Category: Speciality Sprayers

Main category for all sprayers that are not horizontal booms

  • Closed Transfer Systems – They’re here.

    Closed Transfer Systems – They’re here.

    Closed Transfer Systems (CTS) permit the direct transfer of pesticides from container to sprayer while isolating the process from the operator and the environment. Similar systems are already used with bulk pesticide containers and in other industries to dispense a wide range of liquids from household products to industrial chemicals. In the case of small-volume containers (e.g., up to 20 L), these systems include an integrated container rinsing function.

    The UK’s Iain Robertson testing Pentair’s Cleanload Nexus Coupler

    CTS are comprised of two parts: The Cap (or Adaptor) and the Coupler. The CTS cap is either pre-fitted on the pesticide container, or the user must remove and replace the existing, non-CTS cap with an adaptor. Generically, the container is then locked into the coupler, and a valve in the cap or adaptor opens to permit chemical to be drawn out. If a partial amount is required, the valve can be closed to re-seal the container for safe removal, and the coupler and lines can then be rinsed. If the full amount is required, then the container is also rinsed prior to removal.

    Regulatory Requirements: Canada

    Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) considers the requirement for closed transfer when products go through their natural re-evaluation cycle. They define it as follows:

    “A closed system means removing a pesticide from its original container, rinsing, mixing, diluting, and transferring the pesticide through connecting hoses and couplings that prevent exposure to the pesticide.”

    The requirement is primarily a means of reducing operator exposure and point-source contamination during filling, but can also be used to impose rate restrictions, or in response to reformulation. In recent years, several pesticides have had statements added to the labels regarding the requirement for a closed transfer system. They have stated that there have been three scenarios that they have included closed systems on labels:

    • The registrant requested closed systems be used in the occupational risk assessment.
    • Closed systems were required when triggered by the occupational risk assessment as a form of mitigation to reduce exposure to the mixer/loader. This is the most common reason it gets added.
    • Closed systems were used in the specific exposure study submitted to PMRA that was used in the risk assessment.

    As standardized language is developed, Canadian operators can expect to see statements that vary in their specificity, such as in the following two examples:

    Product 1: “Requirement for additional personal protection equipment (PPE) and engineering controls when mixing/loading and applying to various crops.”
    Product 2: “Closed mixing/loading systems are required. A closed system means removing a pesticide from its original container, rinsing, mixing, diluting, and transferring the pesticide through connecting hoses, pipes, and couplings that are sufficiently tight to prevent exposure of any person to the pesticide or rinsing solution.”

    Questions and concerns have been raised by registrants and growers as these changes have appeared on pesticides with particularly important actives. As of 2025:

    Products with standard CTS label statement:

    • Lorox L Herbicide
    • Ethrel PGR
    • Dibrom Insecticide

    Products that require CTS without standard label statement:

    • Bravo ZN Fungicide (bulk totes only, chlorothalonil in 10 L jugs does not require CTS)
    • Captan 480 SC and Captan L Fungicide (only if open cab AND exceeding a maximum L/day threshold)

    Products that may require CTS but not clear on the label:

    • Sevin XLR Insecticide – “use a closed mixing system”

    In some cases, registrants have avoided the requirement by splitting the label rate and promoting multiple applications to ensure rates do not reach the PMRA’s threshold for closed transfer. Another strategy is to remove small-volume formats and rely on Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBC or totes), which already employ closed transfer. If neither option is available, registrants may face expensive changes (which are currently unspecified) to their injection molding process. This is assuming North American small-volume container packers respond to emerging Canadian requirements.

    Commercial horticultural and specialty crop growers (or field croppers with smaller acreages and diversified crops) are more likely to purchase pesticides in small-volume containers as opposed to a tote. For growers, the practical requirements for compliant closed transfer are not well understood. Most do not currently have CTS and feel a retrofit is overly burdensome (e.g. slow, expensive, complicated), incompatible with their equipment, or redundant with conventional PPE.

    As Canadian agriculture comes to terms with these regulatory changes, the European experience offers valuable insight.

    Regulatory Requirements: Europe

    In Europe, reducing operator exposure and point source contamination during filling has long been a regulatory priority. Regulatory requirements for CTS are slated or already exist. The following dates are “fluid estimates” that will depend on the politics of each country. At the time of writing, the Netherlands are planning to make it compulsory on liquid formulations by 2025. Denmark will follow by 2024-25 and Belgium by 2026. The Czech Republic already stipulates about 12 separate products must be used in combination with CTS, and a blanket requirement is under discussion. In some cases, growers will be granted a three-year transition period before they must show that they have a capable CTS. Currently the UK doesn’t yet have any concrete targets, but they have been testing CTS since 2017 and their experiences have informed product development and the creation of international standards. According to a 2023 article in EI Operator, CropLife Europe stated that Europe is on track to make CTS available to all European farmers by 2030

    Recycling

    According to easyconnect (c. 2024), Germany is on the cusp of agreeing to accept both jugs and caps for shredding. Currently the caps are collected separately (if at all) because they aren’t typically rinsed. This is the same as in Canada.

    Cap and foil collection awaiting disposal.

    However, because the transfer systems also rinse the connection, the caps are down to the same 0.01% residue limit as the jugs, so as long as they’re dry, they’re both recyclable. Discussions are ongoing with France to make the same agreement.

    ISO definitions of CTS

    The 2021 publication of ISO 21191 has greatly facilitated CTS development. The standard defines what a CTS is and specifies the testing methods and compliance criteria for both operator and environment-related safety. Summarizing key points in the ISO:

    The CTS shall

    • connect to containers and application equipment;
    • control flow and measuring of all or a part of the container content;
    • rinse the container into the application equipment;
    • flush the CTS equipment as well as the interface;
    • permit operation while using appropriate personal protection equipment specified on pesticide label and any associated operator’s manual;
    • have clearly labelled controls;
    • be designed to avoid any return of liquid to the clean water supply.

    The CTS shall not

    • cause leakage when the device is connected to the mix tank or application equipment;
    • influence the circulation system of the connected application equipment;
    • allow the introduction of air that promotes foaming or reduces pump performance;
    • leave a residue level of more than 0.01% of the containers nominal volume following rinsing.

    The ISO was reinforced by a 2023 Crop-Life Europe study that tested three systems applying for ISO certification. It demonstrated a more than 98% reduction in operator exposure (while using gloves) for the easyFlow M, GoatThroat, and Cleanload Nexus systems. These systems, and others, are described below.

    Note: when using crop protection products, it remains a legal obligation for operators to wear the personal protection equipment indicated on the product label.

