Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Crop-Adapted Spraying (2017)

1,011 views

Published on

An educational deck explaining why the CAS method should be considered for spraying pesticides in orchards. Experimental results are shared.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Crop-Adapted Spraying (2017)

  1. 1. Crop-Adapted Spraying Dr. Jason Deveau Application Technology Specialist and
  2. 2. Why so complicated?
  3. 3. Reason 1 Inappropriate Label
  4. 4. • Most pesticide label rates reflect the area of the planting (e.g. lb/ac).
  5. 5. • Most pesticide label rates reflect the area of the planting (e.g. lb/ac). • Those labels work in field crops where crop variability is relatively minor between fields…
  6. 6. • Most pesticide label rates reflect the area of the planting (e.g. lb/ac). • Those labels work in field crops where crop variability is relatively minor between fields… • But, a fixed rate/volume is insufficient to match variability in N.A. orchards.
  7. 7. Reason 2 Orchard Variability
  8. 8. Would you use the same sprayer set-up on these two blocks?
  9. 9. Would you use the same sprayer set-up on these two blocks? How about pre- and post- petal fall?
  10. 10. Reason 3 Sprayer Variability
  11. 11. Would you calibrate these the same way?
  12. 12. Possible impacts Over Spraying > Money in chemicals/time > Unnecessary contamination
  13. 13. Possible impacts Over Spraying Under Spraying > Money in chemicals/time < Efficacy > Unnecessary contamination > Pest resistance over time > Spraying to compensate
  14. 14. Tree-Row Volume Calculator Virginia Cooperative Extension, 1986
  15. 15. • The CAS method matches sprayer to orchard to achieve consistent coverage. Crop-Adapted Spraying (CAS)
  16. 16. • The CAS method matches sprayer to orchard to achieve consistent coverage. • Waste is reduced and efficacy of foliar insecticides and fungicides is maintained (at minimum). Crop-Adapted Spraying (CAS)
  17. 17. • The CAS method matches sprayer to orchard to achieve consistent coverage. • Waste is reduced and efficacy of foliar insecticides and fungicides is maintained (at minimum). • Formula based (in part) on international methods and is better than TRV. Crop-Adapted Spraying (CAS)
  18. 18. • The CAS method matches sprayer to orchard to achieve consistent coverage. • Waste is reduced and efficacy of foliar insecticides and fungicides is maintained (at minimum). • Formula based (in part) on international methods and is better than TRV. • Now it’s a smartphone app. Crop-Adapted Spraying (CAS)
  19. 19. • Apple or Android • Metric or US Imperial units • Inventory sprayers • Inventory orchard blocks • Propose a pesticide dose for each block, including ideal nozzle rates, water volume and product(s) per tank • Create a spray record (emailed to the user) Available for free on www.sprayers101.com
  20. 20. The method • The sprayer operator enters information about the orchard, sprayer and pesticide.
  21. 21. The method • The sprayer operator enters information about the orchard, sprayer and pesticide. • OrchardMAX proposes an ideal nozzling solution and volume/acre.
  22. 22. The method • The sprayer operator enters information about the orchard, sprayer and pesticide. • OrchardMAX proposes an ideal nozzling solution and volume/acre. • The sprayer operator performs a simple calibration using a few ribbons and some water-sensitive paper.
  23. 23. Confirm coverageConfirm coverage
  24. 24. Confirm coverageConfirm coverage
  25. 25. Research & experience suggest a minimum of 85 medium sized droplets per cm2 and a total area of 10-15% coverage is sufficient for most foliar insecticides / fungicides
  26. 26. • This approach is really no different than what most growers already do – we’ve just standardized an ad hoc process.
  27. 27. Preliminary Trials (2011) • Based on CAS, one orchard applied ~35% less Mancozeb© than label rate for one season (no control)
  28. 28. Saved $4,140.00 that year just for one fungicide
  29. 29. Surplus Pesticide
  30. 30. Harvest QualityHarvest Quality
  31. 31. 2012 – RIP Ontario apple blossoms ©GaryGao–OhioState
  32. 32. Full Trials (2013-2015) • Full trials included 2 orchards (year 1), 3 orchards (year 2) and 4 orchards (year 3).
  33. 33. Full Trials (2013-2015) • Full trials included 2 orchards (year 1), 3 orchards (year 2) and 4 orchards (year 3). • Sprayer operators used the optimized settings and rates for the CAS (treatment) block, and their typical methods for the control blocks.
  34. 34. Full Trials (2013-2015) • Full trials included 2 orchards (year 1), 3 orchards (year 2) and 4 orchards (year 3). • Sprayer operators used the optimized settings and rates for the CAS (treatment) block, and their typical methods for the control blocks. • Students scouted weekly for 13-15 weeks and apples were collected at harvest.
  35. 35. Orchard Typical spray volume (Control) CAS spray volume (Treatment) % Savings Varieties (age) Orchard Structure Years in study Orchard 1 486 L/ha 373 L/ha 23% Gala + g. Del (~10 yr) High density 3 Orchard 2 748 L/ha 478 L/ha & 608 L/ha = 543 L/ha 28% Macs + Empires (~30 yr) Semi dwarf 3+ Orchard 3 577 L/ha (660 L/ha) 407 L/ha 29% (38%) Gala + Fuji (~20 yr) High density 2 Nova Scotia 544 L/ha 416 L/ha 33% Jonogold (~10 yr) High density 1+ Full Trials (2013-2015)
  36. 36. Sample CAS calibration (Orchard 3, 2014)
  37. 37. Scouting protocol Activity Method Number of trees : 10 weekly Tapping : 2.5 taps per tree (25 total) Leaves : 5 leaves per tree (50 total) Spurs/Terminals : 10 per tree (100 total) End-of-season Fruit : 5 per tree at harvest (50 total) • Students were not aware which condition was which (blind scouting).
