The decision on which application method is best for herbicides boils down to two main factors: (a) target type and (b) mode of action. In general, it’s easier for sprays to stick to broadleaf plants on account of their comparatively larger leaf size and better wettability compared to grassy plants. There are exceptions, of course – at the cotyledon stage, broadleaf plants can be very small and a finer spray with tighter droplet spacing may be needed. Water sensitive paper is a very useful tool to make that assessment. Imagine if a tiny cotyledon could fit between deposits – that could be a miss!
Some weeds are also more difficult to wet, and those may also need a finer spray or a better surfactant for proper leaf contact. An easy test is to apply plain water to the leaf with a spray bottle. If the water beads off or the droplets remain perched on top in discrete spheres, the surface is considered hard to wet. Most grassy weeds are hard to wet, while most broadleaf weeds are easy to wet.
Grassy weeds are an especially difficult target because they have smaller, more vertically oriented leaves, and almost without exception are more difficult to wet than broadleaf species. All these factors call for finer sprays for effective targeting and spray retention.
Broadleaf weeds usually have more horizontally oriented leaves which also happen to be larger. As a result, they can intercept larger droplets quite efficiently.
There are about thirty mode of action (MOA) groups among the herbicides with about ten accounting for the majority in Canadian prairie agriculture. It’s probably an over-simplification to categorize them into just two groups – systemic and contact. But that grouping goes a long way to making an application decision.
Contact products (MOA Group 5, 6, 10, 14, 22, 27) must form a deposit that provides good coverage. Good coverage is an ambiguous term that basically means that droplets need to be closely spaced and cover a significant proportion of the surface area because their physiological effects occur under the droplet, and don’t spread far from there. One way to generate more droplets is to reduce droplet diameter, another is to add more water. A reasonable combination of both is ideal because simply making droplets smaller creates issues with evaporation and drift.
Systemic products (MOA Group 1, 2, 4, 9) will translocate within the plant to their site of action after uptake. As a result, coverage is less important as long as sufficient dose is presented to the plant. In practice, this means coarser sprays and/or less water may be acceptable.
When two factors are combined, either in a tank mix or a weed spectrum, the more limiting factor rules. Application of a tank mix or product that is active on both broadleaf and grass plants will be governed by the limitation placed on grass targets. A tank mix comprised of both systemic and contact products is governed by the limitations placed on contact products.
A factor we should also consider is soil activity and the presence of residue. Studies have shown that soil-active products are relatively insensitive to droplet size. But if they have to travel through a layer of trash to get to the soil surface, more application volume is the best tool.
Below are some recommended spray qualities and water volumes for use in Canada. The spray qualities listed in the table can be matched to a specific nozzle by referring to nozzle manufacturer catalogues, websites, or apps. Note that Wilger also offers traditional VMD measurements on their site, allowing users to be a bit more specific if necessary.
One of the fastest moving new agricultural technologies is spray drones. Hardly a month goes by without some sort of new capability, some new features. It’s truly an exciting space to watch.
As with all things, there are good news and bad news to share. First the good news.
Drone capacity is on the rise. The early drones shipped with hoppers of 8 to 10 litres. Part of the reason was to keep weight below 25 kg. Below this weight, pilot licensing requirements and flight restrictions are easier. Anyone with a Basic RPAS license (RPAS is the official term for drones, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems) can operate drones up to 25 kg. Above this weight, one requires an Advanced license, which is much more difficult to obtain. Current drones like the DJI T40 have a hopper capacity of 40 L, allowing more area to be covered per flight.
The new DJI T40 holds 40 L of liquid and has a claimed swath width of 36 feet (Source: DJI)
Swath widths are increasing with drone size. The limiting factor for electric drones is still battery power. Flight times of 15 to 20 minutes are possible, depending on the ferrying distance. As a result, larger drones don’t necessarily fly longer, but they spray wider, up to a claimed 30 feet for the DJI T30, and 36 feet for the T40.
Atomizers are improving. The trusty flat fan nozzle certainly works on a drone, but its proper operation depends on spray pressure. And spray pressure is not currently reported by drones. Instead, their application software relies on flow rate, and pressure is adjusted in the background in response to changes in travel speed, swath width, or nozzle size. Although drone flow meters are remarkably accurate, the operator could inadvertently operate the drone at a pressure that produces the wrong spray quality for the conditions.