    Commercial Systems

    Pesticide container compatibility is fundamental to the success of any CTS design. There are exceptions, but many agrichemical companies in Europe and North America already employ a 63 mm screw cap for small-volume containers. According to the EPA (EPA 40 CFR Part 165 Subpart B), liquid agricultural pesticides in containers that are rigid and have capacities equal to or larger than 3 liters must have a screw cap either 63 or 38 mm in diameter and at least one thread revolution at 6 threads per inch. Depending on the CTS design, jugs may or may not require a tamper-proof foil. As of 2024, the first available jugs in the U.K. did not have foils.

    The following systems are compatible with the 63 mm cap and are emerging as viable options at the time of writing. Some have been commercially available for several years and others are either new or still in development. Cost and availability will vary based on regional distribution and demand. Interested readers are advised to contact the manufacturer to confirm compatibility with their preferred products.

    easyFlow (agrotop)

    The easyFlow was developed with support from Bayer and has been available for more than 10 years. It requires the operator to remove the existing container cap and replace it with the easyFlow adaptor, which features a built-in knife that automatically cuts any foil seal. It is compatible with container sizes between 1 and 15 L. There are three versions of the easyFlow coupler.

    easyFlow

    The original easyFlow coupler installs directly to the sprayer tank. Once the pesticide container is joined (maximum 10 L format), product pours via gravity straight into the sprayer tank. The container can then be rinsed using an external water source (e.g. via a garden hose) with a min. ¾” diameter, anti backflow valve and water pressure between 3-6 bar.

    easyFlow directly mounted on sprayer tank (image from FreeForm)

    easyFlow M

    The easyFlow M is a standalone coupler that supports containers over 10 L and permits dosing via an integrated measuring unit just below the mounting point. The measuring unit holds up to 2,250 ml with a minimum volume of 60 ml and graduations of 20 ml (50 ml over the 400 ml mark). Product transfer is achieved either by gravity, or by a pump (e.g. Teed to the suction side of the sprayer pump).

    easyFlow M mounted on separate transfer station (image from FreeForm)

    According to agrotop, a 5L container under suction took 2-2.5 minutes to empty and clean during the Croplife study. For reference, some operators claim they are able to drain and triple rinse in less than a minute using a traditional pour into an inductor. An operator in wheat aims to fill in 5-10 min depending and uses 5-10 jugs. On the other hand, CTS users have claimed a “hidden savings” from the overlap in operations where the product from one jug is still entering the system as another is being drained and a third is being prepared. AgroTop sells an optional vent spike called a “Chucker” that makes the process faster still, but penetrating the jug raises questions about ISO compliance.

    Empty containers can then be rinsed before removal, or partial containers removed leaving the adaptor on the jug. While this unit can be mounted on the side of the sprayer, most UK farmers that have trialed this system opted to install it on a portable cart.

    Agrotop’s easyFlow M (Image from Agrotop Website)

    easyFlow QF

    This system is still under development and information is limited. The easyFlow QF coupler reputedly has all the features of the M but is compatible with all manner of container and employs a 12 VDC supply to automatically meter the dose (starting from a minimum 1 L volume). The rinsing process is electronically automated as well.

    Videos of the easyFlow systems in use can be seen here and here. In the United states, these couplers are carried by Greenleaf Technologies. In Canada, it is also carried by FreeForm, a plastic molding company out of Saskatchewan.

    GoatThroat

    US-based GoatThroat has provided industrial liquid transfer solutions since 2001. Their CCS-8600 series requires the operator to remove the existing container cap and replace it with an adaptor with a siphon tube (which also pierces any foil). The container is then pressurized by a hand pump or compressor, forcing chemical into a measuring cylinder before it’s drawn into the sprayer. A clean water line then rinses the container (if emptied completely) and system before decoupling. The adapter can be left on containers if using partial volumes.

    Comparatively, this system transfers and rinses more slowly than other small-format container systems and is entirely manual with multiple steps to transfer product. However, it now has a compressor option to replace manual pumping and it is highly customizable, making compatible with any container from a 1 L jug to a 1,000 L IBC tote. Further, its ability to transfer as little as 5 ml increments makes it a good option for small-acreage horticultural, specialty crop, and research farms where accurate partial loads are prioritized.

    easyconnect cap (and Ezi-connect coupler)

    The easyconnect cap was originally developed by IPN Scholle with the support of BASF and is currently under development by Easy Cap and United Cap. It is compatible with container sizes between 1 and 15 L (possibly 20 L).

    The eascyconnect cap (image from www.easyconnect.tech)

    Because the cap is factory-fitted, it never has to be manually unscrewed or removed and works without requiring a tamper-proof foil. Its success is contingent on major agrochemical manufacturers agreeing to pre-fit it on their products. This has been facilitated by the easyconnect Working Group (ECWG), a consortium of ten major agrichemical companies, including those selling biological products and liquid fertilizers, that are supporting the European implementation of this format.

    BASF displayed their compatible coupler, the ezi-connect at the 2023 Agritechnica in Hanover, Germany. Transfer requires the operator to snap off a dust cover, invert the container, and connect and lock it into the coupler. Another lever advances a probe and allows partial volumes to be dispensed via a vacuum generated by the hopper. Finally, a trigger controls rinsing water and undoing a catch allows the assembly to be rotated to improve cleaning without removing it.

    Easyconnect will be factory installed on 1, 5 and 10 L containers in 2024. This will not be the entire portfolio from all agrichemical companies in the easy connect working group, but will represent a “significant amount” that will demonstrate commitment. In 2022, Syngenta released some information about their new jug format, the Evopac. In November 2024, Syngenta released this short video describing the design, which has the easyconnect cap and several features informed by sprayer operators to make it as safe and convenient as possible. The ezi-connect coupler will be launched in Europe in the 2025-2026 season.

    BASF’s ezi-connect (Image from BASF website)

    Cleanload Nexus (Pentair Hypro)

    The Cleanload Nexus is a JKI-approved coupler designed for use with easyconnect caps on 1 to 15 L containers. The supplied 25 mm x 4 m suction hose can be connected by teeing it directly into the sprayer suction line ahead of the venturi (mounted to sprayer) or using a suitable dry-break coupler (mounted on a portable transfer station). The supplied 16 mm x 2.5 m rinse water hose connects to a clean rinse water source either on or off the sprayer.

    The Cleanload Nexus in use

    It is entirely mechanical and has just two manual controls. The first is a lever that locks the cap in place. Rotating the lever controls the emptying rate, which is between 0.5 and 1 L/sec at 4 bar, depending on liquid viscosity. The time to empty and rinse a 15 L container at 3.5 bar is about 2 minutes, and users have stated that this is as fast or faster than traditional pouring and rinsing methods.

