Tag: productivity

Sprayer Productivity for Smaller Scales
Travel is an amazing teacher. It exposes assumptions and replaces them with real life experiences.
On a recent trip to New Zealand, I learned a valuable lesson in sprayer productivity. I had long talked about wider booms being a key factor, being an easy change that allowed more area to be covered per pass. I had assumed large fields, large tanks, and fast fills as part of that system, and validated it with calculations and observations.
During that trip, I learned that things look really different when the landscape dictates certain limitations. In places like New Zealand, fields tend to be smaller, as expected, with the longest run averaging 300 m or so. Sprayers are also smaller capacity, with trailed sprayers typically fitted with a 24 m boom and a 3000 L tank. Mounted sprayers, commonplace on the North Island, may have smaller tanks and booms, with 2000 L and 18 m width a reasonable average. Self propelled sprayers are not common on farms, but custom applicators use them.
Tender systems (called bowsers) are also rare. Most applicators return to the farm yard, or another nearby water source, to fill. A single filled sprayer can often do that entire field, so moving to a new field and re-filling are part of the same workflow.
Some very interesting things happened when such a scenario was analyzed.
We used a newly re-vamped Productivity Calculator (below) to make the calculations.
Some basic configurations were assumed. All sprayers travelled 15 km/h when spraying, and turned in one headland at 8 km/h. The tank remainder that necessitated a re-fill was set at 5% of tank volume. Tank cleaning was assumed to be required every four tanks, taking 60 minutes. Sprayers were typically refilled in the farm yard or a nearby water source, requiring a ferry (transport) time of 15 minutes each way.
The first scenario was the base configuration, from which one factor was changed in each iteration to examine the magnitude of the change. With the 24 m boom, 3000 L tank, 200 L/ha application volume, a field length of 300 m, a loading time of 30 minutes, and a loading location that required a 30 minute round trip, net productivity was 8.0 ha/h. 22% of engine hours were spent spraying, the remainder was lost to turning at the end of a run, driving to the loading location, loading the sprayer, and cleaning it. We will call that the spraying efficiency.
Because wider booms are successful in improving productivity in western Canada, we examined the practice for smaller farms. Increasing the boom width from an average 24 m to 36 m yielded the first surprise. Productivity only increased to 8.5 ha/h (7%), and spraying efficiency was reduced to 16%. The problem appeared to be that the wider boom dispensed with the tank contents faster, requiring more frequent filling. And that of course was the big time user, accounting for 60% of the engine hours.
The next step was to examine a larger tank (5000 L), keeping the original 24 m boom. This change yielded big results, with productivity jumping to 11.1 ha/h, a 33% increase from the base condition. The larger tank reduced the frequency of filling, and that reduced its drag. Spraying efficiency jumped to 31%.
Another way to achieve a lower filling frequency is to lower the amount of water applied. This is a bit risky, as water volume is likely to most important variable that ensures good spray success, especially when dealing with dense, high yielding crop canopies. In cases where canopy penetration isn’t an issue, and systemic products can be used, less water may be an option. A modest decrease from 200 to 150 L/ha was tested.
Again, a large jump in productivity was observed, from the base of 8.0 ha/h to 9.7 ha/h, about 21%, resulting in 27% spraying efficiency.
What if fields were merged, or shelterbelts removed, resulting in longer spray passes? These would reduce the time lost to turning, which had been 8% of engine hours for the 300 m pass. We decided to test a 600 m pass. But while it reduced the proportion of time spent turning to 4%, overall productivity barely nudged to 8.3 ha/h. That’s a 4% improvement, not worth removing any trees over.
One of the biggest game-changers in sprayer productivity has been the 3” transfer pump and efficient product induction systems. Reducing fill time from 30 to 15 minutes did have a large effect here too, increasing productivity to 9.3 ha/h, a 16% increase from the base. There remain inefficiencies in the system, such as the time spent with partial jugs that require measuring. A faster pump doesn’t address these. But perhaps a closed transfer system can.
With the travel time associated with a home fill being such a large time consumer, introducing a field-based tendering system was expected to have a large impact. We combined this with a fast fill because a proper tender unit would have the larger pump. And the results were impressive, a jump to 13.7 ha/h. That’s a 72% increase from the base scenarios, boosting spray efficiency to 38%.
The final scenario involves two large changes. A new, larger sprayer with a 5000 L tank and 36 m boom, combined with a fast fill tendering system. And the results were equally large, boosting productivity to 19.8 ha/h, more than doubling the performance of the base condition (a 148% improvement). Spraying efficiency did not increase further from the fast-filling tendering system alone, because the faster filling was accompanied by the faster emptying of the wider boom.
What is the value of this study? For one thing, we learned that a change that works in one geographic area may not work in another. For these smaller field scenarios, the benefit of a wider boom was undermined by the long downtime during fills. And obtaining a tender system when a single sprayer fill can cover a whole field wasn’t a slam dunk like it is elsewhere, where a field often requires several fills.
Does a producer actually need to spray everything faster? The answer will depend on each farm. A general observation we’ve made is that the windows of opportunity for spraying are getting narrower. Restrictions on wind speed or temperature leave fewer hours in a day to get the spraying done. The risk of falling behind is lurking. And that means that application may not get done when they’re most effective. Disease may have progressed. Weeds will have grown. Crop safety may be challenged. Being even a little more productive can help mitigate all those risks.
If nothing else, it’s critical for an applicator to know where the time goes. Use the calculator. Only then can you be strategic about correcting a problem.

