Tag: productivity

  • Airblast Productivity and Work Rate Calculator

    Airblast Productivity and Work Rate Calculator

    There are many factors that affect the work rate of an airblast application. If an operator can improve their work rate, without compromising spray efficacy or safety, they improve operational efficiency and save money.

    But how does each variable factor in? Is it worth the cost of a tender truck and operator to fill more efficiently? Should you upgrade to a multi-row sprayer? Should your next planting have longer rows? We have a simple calculator that can help you make these decisions. You can build and compare multiple scenarios to explore the relative impact of small changes to your typical spray program. We recommend making only one change for each scenario so you can better understand the results. Print the comparison page for your records.

    Whether you’re a sprayer operator, or a manager of sprayer operators, this exercise will help you see your spray program in a whole new light. Download a copy of the Airblast Budget and Work Rate Calculator and explore your productivity. You must have Excel to run the spreadsheet, and you must permit the use of macros (you’ll be prompted to accept).

    Spoiler: It’s amazing how changes to travel speed have only a marginal impact on work rate. Often less than 60% of the total spray job is spent actually spraying!

    If you’d like to see just how productive you can be, check out this rare (possibly unique) sprayer from Ed Oxley Farms in Michigan. Built on an OXBO 7550, this sprayer is the fourth iteration of a concept developed over the last 20 years by Ed Oxley Farms and ag engineers from Michigan State University.

    Capable of spraying five rows at a time, this self-propelled beast is a hybrid wrap-around and targeting-tower system that uses CurTec spray heads equipped with tangential fans and wire-mesh basket rotary atomizers.

    That’s not dribbling – that’s purging the boom prior to spraying.

    It sprays a mere 150 L/ha (~ 15 gallons/acre) at a ripping 13 km/h (~8 mph), as seen on the Ag Leader monitor below.

    When row spacing and turn time are accounted for, that means it’s capable of covering almost 15 hectares (~40 acres) per hour.

    And, when not spraying grapes, the boom can be swapped to make it a high-clearance corn sprayer. It doesn’t get much more efficient than this.

    The following videos will show the view from inside and outside the cab. Note that the row that’s straddled is sprayed from an overhead spray head mounted to the centre rack behind the sprayer. The two adjacent rows are covered from one side from vertical spray heads mounted on the chassis. Finally, the boom holds two more overhead spray heads for the outer-most rows.

    Ideally, the boom-mounted spray heads would be suspended vertically inside the row, but it makes for such a wide turn radius that it would take too long to turn… assuming there was enough headland to allow it. They’re also swept-back to minimize the turn radius and reduce the amount of airborne spray that deposits on the sprayer itself.

    A clever design that makes a few compromises to ideal coverage in order to improve productivity. The balance works for them and this sprayer might be a sign of things to come in horticultural crop production systems. Want to see how your sprayer stacks up? Download the calculator and see where you might be able to make improvements.

  • Does the Pull-Type Sprayer once again have a Place on our Farms?

    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.

  • Ten Tips for Spraying in the Wind

    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.

    Beaufort Scale-1

    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.
    • 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.

  • How Spot Spraying will Affect Sprayer Design

    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.

  • Putting a Number on Pesticide Waste

    Putting a Number on Pesticide Waste

    Waste (noun): an act or instance of using or expending something to no purpose.

    In agriculture, environment and economy are intertwined. Producers strive to obtain the maximum return on their inputs. They study incremental returns and avoid applying more inputs than necessary, especially if conditions don’t warrant it.  The financial incentive is powerful, and waste is a four-letter word. This applies to seed, fertilizer, and pesticide. Pesticide labels identify the rate needed to obtain the desired result, and there is no incentive to over-apply. In fact, it’s illegal.

    But there are plenty of other places where applications incur waste. As with time efficiency, it’s a good idea to identify where this waste occurs, and the only tool needed is a sharp pencil.

    When might we incur waste in the spray application process?

    • Mixing more than we need because we don’t trust the flow meter or the tank gauge entirely, or don’t know the exact field size.
    • Priming the boom before the first swath.
    • Overlapping due to curvy terrain and coarse sectional control.
    • Spray drift away from the intended swath.

    How big are the losses?

    Let’s say we have a clean sprayer and need to spray 160 acres before moving to a new crop and product. We plan to apply 10 gallons per acre and have a 1,200 gallon tank with a 120 foot boom. That means we need 1,600 gallons of spray mix in total.

    Once we’re at the field we prime the boom. Each sprayer is different, but depending on operator experience, 30 to 50 gallons are usually needed to push product from the tank to the last nozzle. Only part of that is lost to the ground, as boom sections can be shut off as soon as product has reached every nozzle of that section. We’re assuming 0.2 gallons per foot of boom is lost.