    For dosing, it currently relies on the operator using scale markings on the side of the pesticide container. It has been noted that the plunger mechanism displaces sufficient volume that it must be accounted for when reading graduations. Alternately, the calibrated suction hose connected to the sprayer can be used to assess larger volumes. The hose is, according to many, not a viable method for dosing and improvements are reputedly under development. Neither approach can achieve the ISO +/- 2.5% dosing accuracy, so Pentair has developed a dosing cylinder add-on that sits between the Cleanload Nexus and the sprayer and provides +/-1% accuracy (anticipated launch was in November 2023). A new measuring device, the Ezi-Connect VacTran Measure Unit by Wisdom Systems, was introduced in 2024 and is discussed in this article from EI OPerator.

    Plumbing diagram for the Cleanload Nexus (from Pentair website).
    While this video depicts 4 quarter-turns separated by 10-15 seconds rinses, practical application sees the simultaneous full rotation of the jug during a 30 second rinse. While the unit will rinse itself, some keep a dedicated jug full of clean water on hand and run that through the system last to ensure it’s left in a clean state. Note: operators say they only thoroughly rinse the cap when using a partial volume.

    AccuRite coupler (Tefen)

    Israel’s Tefen has produced dosing pumps and flow products for many years and began field testing the AccuRite CTS coupler in 2022. With a single digital interface to operate the filling process and mobile capabilities for remote management and cloud-based record keeping (e.g., date, time and chemical usage). It is designed to work with the easyconnect cap on containers ranging from 1 to 20 L. This is slow compared with the ~60L/min. from the Pentair system, but Tefen is working to improve the speed.

    Its diaphragm pump can deliver partial volumes at 0.1 L increments with an accuracy of +/- 2.5% of the smallest container used, and a minimum of 0.5 litres remaining in the container. Skip to the 1:50 mark to see the product reviewed (no English) in this video. In 2024, the following instructional video was released:

    We saw one moulded into a Kverneland sprayer (now owned by Kubota) that was designed to couple with the current induction bowl. This is the first time a sprayer company has altered their design to accommodate a CTS and it points to the future.

    Lechler’s LeC Coupler

    Lechler’s Coupler is compatible with the easyconnect cap and features more electrical automation in its design. It requires a 12V electric supply and creates suction (typically from the sprayer’s venturi) to draw out the chemical. A small metering motor automatically moves the probe that enters the container to adjust emptying rate. It employs a pressurized water line running at about 6 bar.

    The system will be controlled via a smartphone app, where the operator can choose partial or full emptying of product containers and control the operating and rinsing processes. Rather than metering flow, the unit employs three load cells with vibration compensation to weigh product. Lechler claims this is more accurate (automatic dosing to a set volume with +/- 2.5% accuracy), because it can compensate for different product densities. The user manually enters these values from product SDS, but likely QR codes will be used in the future.

    The system underwent further testing in 2024 and commercial availability is anticipated for 2025. Farmer’s Weekly covered the details of this system following Agritechnica 2023.

    2025 AgSpray Expo

    References

    • Options expanded for closed-transfer sprayer filling – Farmers Weekly (fwi.co.uk) (May 2022)
    • Aspects of Applied Biology 147, 2022 International Advances in Pesticide Application Review of ISO 21191 Closed Transfer Systems Performance Specifications. Nancy Westcott and Jan Langenakens.
    • Published abstracts from the Association of Applied Biologists’ Closed Transfer Systems Workshop hosted at the Silsoe Research Institute and Silsoe Spray Applications Unit, Bedford MK45 4HP, UK 11th May 2022
    • Pro Operator Magazine, 2017-2023

    This article was originally co-authored by Mick Roberts (Owner/Editor of Pro Operator Magazine) with significant contributions from Jan Langenakens (Principal at AAMS) and informed by insightful communications with both users and manufacturers of CTS. It has been updated as of January, 2025.

  • Tank Mix Compatibility

    Tank Mix Compatibility

    Tank mixing is the practice of combining multiple registered agricultural products in the sprayer tank for application in a single pass.

    The Pros of Tank Mixing

    • Efficiency: If the timing makes sense, a single pass saves time and reduces trample/compaction. E.g. A “weed-and-feed” application of fertilizer and herbicide in corn.
    • Resistance management: Multiple modes of action help prevent resistance development and combat existing problems.
    • Improved performance: Labels may require adjuvants to condition carrier water or reduce drift (utility adjuvants) or to improve the degree of contact between droplets and the plant surface, or enhance product uptake or rainfastness (activator adjuvants).
    Prowl meets Roundup – A beautiful photo by Peter Smith, University of Guelph

    The Cons of Tank Mixing

    Tank mixing requires caution and careful investigation. Should tank mix partners prove to be incompatible, the consequences can be subtle or dramatic, but are always negative. There are two kinds of incompatibility.

    1. Biological or Chemical Incompatibility

    This form of incompatibility may not be immediately apparent following an application. Some level of crop damage or impaired efficacy occurs, which may impact yield or warrant an additional “clean-up” application. This is the result of product synergism or antagonism.

    Synergism (Crop damage)

    When products synergize, the application becomes too potent. For example, an adjuvant could affect crop retention or uptake, exposing it to more active ingredient or overwhelming crop metabolism. The result is damage to the crop we are trying to protect.

    Antagonism (Reduced efficacy)

    When products antagonize, the application becomes less potent. There are several examples:

    • pH adjusters in one product may reduce the half-life of another product (e.g. The fungicide Captan has a half-life of 3 hours at a pH of 7.1 and only 10 minutes at a pH of 8.2.)
    • Active ingredients may get tied-up on the clay-based adjuvants in other products (e.g. glyphosate tied up by Metribuzin).
    • One product changes the uptake/retention of another. For example, a contact herbicide burns weed foliage beyond its ability to take up a lethal dose of systemic herbicide.

    2. Physical Incompatibility

    Physical incompatibility affects work rate and efficacy. Products form solids that interfere with, or halt, spraying. It can also make sprayer clean-up more difficult. For example, weak-acid herbicides lower the pH of the spray mix, reducing the solubility of Group 2 herbicides (i.e. imidazolinones, sulfonylureas, sulfonanilides). The oily formulation then adheres to plastic and rubber surfaces in tanks, connectors and hoses.