September 11, 2026

Increase Sprayer Productivity Without Driving Faster

Timing trumps most things in crop protection. A great spray applied at the wrong time isn’t nearly as valuable as a mediocre spray at the right time. So how do we improve our ability to get things done at the right time?

Often, we try to win races by driving faster. In our last article, we looked at driving speed and concluded that faster speeds can lead to more drift and less uniform deposition. Driving slower can be viewed as a sort of insurance policy: You may not notice the benefits right away, but on days when that extra bit of performance is required, you’re covered.

So how do you get the job done quickly if you can’t drive faster? To answer, we have to look to other opportunities for boosting productivity.

Recently, we used our and tried to capture all the elements of a normal spray operation that affect timeliness. These were:

travel speed
boom width
tank size
water volume
field length
number of headlands
turning speed
fill time

First, we identified a reasonable base condition. For the sprayer, that was a travel speed of 14 mph, a 90’ boom, an 800 gal tank, a 10 gpa water volume, and a 20 minute fill time. Then, we set up a typical field situation, which was spraying a half-mile run on a quarter with two sprayed headlands and a turning speed of 8 mph. Finally, we changed one factor at a time to determine its relative importance.

Before we discuss the results, let’s make it clear that just because changing some of these factors improves productivity doesn’t mean we’re recommending them! For example, adequate water volume remains an important input that improves coverage and permits the use of low-drift sprays. Larger tanks increase compaction and take more power, and so forth.

Here’s what we found:

All productivity values were expressed as acres per engine hour. For this reason, our numbers will be lower than what a typical sprayer monitor reports, most of which calculate acres per spraying hour.

For the base condition, the sprayer spent 15% of its driving time turning, and 37% of its on-field time stationary (i.e. filling or cleaning). For every hour spent on the field, less than half the time (48%) was spent spraying. This resulted in an average productivity of 82 acres/h.

Increasing the spray speed to 18 mph increased average productivity to 93 acres/h, but it also increased the proportion of time spent turning and loading, resulting in just 40% of the field time spent spraying.

Decreasing the loading time from 20 to 10 minutes reduced the proportion of field time spent stationary to 23%, covering 100 acres/h at 14 mph. Surprisingly, this was the productivity-winner, resuling in 62% of on-field time spraying.

We discovered other powerful productivity factors, and chief among them was boom width. A 33% increase in boom width from 90’ to 120’ gave a productivity boost to 94 acres/h, close to the same result as increasing the travel speed to 18 mph earlier. Similar side effects occurred: more time turning, and a greater proportion of time filling, as we saw with faster travel speeds.

Boom width seems to have some room for growth. Many smaller European counties use wider booms than we do in North America, for example. With gps guidance and large fields, we have excellent conditions for their implementation.