Enter the rotary atomizer. Long a darling of the thinking applicator, these atomizers use centrifugal energy to create a spray with a tighter span, meaning fewer fine and fewer large droplets. Spray quality still depends on pressure-generated flow rate, but droplet size can additionally be altered with rotation speed. This means that if a faster travel speed increases the spray pressure, the effect on spray quality can be counteracted with a changed rotational speed to keep everything more uniform.
Rotary atomizers, like this one from XAG generate more uniform droplet sizes and can alter droplet size without changing spray pressure.
Hybrid systems are entering the market. Rotary wings allow for precise positioning of aircraft and they provide downwash that helps spread the spray pattern out. Downwash also improves canopy penetration and could reduce drift, like air-assist, if used properly. But rotary wings use a lot of energy, limiting battery life. When flown at the wrong height or speed, deposit patterns, drift, and swath width will change. That has to be managed and requires experience.
In comparison, hybrid drones have fixed wings for flight and rotary wings for take-off and landing. The rotors just rotate into the position needed at the time. Fixed wing drones will fly faster, possibly improving capacity and also reducing the effect of the downwash. These systems are new, and much needs to be learned before we understand their various characteristics. But they offer a nice avenue into more productivity.
Hybrid drones like this one from Advanced Robotics can cover more ground with less turbulence than a rotary wing drone.
Drones are multi-purpose. Virtually all drones have interchangeable wet and dry hoppers so they can be used to apply dry nutrients or seed as needed. That makes them quite versatile. But the newest spray drones have scouting-quality cameras on board and can be asked to take high resolution images while they’re spraying. At the end of the mission, a very detailed picture of the crop emerges, with much higher resolution than the higher-elevation scouts produce. Other sensors on the drones can be used for variable rate application of nutrients, or even for spot spraying weed patches.
Scouting camera takes pictures while conducting a spray mission (Source: DJI)
Now for the bad news. It’s still not legal to apply mainstream pesticides using drones in Canada, and it may stay that way for a while yet.
Pesticide application by drones remains illegal in Canada. The main reason is that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has declared drones to be unique application method, separate from ground sprays and aerial sprays from piloted aircraft. This has triggered the need for risk assessment data for spray drift, efficacy, bystander exposure, crop residue. It’s a fair decision – drones produce finer sprays than any other existing system, they potentially use lower water volumes by necessity, and they create a less predictable deposit due to rotor downwash. The majority of current pesticide formulations are designed for 5 to 10 gpa, this creates a certain concentration of surfactants and products that interact with plant surfaces or that change the potency of drift. Altering this by a factor of 5 can have undesirable outcomes. Yes, aircraft also use lower volumes, but more in the area of 2 to 5 gpa. Drones could cut that in half again, and that warrants study.
Registrants haven’t rushed to study drones. Most major manufacturers of pesticides have a small drone program to get their feet wet, and most have applied for Research Authorization (RA) from the PMRA to study them. But the decision to register a drone use for a pesticide has much to consider. Is it worth it to generate the required dataset for the regulators? Will drones amount to a lucrative new market for product? Do we have the resources and expertise to service this new market? The answers to such questions are clearly complex and much remains unknown. The registrants’ caution is understandable.
There may be a small portfolio of available products. Anyone thinking that a fleet of inexpensive, nimble drones will replace their ground sprayer is banking on the registration of the products they need in their operatioin by the registrants. The most likely products to be registered are fungicides, for which drones would offer several advantages in canopy penetration and spraying in tight time windows due to, say, wet weather.
Another obvious use is in industrial vegetation management where rough terrain or remote locations make it difficult to use wheeled sprayers. Or vector control with larvicides, which, incidentally, comprise the first pesticide registrations for drones in Canada (two microbial mosquito larvicides were approved for drone use in October 2022).
But it seems unlikely in the short term that a producer would have their pick of products to apply by drone anytime soon. And this means that a drone would remain a supplemental tool on the farm, not the main workhorse.
Regulatory hurdles are substantial. Not only is a pilot required to be licensed to use drones, a pesticide application also requires a Specialized Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC). In general, SFOCs are required if:
you are a foreign operator (i.e., not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident);
you want to fly at a special aviation event or an advertised event;
you want to fly your drone carrying dangerous or hazardous payloads (e.g. chemicals);
you want to fly more than five drones at the same time.