    There are many forms of physical incompatibility:

    • Liquids can curdle into pastes and gels that clog plumbing to such an extent that flushing cannot clear it and a manual tear down is required.
    Clogged screens
    • Dry formulations don’t hydrate or disperse, becoming sediment that clogs screens and nozzles. Even if they are small enough to spray, they reduce coverage uniformity. For example, a dry product added behind an oil gets coated, preventing it from hydrating.
    • Certain product combinations may cause settling, or one partner is more prone to settling. If the sprayer sits without agitation, settled products may or may not resuspend. Even if they do resuspend in the tank, they may remain as sediment in lines.
    Residue in hoses – Photo courtesy of Fred Whitford, Purdue University
    Clay-based products may or may not resuspend easily in a tank. Even then, they may not resuspend in plumbing lines.
    • Certain product combinations may cause foaming, or one partner may be prone to foaming, causing overflows or breaking pump suction. When products foam, dry products added through the foam may swell, preventing hydration.
    The Foamover Blues
    • Phase separation occurs when products layer in the tank. Consider oil and water. Even with agitation, the active ingredients may not be uniformly suspended in the tank and coverage uniformity will be reduced during spraying.
    Salad dressing left to rest is a great example of separation and stratification (left). Agitation helps emulsify it (right)

    Due Diligence – Preventing Tank Mixing Errors

    Incompatibility is often a function of the inert ingredients in pesticide formulations (e.g. thickeners, adjuvants, defoamers, stabilizers, solvents, etc.) and not the active ingredients. The more products you add to the tank, the more likely you’ll encounter an issue. It is prudent to perform a jar test to confirm physical compatibility. Remember, even if registered tank mix partners support mixing, your pace, mixing order, and water quality/temperature could cause issues.

    Do not decide to try a new-to-you registered tank mix during loading. Even if you’ve used these products successfully in the past, formulations change without notice. Plan as much as possible off season when there is time to do the following:

    Consult the pesticide labels

    Pesticide labels are always the first point of reference. They should be obeyed even if they contradict conventional practices. Booklet-style labels that come with the products are long, difficult to search and may not be up-to-date.

    In Canada, it is faster and easier to go to the PMRA Label Search website and search labels in PDF format. In other countries, consult the manufacturer’s website for label information. For each tank mix partner, use <CTRL>+F to find the following keywords:

    • Do Not Mix
    • Mix
    • Hours
    • Agitation
    • Fertilizers

    Consult manufacturer and crop advisors

    You’re likely not the first to consider a certain tank mix. Learn from those that have been there already:

    • Consult your chemical sales representative. They know their products best and want to see you succeed. They may have insight that is not found on the product label.
    • Consult local government or academic extension programs for an unbiased opinion.
    • Enlist the help of a professional crop advisor.

    It is a good practice to get tank mix recommendations in writing. If something should go wrong, liability is an important concern.

    If you’ve made a mess – The Reverse Jar Test

    It happens. We’ll use this real-world situation as an example:

    “I mixed up a batch of MCPA 500 A and Glyphosate at ¾ recommended label rate, but then got delayed on application with a stuck drill. I came back to the sprayer and found a nasty chemical precipitate – like waxy chunks. Agitation didn’t break them down. I dumped the tank out as I didn’t want to pump it through the booms. How do I clean up the chunks in the system?”

    We forwarded this question to ag chemists Dr. Eric Spandl (Land of Lakes) and Dr. Jim Reiss (Precision Laboratories) and developed this response:

    “Wearing appropriate personal protective equipment, physically remove the “chunky” material. A lot of time can be wasted (and rinsate water created) by experimenting with various concoctions, but if you do choose to try a compatibility agent, first try it in a mason jar. If it works to dissolve the material, it can be added to the tank with water and agitated. If not, you are down to manual cleaning: hot water under pressure.”

    We dubbed this process “The Reverse Jar Test”. Do not add hot water, cleaners or compatibility agents until the reverse jar test confirms success. You may create a larger problem. Of course, the best advice is to not put yourself in this position to begin with. Once again, don’t make mixing decisions at the inductor bowl – make them before ordering product.

    Tank mixing regulations in Canada (January, 2025 update)

    The following legislative framework is specific to Canada, so readers in other countries should consult their own regulatory authorities.

    Paragraph 6(5)(b) of the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) states that no person shall use a pest control product in a way that is inconsistent with the directions on the label. In 2020, a public consultation was held to consolidate and clarify tank mixing requirements. This led to Regulatory Proposal PRO2020-01 (Streamlined Category B Submissions and Tank Mix Labelling – July 3, 2020). Essentially, it stated that tank mixing would be allowed if there was text on the product label that specifically permitted it. This could be a specific tank mix combination, a general statement permitting mixing, or both.

    A new general label statement that permits tank mixing was proposed to consolidate tank mixing information in one place on the label and allow greater flexibility in terms of tank mixing options. The prohibition against tank mixing products with the same mode of action was removed, and the reference to tank mixing with a fertilizer is now an optional component of that statement. The general label statement reads as follows:

    “This product may be tank mixed with (a fertilizer, a supplement, or with) registered pest control products, whose labels also allow tank mixing, provided the entirety of both labels, including Directions For Use, Precautions, Restrictions, Environmental Precautions, and Spray Buffer Zones are followed for each product. In cases where these requirements differ between the tank mix partner labels, the most restrictive label must be followed. Do not tank mix products containing the same active ingredient unless specifically listed on this label.

    In December of 2022, Health Canada released a guidance document describing the federal tank mixing policy. This document is not part of the PCPA, but is an administrative document intended to facilitate compliance by all stakeholders. Registrants have until December, 2025 to update their extension material to align with amended product labels and guidance documents. Similarly, users of pest control products will be provided the same transitional period to adjust their purchasing and production practices to align with the provisions of this document. This means the policy will be in full effect on December , 2025. After that, applicators in Canada can only apply tank mixes that appear specifically on a product label, or tank mixes of products whose labels include the new general tank mixing statement.

    Summary of the guidance document

    Tank mixing is not permitted when a potential tank mix partner’s label has some exclusionary statement, such as:

    • Forbidding mixing. E.g. “Do not mix or apply this product with any other additive, pesticide or fertilizer except as specifically recommended on this label.”
    • Limiting tank mixes to only those specifically listed on the product label.

    During the label transition, guidance relating to tank mixing may be found under a section specific to tank mixing, and/or under other sections as in the following examples:

    • Directions for use: E.g. “When tank-mixes are permitted, read and observe all label directions, including rates and restrictions for each product used in the tank-mix. Follow the more stringent label precautionary measures for mixing, loading and applying stated on both product labels.”
    • Buffer Zones: E.g. “When tank mixes are permitted, consult the labels of the tank-mix partners and observe the largest (most restrictive) spray buffer zone of the products involved in the tank mixture and apply using the coarsest spray (ASABE) category indicated on the labels for those tank mix partners.”
    • Resistance Management: E.g. “Use tank mixtures with [fungicide/bactericides/insecticides/acaricides] from a different group that is effective on the target [pathogen/pest] when such use is permitted.”