Two other factors that had similar effects to fill time were water volume and tank size. Less water and larger tanks increased productivity by decreasing the fill frequency, with effects similar in magnitude to speeding up the fill time. Decreasing the water volume from 10 to 5 gpa increased productivity to 100 acres/h by decreasing the proportion of time the sprayer was stopped from 37% to 23%. Increasing from an 800 to a 1,200 gallon tank increased productivity to 94 acres/h, again by decreasing the proportion of time spent filling to 28%.

Taken together, a sprayer with a 120’ boom, a 1,200 gal tank, applying 10 gpa and filling in 10 min had an average productivity of 132 acres/h. And this was achieved without driving faster than 14 mph. If you can string two quarters together and drive a whole mile before turning, that number rises to 145 acres/h, a surprisingly large 13 acres/h gain.

The perspective of minimizing downtime extends to other tasks, too:

Be more prepared for the job by reviewing the product label in advance, noting the correct mixing order.
Keep extra nozzles, clamps, and nozzle bodies in the cab.
Don’t clean plugged nozzles, replace them.
Use low-drift nozzles so a small increase in wind doesn’t shut you down.
Ensure all the products needed are on the tender truck (e.g. pesticide, adjuvant, tank cleaner, anti-foamer, etc.).
Consider switching to 3” plumbing (pump rates of 300 – 400 gpm are possible).
Make sure your inductor won’t be the limiting factor. For example, product pumps can be awfully slow when the product is cold. It might be worthwhile to explore a venturi system.

Speeding up the fill process is a good idea, but be careful with certain products. Dry materials such as the sulfonyl ureas (e.g. Refine, Express SG, etc.) and some fungicides (e.g. Astound, etc.) require time to hydrate in water so they mix properly. Some operators pre-hydrate these in a smaller tank, while others get an extra tank to pre-mix whole loads and simply transfer them over.

Also think about the time spent cleaning the sprayer. Thoroughness is important, but perhaps there are efficiencies to be gained there as well, like never letting a sprayer sit after spraying. We’ve written about continuous rinsing, for example, to improve cleaning speed and effectiveness.

So, the quicker we can spray, while ensuring a quality job, the more effective our crop protection practices will be. We encourage you to use our to determine your best configuration.

Got a productivity tips to share? Let us know! And remember: In spraying, the race is won in the pits.

Factor	Base	Drive Faster	Fill Faster	Spray Wider	Less Water	Bigger Tank	New Sprayer
Travel Speed	14 mph	18 mph	14 mph	14 mph	14 mph	14 mph	14 mph
Fill time	20 min	20 min	10 min	20 min	20 min	20 min	10 min
Boom Width	90 ft	90 ft	90 ft	120 ft	90 ft	90 ft	120 ft
Water Volume	10 gpa	10 gpa	10 gpa	10 gpa	5 gpa	10 gpa	10 gpa
Tank Size	800 gal	800 gal	800 gal	800 gal	800 gal	1200 gal	1200 gal
Field Length	0.5 mile	0.5 mile	0.5 mile	0.5 mile	0.5 mile	0.5 mile	0.5 mile

Time Turning	15%	19%	15%	20%	15%	15%	20%
Time Loading	37%	42%	23%	42%	23%	28%	19%
Time Spraying	48%	39%	62%	38%	62%	57%	61%
Acres/h	82	93	100	94	100	94	132

To work with the productivity calculator, click here.