    Spraying itself is relatively straightforward. Swath and sectional control handle the overlaps, but in less ideal terrain, double application is known to account for 4 to 5% of the area to reach non-square parts of the field. This is even more likely when the outer section is 10’ or more. Early turn-on of the boom prior to leaving the headland, to allow boom to reach operating pressure, adds to this.

    Air-activated shutoff for individual nozzles reduces section size at a reasonable cost.

    With an average nozzle, we can expect about 2% of the product to airborne drift. Most airborne won’t return to the ground within the field borders, so it’s a complete loss.

    Most of the spray that travels more than 5 m after leaving boom stays airborne and should be considered a total loss from the field.

    As we finish, the pump will draw air before the tank is empty due to sloshing or foaming, and a 50 to 60 gallon remainder may not be unusual. This simulation has assumed 5% of tank volume remains.

    We also need to purge spray from the boom at cleanout, consuming approximately 0.4 gallons per foot of boom. This occurs after the field is completely sprayed and is therefore considered waste.

    So how does this add up? The following table shows the approximate losses associated with five setups.

    Table 1: Spray mix losses during a sprayer operation. Setup 1 = baseline, Setup 2 = low application volume, Setup 3 = baseline with recirculating boom, tank level monitor, and low-drift nozzles, Setup 4 = large area between cleaning, Setup 5 = large area with recirculating boom, tank level monitor, and low-drift nozzles.

    In the first scenario, we spray just 160 acres at 10 gallons per acre. Priming the boom with 0.4 gallons per foot (allowing for all associated feed lines) consumes 48 gallons, but only wastes half of that, or 1.5% of the total volume needed for the field.

    Four percent overlap consumes another 64 gallons.

    If we have 5% of the tank volume left over, that’s 60 gallons. That amount is so small it doesn’t even register on the sight gauge but nonetheless it represents another 4% of the total sprayed amount.

    Upon cleaning the boom, we need to push the spray mix out of all the  plumbing after the pump, as it has nowhere else to go. At an assumed 0.4 gallons per foot, that’s another 48 gallons or 3%.

    If we add to that a conservative 2% drift loss, it sums to a surprising 14% of the total spray volume. For those that use lower water volumes (the second scenario), the volumetric losses are slightly less, but their proportion is higher, now accounting for 23% (!) of the total spray mix.

    In the third scenario, let’s assume we use a recirculating boom that returns the initial prime volume to the tank, eliminating any waste. We’ll also upgrade to individual nozzle sectional control, reducing overlap to 1%. And, since we want to know exactly what’s left in the tank, let’s invest in an AccuVolume system to precisely monitor tank volume. This allows us to make small rate adjustments up or down to be sure as much of the mixed product goes onto the sprayed swath as possible.

    Recirculating booms allows the spray mix to pass through entire length of boom without being sprayed, saving waste during priming and allowing waste-free boom rinses.

    When the sump begins to empty, we can introduce some water from the clean water tank to push the last of the mix to the boom (a continuous rinse system makes this easy).

    An AccuVolume sensor shows the exact volume left in the tank at any slope position and with 1 gallon resolution, allowing greater accuracy when filling and emptying.

    We’ll assume our sump waste is now reduced to 12 gallons. We still need to dispose of the content of the boom somehow, so the recirculating boom offers no saving there. But let’s also add better low-drift nozzles to reduce drift by 50% (now 1% total volume). Total loss is now just 6%.

    Low-drift nozzles such as this AirMix (Agrotop) SoftDrop reduce airborne drift by 50 to 90%.

    The last two rows in the table repeat the first and third scenarios for a larger sprayed area (1000 acres) before a tank cleaning is needed. This doesn’t change the magnitude of the volumetric loss, but reduces its proportion. Percent loss is down by a factor of two from the 160 acre interval, to 3 to 7%.

    Experienced operators might cheat the system a bit by mixing the required pesticide with some extra water to make up for the plumbing waste. Doing so prevents extra pesticide from being consumed, but it doesn’t reduce the inherent inefficiency.

    Lessons

    This exercise suggests that waste from spraying is probably higher than we assumed. If we average the scenarios, there is 10 to 15% waste. At, say, $200,000 spent on pesticide for a single spraying season, that’s $20 – $30,000 worth of product and water hauled that ends up where it doesn’t belong. Beyond the time and money, there can also be environmental consequences depending on how that waste is treated.

    There are some things that can be done.

    • Know the exact area of the field to be sprayed.
    • Study your sprayer plumbing and consider improvements such as recirculating booms and continuous cleanout.
    • Improve monitoring of tank content to allow lower remainders.
    • Consider individual nozzle shutoff to improve sectional control. These are part of Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) systems, but can also be achieved with less expensive valves.
    • Plan spray operations to minimize the amount of product changeovers.
    • Consider direct injection.

    The return on investment for plumbing improvements can be high and result in considerable future savings over the life of the sprayer. It’s worth thinking about.

    Spray Waste WorksheetDownload