SFOC applications are fairly easy to fill out. Aside from identifying the drone and the pilot, the application needs the purpose of the mission, the location of the mission, and the time period of the mission. The problem is that it may take up to 30 days to hear back for simple missions, 60 days for complex mission. And if the SFOC is not granted, you can’t fly. You can’t decide to spray a field at the last minute.
The news is clearly a mixed bag. We have it all – exciting technology, obvious niche in the marketplace, significant regulations, slow process. In the meantime, spray drones are legal to purchase and relatively inexpensive. And we know they are being purchased. Canada doesn’t have a strong compliance system within the PMRA, so it’s hard to know how much pesticide spraying is being done illegally, or how perpetrators will be treated by the law.
The reputation of the industry once again rests with hope that good decisions are being made by conscientious individuals.
In 1977, David Shelton and Kenneth Von Bargen (University of Nebraska) published an article called “10-1977 CC279 Gear Up – Throttle Down”. It described the merits of reducing tractor rpm’s for trailed implements that didn’t need 540 rpm to operate. In 2001 (republished in 2009), Robert Grisso (Extension Engineer with Virginia Cooperative Extension) described the same fuel-saving practice. Again, it was noted that many PTO-driven farm implements don’t need full tractor power, so why waste the fuel? He tested shifting to a higher tractor gear and slowing engine speed to maintain the desired ground speed. 700 diesel tractors were tested, and as long as the equipment could operate at a lower PTO speed and the tractor itself didn’t lug (i.e. overload), as much as 40% of the diesel was saved.
How this applies to Airblast
For airblast operators with PTO-driven sprayers and positive-displacement pumps, this has potential for reducing air energy. Gearing up and throttling down (GUTD) sees the operator reducing the PTO speed from 540 rpm to somewhere between 350-375 rpms, which not only saves fuel but more importantly slows the fan speed. This may be an option when air energy from the sprayer, even at higher travel speeds and a low fan gear, still overblows the target canopy.
Some airblast sprayers, like this one, feature fan blades with manually-adjustable pitch to increase or lower air volume and speed. It’s often a pain to try to adjust them, and most operators only try it once.
A good time to try this out is early in the spraying season when (most) canopies are dormant and at their most sparse. For example, when applying dormant sprays in apple orchards, look to see if the wood on the sprayer-side gets wet, but does not creep around the sides. This suggests that the air, and much of it’s droplet payload, are being deflected. When the air speed is slowed, it will become more diffuse and turbulent on target surfaces, and this turbulence helps more droplets deposit in a panoramic fashion within (not past) the target canopy. Look to see if the wood is wet >50% around the circumference of the branches. You’ll get the rest when you spray form the other side.
Limitations
GUTD is not always appropriate. It requires airblast sprayers with PTO-driven positive displacement pumps (e.g. diaphragm). Airblast sprayers with centrifugal pumps would experience a drop in operating pressure and would have to be re-nozzled. Further, the pump must have sufficient surplus capacity to maintain pressure at low rpms.
GUTD is not intended for air-shear sprayers that employ twin-fluid nozzles because dropping air speed below a certain threshold may compromise spray quality; the air needs to be fast enough to create and direct spray droplets
The tractor must have sufficient horsepower (more than 25% in excess of minimally-required capacity) to permit the reduction in engine torque. This is especially important if the operator is on hilly terrain. If the tractor begins to lug (e.g. black smoke, sluggish response, strange sounds) you’ll be in trouble.
Observations
We first experimented with GUTD in 2013. We noticed how much quieter the sprayer was, and the fuel consumption was certainly reduced. One grower-cooperator switched to a GUTD spray strategy mid-way through their dormant oil application in pears. We saw the trees immediately began to drip. Panoramic coverage was improved significantly; once the operator passed down the other side of the target, capillary action and surface tension helped to give near-complete coverage.
However, in one instance, the operator was already applying a low spray volume per hectare using air induction nozzles and their lowest fan gear. By further slowing fan speed using GUTD, coverage at the top of his cherry trees was compromised.
In short, GUTD can work under the right circumstances. If you want to try it, use water-sensitive paper to establish a base-line with your current practice, and then evaluate coverage after you change your sprayer settings.
We’ve identified and discussed shortcomings in the content and design of today’s pesticide labels in an earlier article. From the perspective of the spray applicator, the information needed most often can be difficult to locate, anachronistic, contradictory, subjective or even missing from the label altogether. To truly encourage an applicator to read and follow the label we need a consistent, concise and clear format that summarizes critical content.