August 20, 2026

Does the Pull-Type Sprayer once again have a Place on our Farms?
The self-propelled sprayer revolution is complete in western Canada. Almost all sales of new equipment are self-propelled. In fact, the once thriving sector of Canadian-made pull-type sprayers, and the innovations they brought to spraying, has disappeared.
In its place we have self-propelled sprayers that offer plenty of power, large tanks, high mobility and comfort, and of course, the clearance required for late-season sprays. These features come at a cost: high capital expense, weight, fuel consumption and drift potential if the speed or boom height are not controlled.
The self-propelled machines are nice; however, customers are becoming concerned about overall value. Sure, the sprayer is the most-used piece of equipment on the farm, with the average field being treated four to five times per year. Does that justify the $500 to $700 k purchase price?
To answer this question, we need to evaluate the alternatives. Even though we’ve lost most North American pull-type sprayer makers, a few, such as Top Air, are left. A new pull type, the Connect Sniper, is being offered by Pattison Liquid. In addition, there are now several European manufacturers looking at our market. These bring large capacity, sophisticated booms plumbing and a narrow transport width. Let’s look at the issues:
The Connect Sniper, manufactured by Pattison Liquid, offers recirculating booms, Raven Hawkeye pulse-width modulation, continuous rinsing, and 120′ Millenium booms. The WEEDit spot spray system is also available.
Capacity
Not a problem. Top Air features tanks up to 2400 gallons and 132’ booms. Amazone builds a 3000 gallon tank twin axle sprayer (UX11200) with 132’ booms. The 230 gpm on-board diaphragm pump can fill the sprayer in 15 minutes. The Hardi Commander offers tanks up to 2600 gallons with 132’ booms. The Horsch Leeb TD12 is at 3170 gallons with 138’ booms. Equipped with air brakes, these sprayers can be trailed at up to 50 km/h.
The Amazone UX 11200 has an 11,200 L (2960 US gal) tank and tandem, steering axles combined with up to 130′ booms.
Clearance
The pull-types themselves have adequate clearance for most crops. The limiting factor will be the tractor and the hitch point. The availability of a high hitch point, and an 80 mm ball, on European tractors, is a boon for this. Although it may be necessary to shield the low standard drawbar and belly, pull-type owners report no long-term effects from the lower clearance.
The Horsch Leeb TD12 offers a 12,000 L (3170 US gal) tank and up to 1.25 m ground clearance (Photo: Horsch.com).
European tractors offer 80 mm ball hitches for larger implements with high mounting heights to gain extra sprayer clearance.
Tractor
The pull-type sprayer makes most sense if it allows the re-purposing of an existing tractor. The common yard tractor isn’t enough, as the high capacity sprayers may require >200 hp with front wheel assist, especially in softer ground or hilly terrain. Another requirement is that the track width match the sprayer, and the European standard of a 2.25 m track width (centre to centre) can be hard to match in North America. New rims on the sprayer can push the width out, but the resulting increased axle stress may be problematic; these issues should be considered in advance. Fortunately, powerful front wheel assist tractors are finding a place on farms, even as seeding tractors. The changing over from one implement to another during a busy time can be a hassle, with a dedicated rate controller requiring additional cab real estate. But with the lower capital cost of a pull-type, a new tractor that also has other utility on the farm may be justified.
Large pull types require large tractors that may not already exist on the farm. The ability to match wheel tracks and the convenience of monitor hookups are important considerations.
Productivity
We’ve long maintained that productivity gain through increased travel speed creates more problems than it solves. It is virtually unavoidable to use somewhat higher booms with faster speeds, and it’s been proven that spray drift potential increases with travel speed. Instead, the sprayer features that save time are faster fill and clean times (reduced downtime), larger tanks (fewer stops to fill) and wider booms. Wider booms are easier to keep steady with slower moving equipment.
So how do typical self-propelled sprayers stack up against pull-types?
We compared two sprayers, a large pull-type with 3000 US gallon tank and a typical self-propelled with a 1200 gallon tank. Travel speeds were 10 and 15 mph, respectively, and fill times were 15 and 10 minutes. The slower pull-type turned in one headland, whereas the self-propelled used two to allow room for acceleration after the turn.
On half-mile runs, our “Productivity Calculator” at agrimetrixapps.com showed 129 acres per hour for the self-propelled and a respectable 119 acres/h for the pull type. The value of fast but infrequent fills and the more efficient turns made the difference for the pull-type. Use the app to compare other tank sizes, travel- and fill-speeds, or boom widths.
