Tag: productivity

  • 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
  • Don’t try this tempting shortcut

    Don’t try this tempting shortcut

    There’s a call that I’ve been getting for 20 years now. It came again this week. Someone has a twincap with two small air-induced tips, and they’re applying herbicides and fungicides with low water volumes, often 5 gpa, sometimes less. They call because they want to know how much wind they can spray in. Is 30 km/h OK? They want my blessing.

    I don’t need to hear much more. Some nozzles are sold entirely on the premise that they provide superior coverage – more droplets per square inch – and that this improved coverage permits the reduction of water volumes. Furthermore, the claim goes, when water is reduced, the spray concentration increases and the whole darn package just works a lot faster and better.

    This line of thinking is as old as spraying itself. Applicators seek pesticide performance as well as productivity, and this approach gives them both. The proponents are well aware of their customers’ desires, and sell into it. “Use these tips and cut back on water. Any more than this just runs off anyways. You’ll get better coverage and better performance, get more spraying done.” It’s a convincing argument. Get an edge on your neighbour, the person who’s not in on the secret and is wasting time and water.

    Why don’t I embrace it? There are a few reasons.

    First, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Invariably it involves a twin nozzle setup. Use two nozzles, get more droplets, right? If that were true, believe me, I’d be advocating for quintuples.

    Fact is that the only factors that change droplet numbers are droplet size (spray quality) and water volume. Want more droplets at the same water volume? Make the spray finer. Want to keep spray quality and add droplets? Add water (not nozzles).

    The easiest way to improve coverage at the same volume is to use a finer nozzle, or to increase spray pressure. Depending on how far you go, you could make the spray finer and cut water, and still have more droplets per square inch.

    The hardest way to improve coverage is to purchase a twincap and buy two nozzles, each of them half the size. True, within any given nozzle type, smaller sized tips usually generate finer sprays. But why bother with two tips? They’re more expensive and plug more.

    If someone asks me how to improve coverage without changing water volume, I usually tell them to speed up a few mph. The rate controller will increase pressure and the spray gets finer. If speeding up is not possible, get one size smaller nozzle and run at higher pressure, same speed. Or keep nozzle and speed, and add some gpa, pressure will go up. It’s that easy. No twins necessary.

    Second, the twin nozzle/low volume approach exaggerates the value of the twin nozzle for herbicides. With small plants and relatively open canopies in the early season, plus our high booms and travel speeds, the twin tips are not adding a lot, if anything at all, to coverage. It remains a sum of droplet size and water volume, the angle is not important at this stage. Deposit is by turbulence and wind, most of the time.

    Third, low volume believers ignore a few potential problems. Drift is a big one. Low volume, fine spray operators are surrounded by nervous neighbours. They have fewer hours per day during which drift is acceptably low. And they definitely should not be on the field when wind is at 30 km/h. Basically, they’re a bit uncomfortable (at least they should be) and get less done per day.

    Another potential problem is evaporation. Most sprays, even when applied at lower volumes, are still 90% or more water. The same volume of water evaporates much quicker when atomized into smaller droplets. This has two main downsides: On their way to the canopy, small droplets evaporate and become even more drift prone, and may not impact at all. Those that impact evaporate shortly thereafter. Research has shown that pesticide uptake is better from wet than dry deposits.

    When Delta T (dry bulb minus wet bulb temperature) is high, evaporation can be so strong that it reduces pesticide performance or causes solvent burn. Fine sprays make it worse.

    I also hear about the use of oily adjuvants to control evaporation from small droplets. This could be even more dangerous. Small droplets drift, and evaporation to dryness is actually helpful in reducing the impact of that drift. How? It makes the small droplets disappear, with their remnants dispersing into the turbulent atmosphere. With oily adjuvants, the small droplets stick around and stay potent and their drift damage is much worse.

    Lastly, the practice is possibly off label. Water volume and spray quality label statements are designed to offer good performance and acceptable drift risk. While that part of the label is often a bit dated, it does provide better support from the manufacturer should something go wrong.

    If you’re spraying under hot, dry and windy conditions, the low volume, fine spray approach is irresponsible. Use sufficient water (7 to 12 gpa) to allow low-drift sprays, at least Coarse to Very Coarse, in some case, even coarser.

    Agronomists provide the best possible information for their clients, based on scientific evidence and experience and in accordance with their professional code of ethics. Sometimes the news we deliver aren’t what the customer wants to hear. But we have to represent the interests of all of us, collectively. I find that pretty important.

  • Productivity Calculator

    Productivity Calculator

    Want to figure out how your sprayer configuration affects your productivity?  Try out that tells you acres per hour, the amount of productivity lost to turning and filling, and the benefit of longer booms.

    productivity_calculatorDownload

    You might be surprised how productive you can be without driving faster.

  • Recirculating Booms – Introduction to the Concept

    Recirculating Booms – Introduction to the Concept

    Listen to the audio version of this article here

    A lot of people are intimidated by sprayer plumbing. One look at the spaghetti bowl of spray mix and hydraulic hoses and valves, and they walk away. It hasn’t helped that much of it is concealed under the frame and all of it is in the same black colour, so figuring it out on your own is almost impossible.

    Belly of a typical sprayer, showing black hydraulic and spray hoses.

    Let’s quickly review the basics. In all sprayers, the liquid in the tank is drawn out from the bottom and pressurized by a pump. The pressurized liquid is split into two main paths. One goes to the spray boom to hydraulic atomizers (nozzles). The other goes back to the tank to agitate the liquid and act as a pressure bypass when the booms are off. Bypass throttling changes pressure. That’s it.

    Sprayer plumbing diagram (Source: TeeJet).

    By the way, has anyone ever thought of some colour-coding or labelling the hoses and valves on a sprayer? We’d definitely appreciate that.