    If there are no directions on the labels, don’t tank mix them.

    If your situation does not fit these examples, the following table (Appendix A at the bottom of the Guidance Document), lists several other examples examples of different tank mix wording scenarios for registered pest control products.

    Table 1: Permissibility of tank mixing based on various combinations of label statements related to tank mixing

    Product X label saysProduct Y label saysCan I tank mix? (Y/N)
    Nothing (silent on tank mixing)Nothing (silent on tank mixing)N
    General tank mix statementNothing
    (silent on tank mixing)
    N
    Nothing (silent on tank mixing)General tank mix statementN
    General tank mix statementGeneral tank mix statementY
    General tank mix statementTank mix with Product XY
    Tank mix with Product YGeneral tank mix statementY
    Tank mix with Product YNothing (silent on tank mixing)Y
    Nothing (silent on tank mixing)Tank mix with Product XY
    Tank mix with Product YTank mix with Product XY
    Tank mix with Product YExclusionary statement (and label does not include a specific Product X tank mix)N*
    Exclusionary statement (and label does not include a specific Product Y tank mix)Tank mix with Product XN*
    *There may be registered labels that have tank mix scenarios like this. Note that this is not allowed for new tank mix label amendments. Further, any product labels that have tank mix scenarios like this must be amended to alleviate the contradictory scenario. To do this, using the last scenario in Table 1 as an example, one of the following must occur: 1) remove the Product X tank mix from the Product Y label, 2) remove the exclusionary statement from the Product X label, or 3) add a specific tank mix for Product Y on the Product X label. Source: PMRA Guidance Document Tank Mix Labelling 2023

    Tank mixing adjuvants

    According to the PMRA, the rules surrounding the tank mixing of adjuvants remain the same as they have been since 2009, and are not included under the new guidance document. While the PCPA does not reference adjuvants specifically, they are prescribed to be pest control products in the regulations (Pest Control Products Regulations s.2(b)). The general reference in the PCPA that applies is s.6(5)(b).

    Therefore, in the case of activator adjuvants, the label for at least one tank mix partner must specify the use of an adjuvant, and only registered adjuvants labeled for the crop and for tank mixing are permitted. For example, tank mixing the herbicide Reflex with a registered soybean oil adjuvant not labelled for the use, or with an unregistered food grade activator adjuvant, would not be acceptable. Utility adjuvants have registration numbers, but their use is not prescribed or specified on pesticide labels, leaving their use to the discretion of the operator.

    For more information on Canada’s Tank Mixing Policy

    For more information, please contact Health Canada’s Pest Management Information Service.

    Academic Resources

    Even when products are potentially compatible, issues can arise from errors in mixing order, pace, carrier volume, carrier quality and agitation. These are discussed in our article on sprayer loading and jar testing.

    In 2018, Purdue University published “Avoid Tank Mixing Errors”. It is an excellent reference.

    In late 2022, Australia’s GRDC released a comprehensive guide on pesticide mixing and batching (within the context of the Australian agronomic environment, of course), which can be downloaded for free, here.

    Finally, you can watch a 2021 presentation on tank mixing (below). It was delivered to a grape growing audience, but much of the content applies across agriculture. There are a few “oops” moments where I didn’t say quite what I meant. I misread the Sencor dissolution / filtration work. And, I really didn’t answer the last question about mixing herbicides. The answer should have been to consult labels and local resources, such as OMAFRA’s Crop Protection Hub. Note that any discussion of Canadian regulatory policy may have changed in light of the new 2022 Guidance Document.

    This article was co-written with Mike Cowbrough, OMAFRA Weed Management Specialist – Field Crops

  • Think Before Adding Adjuvants

    Think Before Adding Adjuvants

    It’s odd to begin an article by suggesting the reader consult another, but Dr. Tom Wolf wrote a great summary about adjuvants for SaskPulse in 2023 and you can and should download it here. While I’m at it, also grab this article by Rich Zollinger, Emeritus Extension Weed Scientist, North Dakota State University.

    OK, back to the article at hand. An adjuvant is “any substance in a formulation or added to the spray tank to modify the biological activity or application characteristics”. This means they have an array of functions, such as masking pesticide odor, conditioning carrier water, improving mixing and reducing drift (Utility modifier adjuvants). They can also improve the degree of contact between droplets and the plant surface, or enhance product uptake or rainfastness (Activator adjuvants which include a subset of products referred to as Surfactants [SURFace ACTive agENTS]).

    For example, this short video was filmed in 2015 to demonstrate how a sticker surfactant reduces runoff and how a penetrant surfactant can help a product pass through a waxy plant surface. This video was filmed and edited by former OMAFA summer student, Victoria Radauskas.

    Generally, pesticides already come preformulated with the requisite inerts, which include the utility modifier and activator adjuvants that ensure ease of use and optimal product performance. But sometimes the pesticide label requires the operator to add a particular name brand or category of adjuvant. In this case, the pesticide does not include the adjuvant because it might negatively impact product stability, increase bulk and/or increase expense.

    Canada is seeing an increase in the number of adjuvants for purchase (particularly utility modifiers). Claims of improved performance make it tempting to reflexively and proactively throw them in the mix. The grower is free to use any adjuvant provided it is registered for use on the crop and in combination with the pesticide being applied. You can learn more about the regulatory realities in our tank mix article.

    We suggest that adding any adjuvant is an optional last step in optimizing a sprayer’s performance. Dialing in all other aspects tend to reap the greatest rewards. Here are a few general guidelines when using surfactants in horticultural crops:

    • Do not use penetrant surfactants (including oils) with copper, sulphur or captan fungicides.
    • Do not use penetrant surfactants with contact or surface pesticides.
    • Stickers may impede the movement of systemic products.
    • Stickers may prevent redistribution to newly emerging leaves early in the growing season (but they may be desirable during wet springs).
    • Deposition utility modifiers may negatively affect canopy penetration when employing multi row or alternate row traffic patterns.
    • Spreaders are more likely to incur runoff so adjust volumes accordingly.

    Additional Resources

    The following video presentation was recorded for a 2021 adjuvant conference in Argentina. It’s a primer to introduce what adjuvants are and why we might consider using them. You’ll note that I speak slowly during the presentation – that’s because it was being translated and I wanted to make that process as easy as possible. Also, I think I mistakenly said captan was an insecticide – in fact it’s a fungicide. Oops.

    And here’s a 2022 interview from Real Agriculture’s “The Agronomists” featuring Tom Wolf of Agrimetrix, and Greg Dahl of Winfield United. For the adjuvant-related part of the conversation, you can pan ahead to the six-minute mark.