Productivity of a 3000 gallon tank pull-type (left) vs a 1200 gallon self-propelled (right), given specific speed, boom width, and fill times.
The specific design features of a sprayer may create additional productivity. For example, the ease of tank rinsing and cleanout can save time. European sprayers typically have lower remaining volume values, which increases the speed of tank rinsing and can eliminate the need for dumping tank remainders on the ground. Ease of filter inspection may seem trivial, but it permits more frequent confirmation that the system is clean and thus avoids potential future problems. An on-board pressure washer on the Amazone makes boom hygiene easier. It’s important to account for all these seemingly small gains because they add up.
Service
The success of any agricultural equipment relies on the equipment durability, fast availability of parts and service. Any new market entry will need to establish a dealer network, parts distribution system and superior service. This is no easy feat in a time of dealer consolidation. But without a drive train, there’s less to go wrong in a pull-type, and many plumbing parts are generic or can be obtained in metric equivalents.
With fewer mechanical components, pull-type sprayers require less service and are less prone to breakdowns.
Cost and Value
Prices vary, but a pull-type sprayer will usually cost less than half of a similar-sized self-propelled sprayer depending on the options selected.
With European-influenced equipment, the plumbing system will be more sophisticated, often offering recirculating booms, steering axles that follow in the tracks of the sprayer, narrow transport widths for greater road safety, an improved boom suspensions and levelling performance. It is safe to say that in terms of features, these sophisticated machines offer good value and many good design ideas. Operating costs are almost certainly lower, with better fuel economy and less drivetrain trouble.
The pull-type sprayer continues to have an important place to fill on our farms. With trade and weather anomalies lowering farm income, farmers are wary of being over-capitalized. It is conceivable that lower-cost and feature-rich alternatives to self-propelled units will have a fit. They certainly make sense on smaller farms that may not be able to utilize the full performance of a self-propelled, or on a larger farm that needs extra capacity but doesn’t want to bear the capital cost of a second expensive sprayer. The inherently slower working speeds allow for lower booms, less drift, overall improved deposit accuracy and uniformity. They’re worth a closer look.
August 18, 2021
Ten Tips for Spraying in the Wind
Choosing the right time to spray can be tricky. Our gut tells us that spraying when it’s windy is wrong. The experts tell us that spraying when it’s calm is wrong. So when can you actually spray?
I’ve always advised my clients to spray in some wind, because it has a few advantages. The main one is that wind helps disperse the spray upward and downward, diluting the spray cloud fairly rapidly. Another advantage is that winds tend to be reasonably steady in their direction and velocity (or at least that can be forecast), so downwind areas can be identified and potential impacts are known or predictable. It helps if it’s sunny, because that improves the dispersion of the cloud even more.
First, let’s define “windy”. The classic wind scale is the Beaufort Scale, intended for the sea, but also used on land. The upper limit for spraying is probably Force 3 or Force 4, with upper limits of 20 – 25 km/h or so. The Beaufort Scale calls these “Gentle or Moderate Breezes” (they had to save the alarming words for hurricanes), and the scale provides good visual clues such as what wind does to flags, leaves, or dust.
Spraying under breezy conditions can be done fairly safely if you follow specific steps. The idea is to understand what the risks are and to manage them.
The cornerstone is to use a low-drift spray and match it to a pesticide that will work well with larger droplets. But there are other important aspects to consider. Below are the top ten to think about:
- Choose a herbicide that can handle large droplets. Glyphosate products are well suited to coarse droplets. But glyphosate commonly has contact actives in the mix, members of Group 6, 14, and 15, and these are less likely to perform well with big droplets than those that contain Group 2 and 4 mixes. Actives with soil activity also have more tolerance for larger droplets.
- Use a low-drift nozzle and operate it so it produces a Coarse (C) to Very Coarse (VC) spray quality, as described by the manufacturer. Dicamba labels call for Extremely Coarse (XC) to Ultra-Coarse (UC) sprays, and Enlist requires at least Coarse. To achieve these you may need to purchase new nozzles. Low-pressure air-induced nozzles operated at about 50 – 60 psi will generally be very low-drift, but lower drift models are available. If you need a finer spray, produce it either by increasing the pressure or moving to a finer tip. Do this when the weather improves, for contact modes of action.