    Conventional boom sections

    Most North-American sprayers feed the pressurized liquid to the boom, where the flow is subdivided into physical sections that define the various portions of the boom that can spray at any one time. Older sprayers might only have two sections, the left and the right boom. Wide booms now have anywhere from 5 to 13 sections, each about two to four metres wide. Each section has a pressure feed to its middle, and each section terminates at two dead ends, at which we place caps or valves for flushing.

    A conventional plumbed boom with two sections. Each section has two terminal ends that require cleaning. Boom can only be flushed or primed by spraying or by opening boom end caps.

    Sprayer with nine sections, each controlled by its own valve and each running a dedicated feed hose.

    Two partial boom sections, each showing a central feed line and a capped boom end.

    Sectional boom end showing 10 cm of capped pipe beyond last nozzle body.

    Boom end with valve to facilitate draining and flushing.

    Any liquid that enters this type of boom must exit at the nozzle or the boom end. It must be sprayed out or drained. This poses three distinct problems.

    • If the boom contains water or a previous spray mix, the boom needs to be primed with the new product before spraying. We need to spray or drain the existing product out.
    • If we want to clean the boom or flush it with water, again we need to push the existing liquid out.
    • If we have dead spots in the boom section, such as a boom end, we need to take special care to flush those out as well.

    These characteristics complicate cleaning, create waste or contamination, and take time.

    Recirculating booms

    In a recirculating boom, the spray mixture enters the boom at one end and exits at the other, returning to the spray tank. In most cases, the left and right wing each has its own feed and return. Sectional control is achieved via individual valves (air or electric) placed on the nozzle bodies.

    There are two main types of recirculating booms on the market.

    The first system routes the pressurized mixture into the boom and shuts off the return line during spraying. When the nozzles are shut off for a turn, the return line opens automatically and the boom flow is pushed past the nozzles back to the tank. When the nozzles spray again, the return line closes to pressurize the boom. 

    Recirculating boom system offered by Pommier. One end of boom is pressurized, the other end is return. Return flows when boom spraying is shut off. Boom can be primed or flushed without spraying.

    This is the system used by Pommier, the French aluminum boom manufacturer who first introduced recirculating booms to North America.

    Pommier recirculating boom.

    Pommier boom showing stainless steel supply and return lines, as well as air-activated shutoff valve on nozzle body.

    The second type of system contains a 3-way valve, connected to the return line and the pressure side of the pump. This valve provides the option of either allowing the return line to go back to the tank, as above, or to also allow pumped flow to the return side so that the boom is pressurized at both ends.

    Recirculating boom that allows return line to be either pressurized by pump, or return to tank.

    Top view of D.O.T. Connect sprayer recirculating boom setup. Lower line is pressurized by pump. Upper line is return. Three-way valve allows return line to either go back to tank, or be pressurized by pump.

    Tidy setup of pressure and return lines on D.O.T. Connect system.

    This feature may be useful with long booms along which pressure drop is more likely to occur, or when very high flows are required, and was introduced to North America by the Dutch manufacturer Agrifac, about which we wrote here and reprinted Mick Robert’s article from Pro Operator here. A similar system is available from Rogator (starting in 2018) via their C-Series featuring LiquidLogic. It has also been used on the Connect sprayer, developed by Pattison Liquid Systems, for the D.O.T. autonomous platform.

    The main advantages of this design are that it provides the option of additional pressure to the spray boom to avoid pressure drop, and to allow any spray mix in the return line to be pushed and sprayed out to the boom for rinsing in the field. This lowers the remaining volume that needs to be diluted.

    Agrifac recirculating boom showing return loop at boom end.

    Boom end on Rogator Liquid Logic system. Note Hypro Pro-Stop E shutoff valve.

    Features

    Recirculating booms offer advantages in terms of preventing soil and water contamination and also in terms of simplifying the boom cleaning process. The design provides an opportunity to graduate to a better resolved sectional control as well due to the requirement for individual nozzle shutoff valves. 

    Due to shorter and less complex lengths of plumbing needed, stainless steel can be used for the return lines which decreases the potential for pesticide residue being adsorbed.

    To rinse a boom with product mix still in the tank, simply draw water from the on-board clean water tank and push it to the boom without activating any nozzle bodies. The mix in the boom is returned to the tank and replaced with water, nothing is sprayed or drained. The tank contents may become slightly diluted depending on the duration of the rinse.

    To rinse the tank as part of the sprayer cleanout, first spray the tank empty. Then introduce clean water into the product tank via the wash-down nozzles and spray that out. As always, either use several batches of  small clean water volumes, or a continuous rinse system, to dilute the remainder most effectively. There may be additional volume to dilute from the return lines compared to a conventional system, depending on the type of recirculating system is used. However, boom ends no longer exist and this saves effort and ensures a more thorough rinsing.

    To prime a boom that contains water, simply open the return lines back to the tank and allow the new mix to flow through the boom. Again, some dilution of the tank will occur due to the water in the boom.

    The value of spray-free rinsing and priming adds up. Each prime, for example, consumes about 30 US gallons before the spray reaches the last nozzle of the longest section. Much of that product ends up on the ground, probably while the sprayer is stationary, and probably in a similar place on the field year after year.

    Since a recirculating boom requires a powered individual nozzle shutoff, this adds some cost. However, the opportunity of improved sectional control via virtual sections is significant (most monitors offer 16 virtual sections that can be configured). Well-configured virtual sections can save several percent from overlaps.

    Recirculating booms remove many of the contamination problems associated with conventional plumbed sections. They save time, money, and reduce environmental impact. We think they should be offered on sprayers.

    Here’s a link to a nice article on recirculating booms written by Spencer Myers for the Manitoba Co-operator. A video that goes with the article can be found here.