    And here’s a 2025 interview from Real Agriculture’s “The Agronomists” featuring Jason Deveau and and Austin Anderson of Helena.

  • Working with an Arborist: Drive-Along Diaries #1

    Working with an Arborist: Drive-Along Diaries #1

    April 23rd, 3:45 am

    I was excited. Today would be my first in a series of drive-along experiences with Ontario sprayer operators. However, to get from my home in Southwestern Ontario to Newmarket, I would have to cross Toronto. This is not my favourite thing to do. But, Dean Solway, Plant Healthcare Supervisor with Shady Lane Expert Tree Care, was based out of Mount Albert and he liked to start at 6:00 am. So, a hot shower and a hot coffee (not necessarily in that order) gave me the emotional support I needed to throw elbows on the parking lot we call the 401.

    It was strangely unsettling to see Tim Horton’s closed, and equally odd to see only a handful of cars on the highways. That may have been the fastest, smoothest drive through Toronto that I’ve ever had.

    5:45

    I arrived at the 10-acre lot that has been owned by the company for the last 45 years. I walked past a small, 500 tree nursery they’d recently planted to find Dean in the office. He was busy checking bookings for the day and assigning jobs to his three Plant Health Care trucks (PHC1, 2 and 3). More on those later. After a few introductions, I faded into the background and let them get on with things.

    Dean was ensuring the routes made sense and that everyone was ready to go. He explained that the week’s bookings were set each Friday, but that things could always change at the last minute. Front-line administration would handle client calls and communicate with the trucks throughout the day. They also ensured the clients were given at least a day’s notice that someone would be coming to treat their plants. Interestingly, the company is also required to inform the client’s neighbours. Dean said it helped avoid potential conflicts such cars, sunbathers or laundry left in the path of potential overspray. Not that such things ever happen, of course.

    Operators kept referring to “The Board” which showed their daily assignments. With 2,800 clients scatted over Brechin, Barrie, Oakville, Pickering, Oshawa and downtown Toronto, thoughtful planning and clear communication were critical requirements.

    I eavesdropped as Dean talked to a new hire about safety. Filter checks/replacements, face shields, gloves and orange vests were assigned, and I’m confident that it wasn’t staged for my benefit. Operator safety was a theme that came up throughout the day and it was clear Dean took it seriously. As the trucks got ready to roll, he fielded random questions about pesticide rates, tank mixes, crop staging and general agronomy as he double-checked that each truck was properly loaded.

    I learned that standard operating practice was to regularly test the equipment and plumbing in each truck. Experience showed it was easier and less contentious to deal with minor leaks and similar issues in the yard than on a Toronto highway or even worse, at a client’s home. That took us outside.

    6:15

    Each truck was equipped with a tablet containing SDSs for all the products they use, PDFs of the pesticide labels and a hyperlink to Health Canada’s Pesticide Label Search website. Many of the products used by arborists are biorational / organic, either by choice or because labels do not permit the use of many conventional pesticides in urban environments. I felt a bit of team-pride when I was told that OMAFRA’s Pub 840 is a significant reference document for the company.

    As he checked the trucks, Dean noted that it was important to explain to clients that eradicating pests isn’t always possible. Most often it’s about maintenance. For example, today would predominantly be about fungicide applications. Ornamental fruit trees such as crab apple were at risk of scab infection and the window for protection was narrow. Far be it for me to bring up climate change, but Dean did mention that this was the earliest he’d had to apply these products in nine years.

    Protectant fungicide treatments need time to dry to be effective. If it were to start raining steadily inside two hours following the application, Dean said the client would be eligible for a re-application ASAP. According to OMAFRA Publication 840, four applications were permitted for this chemistry, and clients were scheduled to receive three at regular intervals over four weeks. That gave time for the applicator to rotate back around, and it left capacity for a possible re-application if required.

    Incidentally, I am a master of foreshadowing.

    The Trucks

    PHC1 and PHC2 were designed to apply plant protection products. PHC3 was strictly for fertilizer and carried an extra 450 L just in case it was needed throughout the day. To remain flexible and efficient, the fertilizer applicators had to be able to take advantage of opportunities if the schedule changed. Returning to reload would be a big loss of productivity, so a little extra onboard was reasonable insurance.

    Dean explained that all the trucks were filled either the morning of, or the night before, depending on the product. In the case of compost tea, it’s a three-day process that requires a lot of planning. It must be applied at less than 50 psi to prevent mechanical damage to the living component of the mix. It can be applied to the soil or as a foliar treatment.

    We’d be riding in PHC1, which had a single tank subdivided into four separate 170-gallon tanks. The reel was a 60 amp electric auto reel with 300 feet of high-pressure hose. The pump was an AR 813 diaphragm pump, and the motor was a 20 hp twin cycle Vanguard and capable of producing up to 300 psi which is sometimes needed to reach the tops of the highest trees. Dean helped design this system himself and grinned when he said that even as low as 150 psi, you can feel the pistol “kick” in your hand.

    Speaking of which, the hose terminated in a quick-connect that allows the operator to swap between a pistol for nearby targets, and a long-barreled rifle for more distant targets. There was also a manually pressurized two gallon bottle sprayer for when the hose-and-gun assembly simply wouldn’t reach.

    The last thing Dean checked was that each truck had cleanup equipment, including detergents for any overspray accidents. He explained that most clients want no sign of the trucks coming, going, or having ever been there. That might mean washing away speckles on cars and windows, or marks from the hose being dragged on stonework or past beds and gardens. I’ll share my observations on how urban spraying seems to be viewed by the general public later on.

    6:45

    We’re on the road, passing through Newmarket in the York Region before slipping into stop-and-go traffic on the 404. We aren’t five minutes out before Dean’s phone rings. PHC1 is essentially his office, and he remains in communication via a work phone and headset, relying on a dedicated GPS to guide him from client to client… when the maps are accurate, anyway.

    As we drive, Dean notes that rain is forecast so we’ll do as much as we can. He’s set up a linear route going to the furthest client first and working our way back. That way, if it does rain, it will be easier to reschedule because the clients are closer to the yard. He also designs routes that keep the trucks in single neighbourhoods. It’s more efficient and jumping on and off the 407 is an expensive proposition, so they use it judiciously.

    7:40

    According to the docket, we were slated to spray two 12-foot Siberian Crab-apples in the client’s back yard. We pulled up and hopped out. Dean walked us to the back of the house saying, “Let’s go find our patients”. I liked that.

    The Process

    Once located, he assessed the trees’ health to ensure the application was appropriate, and then scanned the area. He explained that an arborist had to be very mindful of the surroundings. He ensured nothing was in the path of the hose or the spray, established wind direction, and then (based on tree height and our distance from the truck) estimated the pressure we’d need for the pistol attachment to reach to the treetops.