To that end, we have worked with growers, university/government extension and industry to develop a prototype we’re calling the “Label Summary Sheet”, or LSS for short. We presented the concept in a series of public presentations in western Canada as part of the RealAgriculture TechTour Live event in 2018. You can watch a recording of part of that event at the end of this article.
The LSS does not replace or interpret the current label, which is a legal document. It is a summary intended to accompany it. At this stage the LSS is simply a proposal. These documents are not intended for use right now; we hope they will grow and change for the better as they stimulate discussion.
Consider this metaphor: You have just purchased a laptop. When you unbox it, you get an in-depth instruction guide that covers everything from operation to trouble shooting and includes all the legal riders. It’s a daunting technical document that you likely won’t read unless something goes wrong. Knowing that, manufacturers include a graphic and accessible quick start-up guide that summarizes the most common and critical issues. It doesn’t replace the instruction manual, it just augments it. If you can’t find what you need in the quick start-up guide, you are referred to the more fulsome description in the instruction manual. Think of the pesticide label as the instruction manual and the LSS as the quick start-up guide.
Some agrichemcial companies recognize this need and have developed short documents to summarize key aspects of the label, but they are inconsistent and brand-specific marketing documents that do not always contain the information we are proposing. Here, for example, is the technology sheet for Integrity herbicide.
We tested the versatility of our LSS format by summarizing four diverse pesticide labels. Our selections are not intended to imply that these labels are particularly deficient. Only that they are commonly used, somewhat complicated and represent the spectrum of pesticide categories and application methods.
Download and look at the variety of labels we have summarized as examples. They are available here:
Note that each LSS features the same section headings and a relatively consistent layout, no matter the manufacturer. Generic icons are used to illustrate content and make it easier for users to navigate without language barriers. The LSS are black and white to facilitate reproduction and refer back to their respective pesticide labels (i.e. the online PDF, not the booklets that come with the pesticides).
LSS Sections
Here is the Pristine LSS broken down by section to highlight the key features.
1. Banner Section
The banner is at the top of every LSS. It gives the commercial product name and the date to ensure the LSS reflects the current pesticide label. Four icons represent the most common application technologies: Horizontal boom sprayer, airblast, aerial and handheld. If an application method is prohibited, a banned symbol appears (such as aerial in this case). Note we have left room for RPAAS (UAV’s) anticipating the day we have products registered for that technology. The table notes the type of pesticide (e.g. fungicide, insecticide, adjuvant, etc.). The mode of action and active ingredient(s) are noted, as well as the formulation and the Pest Control Product number.
2. Resistance Management / Planting Restrictions
Intended to provide key information on managing pesticide resistance, this section reflects label content about carry over and the rotation of active ingredients. Further, to aid in application decisions, it reflects any restrictions around maximum number of applications, sequential applications or plant back issues following use.
3. Environmental Conditions
Any restrictions regarding weather conditions during or after application are noted here. This includes set-backs or buffer zones that reflect method of application and the nature of the adjacent or downwind area in question.
4. Sprayer Settings
This section includes the six most commonly asked questions an applicator has when calibrating or adjusting their sprayer prior to use. It is organized by target crop and method of application. When the label provides a high level of detail, the user is referred to the correct page. Note the use of graphics to quickly direct the reader to the information they need. Any additional qualifications found in the label relating to sprayer settings are indicated in the notes beneath the table.
5. Handling Safety (PPE)
The concept for this simple and graphic table originated in France, and was communicated to us by Dr. Carol Black of Washington State University. This unambiguous format encourages the use of PPE while ensuring the handler uses the appropriate level of protection for each activity.
6. Mixing
As operators tank mix more products to curtail resistance, improve efficacy or improve productivity, there is a greater chance of chemical or physical incompatibility. This section summarizes any restrictions noted in the label. Learn more by downloading Purdue Universities’ publication “Avoid Tank Mixing Errors“.
7. Rates and Restricted Entry Intervals
This table can be quite complicated depending on the pesticide label. It summarizes the rates, volumes and restricted entry intervals by crop. It reflects the broadest range of product rates listed in the label. Restricted entry duration is affected by the post application activity, and this is captured in the REI column. If more detail is required, the user is referred to the appropriate page(s) of the label. Any additional qualifications found in the label relating to rates, volumes or REI are indicated in the notes beneath the table.