The name, symbol and range of droplet sizes used to describe the median droplet diameter produced by nozzles according to ASABE S572.3
- Keep your boom low. Lowering the boom ranks as the second-most effective way to reduce drift, after coarser sprays. But there’s a limit. For low-drift sprays, you need at least 100% overlap (more for PWM), which is for the edge of one nozzle pattern to spray into the centre of the adjacent pattern. In other words, the spray pattern should be twice as wide as your nozzle spacing at target height. For most nozzles, a boom height of close to 20 inches is enough to achieve this overlap. That’s pretty low by current standards from suspended booms on self-propelled sprayers, so being too low for a good pattern will only happen due to boom sway.
- Maintain reasonably slow travel speeds. These reduce the amount of fine droplets that hang behind the spray boom, reduce turbulence from sprayer wheels, and they also make low booms more practical. An added bonus is less dust generation.
- Know what’s downwind and what harms it. Survey the fields on all sides of the parcel you’re treating. When you have a choice, avoid spraying fields that have sensitive areas downwind such as water, shelterbelts, pastures, people, etc. If you can’t avoid being upwind of these areas, make sure you check and obey the buffer zone restrictions on the label. These will also give you an idea if the product can cause harm in water or on land, or both.
- Let the weather help you.
  1. Take the wind from the side if you can. Going straight into the wind creates a lot of extra drift.
  2. Spray when the sun shines if you have a choice. Early morning, late evening, or cloudy days increase the distance that drift moves. When it’s sunny, the drift cloud disperses quickly and causes less damage.
- Consider a dicamba tip for special situations, even if you don’t use dicamba. If you’re in a situation where quitting and waiting is a poor option, these tips allow you to finish the job with minimal drift risk and with only slight reductions in product performance due to poor coverage.
- Use a low-drift adjuvant. Specific products such as Interlock or Valid have been shown to reduce driftable fines (<150 microns) by between 40 – 60%, without adding significant volume in coarser droplets. The response will depend on the nozzle and the tank mix, but can be very noticeable.
- Study drift and how it forms and moves. It’s about more than wind speed and droplet size. Knowledge in this area can help you work out the best strategies.
- Invest in productivity. You may not need it every day, but on occasions when you have a small window to avoid bad weather, it pays dividends.
- If you feel that drift is unavoidable and someone might be impacted by it, talk to those people first. It’s one of the most important things you can do.
Keeping pesticide sprays on target continues to be one of our top responsibilities.
June 8, 2021
How Spot Spraying will Affect Sprayer Design
Some years ago, a friend recommended that I read The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. In this book, Gladwell tries to understand why some things catch on, and others don’t. It’s a compelling read full of Gladwell’s trademark stories and his knack to deftly interpret scientific studies. He talks of connectors, mavens, and salesmen, as well as the “stickiness factor”, a measure of how memorable something is, as keys to success of products and ideas. I think of the book often as I ponder the many good ideas in agriculture, many of which never see widespread adoption.
One of these good ideas is spot spraying. Green-on-brown detection was first introduced in the early 1990s. Anyone remember the Concord DetectSpray? It was great but had bad timing, as resistance wasn’t a big issue and glyphosate prices were about to slide. Green-on-brown grew to the NTech (later Trimble) WeedSeeker a few years later. Rometron’s WEEDit built on Trimble’s success and found widespread adoption in Australia in the past ten years. Spot spraying did not gain any traction in North America during this time.
Australia is unique in many ways, not the least of which is their summer spraying practice. Summer is the hot, dry season where land is typically fallow and weeds are kept in check with herbicide sprays (aaaah, the serenity). Making several passes over a field, combined with the need to control some larger and hardy plants, is expensive, and a spot spray saves much of the cost. The savings can be put to use with more effective herbicide tank mixes that delay the onset of herbicide resistance. Spot sprays pay for themselves in short order Down Under.
It’s more of a challenge in the northern plains of North America, where the fallow season involves snow cover and burnoff occurs in a short window before seeding and sometimes after harvest. But nonetheless, spot sprays have a fit for many of the same reasons.
WEEDit is the first system to make serious inroads in North America, with several dozen systems having been retrofitted to high-clearance sprayers. High detection accuracy and hardware reliability is proven in three seasons.