    We returned to the truck and Dean opened the side to put on his PPE. At the same time, he gave me a short safety lecture. Basically, if I saw anything leaking (on or under the truck) I was to turn off the engine immediately and we wouldn’t go anywhere until we figured out and remedied the issue. Also, should something happen to Dean, I was to call 911. Rest assured, there were no such issues that day.

    He ensured the pressure regulator was completely backed off, opened the intake and return valves on the fungicide tank, attached the pistol to the hose and started up the motor. Then he adjusted the regulator to get us to 150 psi. It was obvious he’d performed this dance many times and as he went through the motions, he noted that it was important to get comfortable with the equipment but to always be respectful of it. Then he partially-closed the side panel to reduce the motor noise and started dragging out enough hose to reach his patients.

    Standing upwind some distance away, I watched Dean work that first tree. He started with a few, short “test shots” into the ground to get the product to the pistol, and to adjust the width of the spray cone. Then a couple more test shots to the top of the tree to gauge the wind and the pressure. I watched him adjust the nozzle to a tighter stream and start circling the tree, spraying in short bursts until he was satisfied he’d achieved the coverage he was looking for.

    Then he detached and drained the pistol before starting back to the truck. I asked what kind of coverage he was looking for and he said the standard was 90% of the canopy covered by at least 90%. That was startling to me given that our unofficial goal for most dilute applications in perennial tender fruit, pome, cane and berry is 100% of the canopy covered, but to a minimum threshold of ~15%. It’s likely due to the different chemistries (I noted earlier that urban applications tend towards biorational products). And, practically speaking, airblast sprayer operators cannot slowly circle a tree, aiming at trouble spots with an endless volume of water. Despite these differences, both methodologies seem to produce acceptable results.

    The Label Dilemma

    I’ve always been sympathetic of sprayer operators working in three-dimensional crops. Interpreting a North American label’s frustrating lack of guidance when it comes to water volumes for non-arable crops places a lot on the operator’s shoulders. I’ve discussed this disconnect (and proposed solutions) in several other articles. I’ve even co-written a book about it. The problem was particularly acute, here.

    Ideally, one would evaluate the target tree’s planted area (which may or may not include an associated portion of alley) and work out the amount of formulated product required for that area. Then, that product must be dissolved or suspended in carrier (typically water) and that gives us the spray mix. Finally, working from the rate the sprayer emits, the operator would determine how much time would be needed to cover the target tree without over- or under-dosing. A good example of the process is found here.

    But… how much water is the right amount? How do we reconcile having to achieve such a high degree of coverage? Does that mean using a more dilute spray mix depending on the canopy, or the chemistry, or the method of application? And what happens when the target canopy size can be variable by an order of magnitude, such as going from a small, sparse tree to a huge, full tree? Would the operator have to change concentrations for every job in order to have the right combination of water volume and chemistry to propel and deposit the product uniformly?

    There’s no easy answer. Yet I watched Dean deal with this problem at every job, working to keep as much spray on target and use only as much spray mix as required to meet his coverage threshold.

    Administration and Cleanup

    Back at the truck Dean shut off the pump and reeled in the hose through a hand-held rag to ensure the hose came back cleaned of anything it may have been dragged through. Overall, it took six minutes to complete the spray job, but then the clients came out to speak to Dean and that conversation lasted another 10. Client interaction / education is a big part of this job.

    By 8:10 Dean had posted a Notice of Service sign in the yard (which must stay there for 48 hours) and punched in the next address on the GPS. As we headed off, he said a big improvement in recent years is the ability to email a Notice of Service and send an invoice right from the client’s driveway, immediately following the service. What traditionally was a 1-2 week wait for payment is now less than a day. If requested, Dean could also write them out manually and leave them at the client’s door.

    8:25

    The next client had five weeping crab apples. These were low trees easily accessed by the roadside truck. Wind was light so low pressure was required. Dean noted that he takes the pressure off the pump between stops to relax the drive belt. He double checked that the pistol was empty and said the reason he drains it after each job was to prevent any possibility of puddles in the truck, on the road or in the client’s driveway. “Customers should never see puddles. It’s better for the environment and it’s professionalism.”

    There’s a lot of wash, rinse, repeat from here on, so I’ll only note anything unique to each spray job. In this case, I watched more closely to understand how Dean aimed. A stream of liquid can traverse a great distance without being deflected by wind, but it’s not the cloud of droplets we generally associate with spraying. I realized Dean was shattering that stream of liquid on the larger branches to create the droplets. That’s also why he occasional pulsed the spray by fluttering the trigger; Sometimes the distance warranted a longer throw (long stream shattering of a branch) and sometimes a series of short pulses (shorter throw and the spray broke up on its own). I watched him as he circled each tree, changing his vantage as required. It wasn’t as easy as he made it look, and he was fast.

    9:05

    This was a single, 20-foot high crab apple tree. Dean cranked it up to 225 psi and started with the pistol. Given the height, the wind was more of an issue, so he waited for lulls, using short pulses over short distances and holding the stream for longer distances. He widened the nozzle only when the wind was light and the target was particularly close, but eventually switched to the long gun to reach the treetop.

    10:10

    This time we were spraying a Magnolia tree. Dean inspected the flowers closely. This tree might bloom for 5-8 days and if the flowers are too open, the oil we would use in the treatment might damage them in high UV. Plus, the mechanical damage from the spray might knock them off. But the flowers were still closed enough for the preventative to be applied.

    You may have noticed that in this case we weren’t using the fungicide, but instead we’d protect the tree from scale using an oil. So how (I wondered) do we empty the pump and 300 feet of hose of fungicide and exchange it for horticultural oil? Thanks to there being no physical or chemical incompatibility with these two products, it turned not to be the “big deal” it would be for most other spray operations.

    Dean opened the draw valve for the oil and kept the return valve open on the fungicide tank. Then he started the pump and hopped up on the truck to spray the fungicide right back into the fungicide tank. When he saw the spray turn opaque, he knew he had primed the oil and stopped spraying. Then he shut off the return on the fungicide tank and opened the return on the horticultural oil tank. The swap took almost no time at all and the subsequent treatment was a breeze.

    10:52

    Stop five was in Snowball Corners in King City and Dean was a little surprised that the work order underestimated the job. We expected a couple crab apples but instead found 20 trees far into a large backyard. Dean took some time with this new client to explain the process, then we fed all 300’ of hose out to reach the trees. We hoped there was enough in the tanks to finish the day!

