy often receives more spray than the inner canopy, and this may be unavoidable. Be aware that an even distribution of droplets on poorly covered surfaces could indicate underdosing relative to bluer surfaces.
Run-off
This is typical in the outer portion of large and/or dense canopies during high volume (i.e. dilute) applications. More than 50% of surfaces will be thoroughly wetted; Papers will curl, and blue dye may drip off. Unless specified on the product label, it is excessive for foliar applications, but may be unavoidable.
In low volume (concentrate) applications, run-off could indicate poor nozzle distribution or tight alleys. It is generally undesirable and indicates waste.
Improving canopy coverage
This is an iterative process requiring a few attempts before coverage is improved. Try to identify the most limiting factor, make a single adjustment, and then reassess. Consider factors such as travel speed, sprayer air output, nozzle rates and overall spray volume. Also consider canopy management and weather conditions.
When water sensitive papers are prepared in advance, each assessment should take two people about 20 minutes. Compare assessments side-by-side. When one set of papers appears “bluer” than another, measurements have shown it represents >20% difference in actual canopy deposits. This is very likely to have a biological impact.
This small investment of time and money can return better crop protection, greater efficiency, and confidence that the airblast sprayer is doing the job.
Real world example
While in Mildura, AU, we were invited to optimize a Silvan wrap-around multirow sprayer in box-hedged grape. Originally an air-shear sprayer, it was converted to employ air induction hollow cone nozzles (six air outlets per row-side, 550 L/ha [50 gpa], 8.5 km/h [5.3 mph]).
A Silvan wrap-around multirow sprayer in grape.
We noted that the outer arms were 2.8m (9 ft) from the canopy, and the inner arms were 2.1m (7 ft). We brought them in to 2.1m and employed the previously described assessment method to establish a baseline for comparison (see assessment number 1).
The outer arm was brought in until nozzles on both arms were equidistant from the target canopy.
Assessment Number 1 (Left). Mostly Inadequate.
Watching as the sprayer passed, we noted the canopy compressed rather than ruffled. This was likely caused by the air outlets being perpendicular to the canopy. When the canopy closed, air and spray were deflected rather than allowed to penetrate. There were also V-shaped plates in each air outlet left over from its days as an air-shear sprayer that deflected the air in strange ways.
We angled the air ducts and decided to remove the 80 degree air induction nozzles. There have been recent reports of improved grape canopy penetration from the new Arag 40 degree hollow cones, so we tried them. Unfortunately, we chose nozzles with too high an output and the operating pressure dropped below 3 bar (44 psi). With poor atomization, the resulting coverage was still poor. Note the finer droplet size from the switch from air induction to conventional hollow cones (see assessment number 2).
Assessment Number 2 (Middle). Finer droplets and still mostly Inadequate.
Time was limited, so we made two significant changes before the final assessment (yes, we know we said one at a time). First, we rearranged the nozzles. 60% of the total volume was from 40 degree nozzles aiming finer droplets at the fruit zone. The remaining 40% was from 80 degree A.I. nozzles aiming coarser, drift-resistant droplets at the upper canopy. This also restored our working pressure.
Then we noticed the position of the nozzles relative to the air outlets. The air preceded the nozzles, which would leave the droplets trailing behind the air rather than carried into the canopy. We turned the nozzle/duct assembly 180 degrees, so the nozzles preceded the air outlet. The final assessment showed greatly improved coverage (see assessment number 3).
Flipped nozzle/air duct assemblies so nozzles preceded air to better entrain the spray.
Assessment Number 3 (Right). Far better coverage, but still room for improvement at the top of the canopy.
The sprayer operator reaped immediate benefit from the two hours of assessment and reconfiguration and has continued to use this method to optimize the match between his sprayers and crops throughout the season.
January 22, 2020