8. Equipment Cleanout
Finally, equipment cleanout is summarized (where possible) in a sequence of steps. When the pesticide label is silent on the cleanout procedure, the user is provided with the triple rinse protocol, which is generally held to be the industry best-practice.
Adoption
To date, this proposal has been made to Croplife Canada, the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) mirror committee (Equipment for crop protection) and more than 1,400 growers and stakeholders across Canada.
Our suggestion for adoption of the LSS (in its current form or something similar) is that regulatory agencies commission a working group comprised of representatives from grower groups, industry and government to oversee the process. The working group would support registrants as they populate (or update) the LSS template when a new product is submitted for registration, or as part of the natural review cycle.
Should the registrant encounter duplicate, missing or contradictory information while completing the LSS, it should be considered an opportunity to remedy the problem on the pesticide label. This will clarify the safest and most effective use of the pesticide for the applicator, who is currently forced to selectively ignore or interpret such errors. To our minds, this was the intent of the original labelling system, and the inclusion of the LSS is a simple and effective way to achieve that goal.
The Confusicol Sketch
In 2018 we participated in Real Agriculture’s TechTour Live event that toured four major cities in Western Canada in four days. We presented the “Confusicol sketch” as a light-hearted way to open a discussion with the audience on the strengths and weaknesses of Canadian pesticide labels and how the Label Summary Sheet might be a viable supplement. Here’s one of the live takes, warts and all. Turns out live sketch comedy is tricky…
Harvest is mostly done and growers want to hear what we’ve learned and what’s coming next. Lecture season is upon us once again.
In 2021 we’re still finding our way through virtual conferences and hybrid models, but I like to think we’re slowly returning to the in-person format. Just last week I gave my first in-person talk in 20 months. It felt wonderful after having spoken into a dead-eyed camera for so long. Half-way through my lecture I remembered a lesson I learned a few years back and spontaneously decided to go off-script.
Let me explain.
In 2016 I was invited to present at the 40th annual Tomato Days conference in Southern Ontario. I knew what I wanted to say, but didn’t have a decent slide deck for that particular topic. I’d have to pull one together.
I work hard on my presentations. I employ lots of imagery (I create all my own illustrations). I get persnickety about fonts, white space and slide transitions. I try to tell a story that educates and hopefully, entertains. Prideful? Perhaps. But if you’re willing to sit on a hard chair for an hour, I’m going to do my best to make it worth your while.
I finished the slide deck, drove three hours to the conference, handed my USB data key to the organizers and sat down to wait my turn. It was a clear, bright winter morning and I saw that the pavilion we were in was more-or-less windows and a roof. It was so bright, in fact, that none of the 150 attendees could see the projector screen!
I watched sympathetically as the first speaker spent 30 minutes trying (and failing) to verbally describe his graphs. I cringed as the second speaker pantomimed her illustrations in some kind of brave, interpretive dance. Then it was my turn.
I decided I wasn’t going down that road.
When the moderator brought up my talk, I turned the useless projector off. I asked the squirming and disinterested audience:
Q. “What’s the most terrifying thing you can do to an academician?” A. “Take their Power Point away.”
For the next 30 minutes we had a discussion about spray coverage. No props. No slides. The audience slowly warmed up to the new format. They shared experiences. They debated. They asked questions. I became more facilitator than speaker.
When our time was up I think everyone was pleased. Sure, I missed a lot of my key points and never really addressed the subjects I thought I would, but who cares? Everyone learned something.
For me, I learned that speakers should abandon the script every now and again. It’s not always ideal since we’re there to teach and structured visuals are often required. But, the next time you’re asked to speak, consider the possibility of using your time to engage your audience and establish a dialogue… not just talk at them until the moderator gives you the 5-minute warning.
I have a colleague who does this masterfully. Whenever he is the last speaker on the agenda, and the previous speakers have discourteously gone over-time and whittled his time in half, he jumps straight to his take-home slide. He leads a quick discussion with the audience and becomes a hero. The moderators are now back on schedule and no one is late for lunch.
Since “Tomato Days”, I now try to do this once a year. I never know when the mood will take me, but when it does I give the audience a choice: They can hear my canned presentation or I can shut it down and we can have a conversation. To date, given the option, every audience has opted to go off script. It’s scary, it’s fun and like I said earlier, everyone learns something.
I challenge you to try it the next time you’re lucky enough to be in front of an audience in person.