    Winds were high, but there was nothing around and Dean used short bursts and a tight stream shattered on the trees themselves to reduce the number of driftable fines that would be produced by a wide spray. Slowly, picking his moments, he worked in the up-to-downwind direction so any overspray hit the next target.

    11:37

    One small Crabapple.

    12:00

    Nine ornamental apples.

    Interfacing with the Public

    I used to think that operations like vineyards and orchards, which often suffer the dreaded urban-rural interface, had the hardest time explaining crop protection to the public. And that’s not just agritourism operations with farmgate sales, either. Throughout the day, however, I elevated arborists to the top of the heap. Case in point:

    Before the trucks left that the yard that morning, one of the operators asked Dean about a job in downtown Toronto for a major business on Bloor Avenue. The client did not want applications performed after 8:00 am because hoses on sidewalks are a tripping hazard. They were also restricted from spraying at night because of city noise bylaws (those pumps can be loud).

    Accessing the plants can be very difficult and working in downtown Toronto can be exceptionally challenging. Dean knew the spot by rote, saying they should “Come from the street, look to 1 o’clock and 15 m from the statue to find the boxwoods. Then pace the distance to ensure the 300 foot hose would reach. If not, transfer the chemistry to bottle spray. If so, bring the operating pressure up to compensate for the distance.”

    Dean explained that the crew-leader of each truck makes the call for the most effective and safest set-up. He went on to relate stories about angry neighbours that responded poorly to seeing staff in PPE, or the grief they would suffer when a flower bed or stone path was marred by the hose. He reiterated throughout the day how much of his job was explaining the spray application process to clients, their neighbours and anyone (read everyone) that might be watching.

    Dean said there would always be a way forward if you gave it some thought. “Work the problem. Don’t let the problem work you.”

    12:33

    One backyard crabapple.

    1:10

    Two crab apples in the backyard. This was the last stop and it was perhaps the most complicated. One nearby tree was vibrating with honeybees. The wind was blowing into the neighbour’s yard and the two tall trees were on the property line. Dean really took his time here, rapidly pulsing the pistol whenever the wind died down and directed away from the pollinators. Some overspray moved to the next yard, but it couldn’t be helped. At least it was minimized. All in all we were pleased at the accuracy.

    Then the clients, who were new, came home and Dean once again spent time with them explaining the process. We got back in the truck after posting the sign and as Dean emailed the Notice of Service and the invoice, the first few drops of rain started to hit our windshield. All that patience and effort on the last stop and the client would likely need a re-application the next day. Dean was unflappable: “You can’t control the weather.”

    Epilogue

    We grabbed a late lunch and Dean drove us back to the yard. I’d learned a lot and really enjoyed Dean’s company. He headed back into the office to see how the day went for the other operators and plan for tomorrow. As for me, it had been a long day and I was loathing the punishing drive ahead of me… so I sprang for the 407 toll highway.

    Take Homes

    Upon reflection, and having written this article over about two weeks, I think I’ll end each article with a few observations. Bear in mind that I do so based on a sample size of one. That means what I did and what I saw may be unique; It should not be taken to represent an industry, a company, or even the typical practices of a single operator given that we only spent one day together.

    • Generally, label direction does not adequately inform sprayer operators working in three-dimensional crops. I have noted this in fruit protection systems and greenhouse systems, but it may be particularly relevant for arborists.
    • The classic urban-rural interface can cause friction between agricultural production and surrounding residential areas. Not only as a function of pesticide drift, but also noise, dust, odour, etc. Arborists work in urban environments, are scrutinized constantly and are quite often misunderstood by well-meaning people. As such, their job is far more than product application – they spend a considerable amount of time educating and answering questions, making them front-line ambassadors for crop protection processes.
    • The concept of threshold spray coverage (or minimal effective dose) continues to be a difficult and elusive thing. Factors such as mode of action, the nature of the target (surface structure and location), environmental conditions, application equipment and spray quality/concentration are already tricky to say the least. Having watched the relatively dilute, saturating, and highly mechanical applications performed by an arborist I continue to reassess what I think of as “good coverage”.
    • We sprayed 42 trees in roughly seven hours. Productivity, refill time, travel time and the economic considerations common to all spraying have different standards in each agricultural space. Efficiency is, obviously, important to any operation, but this experience reinforced just how different each operation can be. An orchardist may grumble about having to drive between blocks using county roads but imagine doing that on the 404! It’s all relative.

    Stay tuned for the next installment.

  • The Drive-Along Diaries: Prologue

    The Drive-Along Diaries: Prologue

    I feel it’s important to occasionally remind myself why I do what I do, and who I’m doing it for. With that, let me tell you a story.

    I was recently asked to give a presentation about spray coverage and drift mitigation to an arborist organization. I agreed but harboured reservations. I’ve given talks of this nature many, many times, but I rarely work with arborists. In preparation I looked back through my files and discovered I’d spoken to them 10 years ago. Coincidently, that was also the last time I’d encountered an arborist.

    So, what value could I possibly offer? My concern was that all I’d leave them with was a few “factoids” and the vague sense that they’d been entertained. But would I leave things better than I found them? What could I say that would move the needle and give them something actionable?

    Fortunately, I was paired with a veteran sprayer operator and together we worked out a presentation / demonstration. It went over very well, and I was relieved that people were engaged and asked insightful questions. Crisis averted.

    I believe the reason it worked was because I asked the operator about the real-world challenges (however unpopular) that he faced. We discussed and agreed upon a few lesser-of-two-evils solutions to share with the group. It was authentic, it was pragmatic, and it was appreciated.

    As a result, I decided to dedicate some time this spring/summer to riding along with a variety of sprayer operators as they perform their jobs. If they’d have me, I’d promise to stay out of their hair, acting only as an observer. I wouldn’t make suggestions and I wouldn’t criticize. I would ask the occasional question and I’d watch to see where policy and reality crossed paths.

    I was hoping for a few educational experiences that would inform my research trajectory and teach me a few tips and tricks to share at winter meetings. Perhaps I’d reinforce my understanding of spray application, or maybe I’d be forced to re-evaluate my position on what is a technical truth and what is a practical truth. At the very least I would get to see how professionals did their jobs, and which best practices got sacrificed when things didn’t go to plan.

    And, while I was at it, I decided to keep a journal to create articles in the vein of “A Day in the Life”. You’re reading the first one right now and I hope you find it as interesting to read about as I did to live it. It’s unlikely you work in all the agricultural spaces I’ll be writing about in this series but keep an open mind. The potential for cross-pollination is enormous; Perhaps your “cousin” sprayer operator has solved a problem you face in your own operation.

    And so, given our recent success, my first victim will be my new arborist-friend. You can read all about it here.

    A quick selfie in suburbia as I’m guided through a day in the life of an arborist.