On March 2, 2021, John Deere entered the Green-on-brown spot spray area with See & Spray Select. This not to be mistaken as competition. Instead, the entry of a major brand provides validation of the concept like only a large manufacturer can. Yes, we’ve reached a tipping point.
While the first Green-on-brown units are becoming established, Green-on-green, the ability to detect weeds within a crop, continues to be developed around the world. French startup Bilberry has made enough gains in Australia to bring its product to market with Agrifac, where it’s called AIC Plus. In farmer field trials, they have achieved 90 per cent detection accuracy of wild radish in Western Australia, and claim that they are ready for broadleaf weed identification in wheat, barley and oats. Bilberry’s technology will also be seen on Australia’s Goldacres and France’s Berthoud. Other startups, notably Israel’s Greeneye Technology, plan to introduce a Green-on-green system in the U.S. in the near future. Amazone, the German farm equipment giant, partnering with Xarvio and Bosch, announced plans at Agritechnica to have a commercial unit for sale by 2021.
This technology will have significant impact on sprayer design philosophy. At present, productivity is synonymous with capacity, and large tanks with commensurate heavy and powerful tractor units dominate. Spot spraying savings will depend on weed density and hardware resolution, but 50 per cent to 90 per cent reductions in spray volume can be expected. A 1,600-gallon tank would no longer be necessary. The savings in frame weight and horsepower would be significant, as would the time savings from less intense tendering demands. These savings would offset the lower driving speeds that accompany sensing technologies, and, overall, provide a lower bar for autonomous operation. We may see lighter specialty spot sprayers.
The savings in brute size will be countered by increased sophistication. Better boom height management is essential for spot spraying, not just for the sensor to properly see the target and estimate the time needed for the boom to reach that spot, but also for the spot spray itself to deliver the right dose. In any fan spray, band width at ground level changes with height, and that, of course, is related to dose. Trailed booms can address this issue easily.
But not everyone wants a specialty spot sprayer that would require an extra pass over the field. With growing utility of soil residual herbicides, dual tank sprayers—small tank for the spot spray, large tank for the broadcast residual—make sense. Large sprayer frames can accommodate an additional smaller tank, second pump, and plumbed boom easily.
Plant detection and identification bring other opportunities. Adjusting dose for plant size is one of the first, or for harder to control weed species.
Spot sprays rely on fast, precise response of the nozzle, and this provided by fast-reacting solenoids that are part of pulse-width modulation (PWM) systems. On a broadcast sprayer, these solenoids can change the emitted dose instantly, within a certain envelope, by altering the duty cycle of the pulse. This, however, works best in the context of a boom with overlapping spray patterns. A single band spray would not change dose with duty cycle as easily.
Higher dosing would be an opportunity for multiple nozzle bodies that are able to spray one, two or more nozzles in the same spot simultaneously. These are already widely available and popular in Europe.
This also brings direct injection into play. Current systems introduce the active ingredient into the boom upstream of the nozzles, affording it time to mix into the water. For true spot spray utility, though, direct injection ought to be at the nozzle. Only then can custom mixes and rates be applied on a spot basis. It’s been done before, if only to show how difficult it would be to deliver uniform doses to a spot spray machine.
Spot spray sensors have agronomic benefits. By recording the location sprayed, weed patches can be mapped. As plant identification becomes possible, it’s conceivable to obtain plant species and stage distribution maps from the spray pass That would turn the sprayer into a high-resolution crop scouting tool. As machine learning and sensor sophistication grows, other plant and soil parameters can be mapped. The agronomic value of such maps, especially if created over the course of the growing season, is immense. Of course, data density, handling, storage, and analysis will constrain this.
If the past has taught us anything, it’s that there seems to be a appetite for investment in farm equipment. Sprayers have been the most-used implement on the farm for some time, and their popularity continues despite sharp price increases. These new capabilities will only add value to these implements. Prepare for sticker shock, followed by acceptance and adoption.
What will a future spot sprayer look like? Although it will have tanks and booms, the level of electronic sophistication will make it so much more versatile we can’t yet imagine all the ways in which it might be used. But it seems to me the situation has tipped and we’re already accelerating toward that future.
March 19, 2021