  38. 38. • Sometimes counts were higher in the CAS block and sometimes in the control. Results
  39. 39. • Sometimes counts were higher in the CAS block and sometimes in the control. • Of the 128 statistical block comparisons, only 3 were significantly different and CAS had the lowest counts in 2 of them. Results
  40. 40. Results • Nova Scotia ran independent trials & reported no difference between blocks
  41. 41. Sample comparison
  42. 42. Destructive apple samplingDestructive apple sampling
  43. 43. Destructive apple sampling • I’m not saying differences were significant, but they are intriguing…
  44. 44. • CAS worked in both high density and semi-dwarf orchards… whether I was there to help or not. Conclusions
  45. 45. • CAS worked in both high density and semi-dwarf orchards… whether I was there to help or not. Conclusions • Growers reported that these methods were intuitive and that they would be willing to expand their use of use CAS.
  46. 46. • CAS worked in both high density and semi-dwarf orchards… whether I was there to help or not. Conclusions • Growers reported that these methods were intuitive and that they would be willing to expand their use of use CAS. • …in fact, I struggled to preserve the control blocks!
  47. 47. Concern 1 Does Reduced Rate Mean Resistance?
  48. 48. • Picture three different apple trees
  49. 49. • The label rate works out to 1 g active / L
  50. 50. • The applicator uses 1,000 L spray mix / ha
  51. 51. Concern 2 Does Less Pesticide Mean Poor Performance?
  52. 52. Before CAS calibration: Coverage is highly variable, and spray is wasted.
  53. 53. After CAS calibration: Coverage is more consistent, and excess and off-target spray is reduced.
  54. 54. • This is a typical dose response curve.
  55. 55. • The lowest efficacious dose gives a certain level of control.
  56. 56. • An un-calibrated airblast application creates a lot of variability, which means lower rates in portions of the canopy.
  57. 57. • Lower rates can have significant impacts on a steep response curve, reducing average efficacy.
  58. 58. • The CAS process reduces variability, bringing the rate (and efficacy) closer to what was intended.
  59. 59. • So, the primary objective of CAS is to achieve consistent coverage in and between orchard blocks.
  60. 60. • So, the primary objective of CAS is to achieve consistent coverage in and between orchard blocks. • Reducing environmental loading and saving water / pesticide are wonderful secondary effects.
  61. 61. Impact • There are ~16,000 acres of commercial apple orchard in Ontario.(Stats Canada, 2010)
  62. 62. Impact • There are ~16,000 acres of commercial apple orchard in Ontario.(Stats Canada, 2010) • An acre needs ~$1,000.00 of insecticide and fungicide/year.(2010 OMAFRA Economic Report on Apple Production)
  63. 63. Impact • There are ~16,000 acres of commercial apple orchard in Ontario.(Stats Canada, 2010) • An acre needs ~$1,000.00 of insecticide and fungicide/year.(2010 OMAFRA Economic Report on Apple Production) • CAS has the potential to improving overall coverage while reducing inputs by a conservative 20%.
  64. 64. Impact • There are ~16,000 acres of commercial apple orchard in Ontario.(Stats Canada, 2010) • An acre needs ~$1,000.00 of insecticide and fungicide/year.(2010 OMAFRA Economic Report on Apple Production) • CAS has the potential to improving overall coverage while reducing inputs by a conservative 20%. • That’s a savings of $3,200,000.00 per year!
  65. 65. Impact • There are ~16,000 acres of commercial apple orchard in Ontario.(Stats Canada, 2010) • An acre needs ~$1,000.00 of insecticide and fungicide/year.(2010 OMAFRA Economic Report on Apple Production) • CAS has the potential to improving overall coverage while reducing inputs by a conservative 20%. • That’s a savings of $3,200,000.00 per year! • That doesn’t include improved quality…
  66. 66. • Labeled application rates should be structured as a ratio of formulated product to carrier, should state an ideal coverage standard, and state maximum allowances by time or by area (to cover REI & residue). Comments
  67. 67. • Labeled application rates should be structured as a ratio of formulated product to carrier, should state an ideal coverage standard, and state maximum allowances by time or by area (to cover REI & residue). • I’ll be dead before that happens… Comments
  68. 68. • Labeled application rates should be structured as a ratio of formulated product to carrier, should state an ideal coverage standard, and state maximum allowances by time or by area (to cover REI & residue). • I’ll be dead before that happens… • Meanwhile, Crop-Adapted Spraying should become a recognized method for optimizing dosages (like tree-row-volume in the 60’s). Comments
  69. 69. • Kristy Grigg-McGuffin (OMAFRA) • Kathryn Carter (OMAFRA) • Behrouz Ehsani (University of Guelph) • Chris Duyvelshoff (Perennia) • Hedges’ Orchards (ON) • Lingwood Orchards (ON) • Bell Brothers’ Orchards (ON) • Zurbuchen Orchards (ON) • Spurr Bros Orchards (NS) • Taylor Wallace (OMAFRA summer student ’10) • Carly Decker (OMAFRA summer student ‘12) • Megan Leedham (OMAFRA summer student ‘13) • Tara Wiedeman (OMAFRA summer student ‘14) • Victoria Radauskas (OMAFRA summer student ‘15) • Horticultural Crops Ontario • TeeJet Technologies Inc. • Croplife Canada Thanks to
  70. 70. Available here for $30.00 or FREE ePub online A Handbook of Best Practices in Airblast Spraying
  71. 71. Tom Wolf @nozzle_guy Jason Deveau @spray_guy Learn more about spraying www.sprayers101.com

×