Neelesh ChaturvediMasters Seminar FMPE 591 Roll No.13935 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering IGKV, Raipur (C.G.)
Largest producer of fruits in the world. Fruit production 46 million tonnes. 10% of world production 1% of export earnings from agricultural products 25-30% fruit production losses occurs due to Pest and dicease in India.
Orchard: An area of land devoted to the cultivation of fruit or nut trees. Sprayer: It is the device used for apply fluids in the form of dropletsSpraying : It is the application of chemicals, foliar nutrients, insecticides, fungicides in the form of fine droplets
Orchard sprayers Orchard Sprayer using by large air stream for the application of chemicals, growth regulators, pesticides, foliar nutrients. Orchard sprayers: Axial fan orchard sprayer Air assisted tunnel sprayer Centrifugal fan orchard Cross flow fan orchard sprayer The efficiency and Cost effectiveness of these sprayers mainly depends on operational skill, machine settings, selection of chemical, timing, orchard condition
Working principle:Basic components of axial fan orchard sprayer((Adapted from Cromwell, R. P. 1975.)
Tank of the sprayer should be corrosion resistant. Piston or centrifugal Pumps may be use . Pressure regulator which helps to maintain speed of engine Pressure gauges spray helps to control over spray output or input Control valves use to onoff valve. Spray nozzles use to atomize liquid
Effective in a wide range of types ofAxial fan orchard sprayer orchard Sprayers are simple, reliable low cost of purchase and operation The efficiency depends on species, variety, rootstock, location, site, planting system, age, management, etc. Spray losses on the ground can range from less than 2–39% Use in mango, apple orchards
Air assisted tunnel sprayerSpray deposit and coverage in the canopyCollection and recycling rate of the liquidsprayed in the tunnel.It reduces pesticide input and draft inorchardIt can also used for smaller plot size
Centrifugal fan:• Rotating impeller increases air velocity• Air speed is converted to pressure• Suited for high flow and forced draft services• Efficiency >85%• Not suited for dirty airstreams• Instability and erosion risk• Used in rubber plantation, field crops.
Cross flow fan: Cross flow. - Air enters the impeller at one part of the outer periphery flows inward and exits at another part of the outer periphery. Uniform discharge, high air rate Can handle dirty air and higher pressures More expensive
Case studies Spray deposits and losses in different sized apple trees from an axial fan air blast sprayer 1.Effects of spray quality. 2.Effects of spray flow rate.
This experiment was conducted Horticulture Research International .East Malling, UK East malling of the Varity Cox of apple was used. A tractor mounted light detection and ranging was used to characterize the structure of trees. A vehicle mounted meteorological mast fitted with a three –dimensional ultrasonic anemometer. A temperature and relative humidity measuring probe was used to measure local meteorological conditions. J.V.cross et al(2001)
Three treatments of very fine (VMD=156µm), fine (VMD=198µm) and medium spray (VMD=237µm) were selected from an axial fan orchard sprayer. Each treatment was applied to different orchards each containing apple trees of different size viz, small, medium, large. 4m row spacing and 2m plant to plant spacing and volume rate 298-307l/ha were maintained. J.V.cross et al(2001)
Table 1. Treatments Very fine Fine spray Medium sprayNo. of nozzles 8 8 8Pressure (bar) 11.9 5.5 3.2VMD (µm) 156 198 239Spray liquid flow rate(l/ 11.5 11.4 11.6min)-19971998 11.7 11.9 11.7Forward speed( -1997 5.8 5.8 5.81998 5.8 5.8 5.8Spray volume 300 298 301(l/ha)-19971998 303 307 302PTO speed (rpm) 500 500 500Air volumetric flow 11.3 11.3 11.3(m³/s) J.V.cross et al(2001)
ResultsTable 2.Grand mean normalised spray deposits on composites samples of leaves Orchard Very fine Fine Medium Mean 15 July 1997 Small trees 0.58 0.69 0.62 0.63 Medium trees 0.51 0.57 0.68 0.59 Large trees 0.56 0.62 0.62 0.60 Mean 0.55 0.63 0.64 0.60 2 July 1998 Small trees 0.46 0.48 0.39 0.44 Medium trees 041 0.39 0.38 0.39 Large trees 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.43 Mean 0.44 0.43 0.4 0.42 J.V.cross et al(2001)
Table 3.Distribution of normalized spray deposits on leaves in different zones of the tree Sampling zones Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6Small VF 0.69 0.46 0.48 0.62 0.51 0.69Tree F 0.8 0.53 0.57 0.83 0.59 0.82 M 0.91 0.55 0.39 0.74 0.52 0.58 VF 0.93 0.55 0.33 0.45 0.44 0.37MediumTree F 0.92 0.50 0.29 0.69 0.61 0.40 M 1.13 0.77 0.31 0.71 0.63 0.51Large VF 1.31 0.54 0.18 0.57 0.45 0.30Tree F 1.20 0.48 0.23 0.82 0.63 0.35 M 1.11 0.65 0.32 0.62 0.66 0.37mean 0.81 0.43 0.17 0.48 0.43 0.21 J.V.cross et al(2001)
Table 4.Normalised spray deposit on fruitsTable 5.percentage of the applied spray retained on the tree
Normalized deposits on samplings lines just above the groundOrchard Very fine Fine Medium MeanSmall trees 0.68 0.49 0.27 0.48Medium trees 0.51 0.35 0.22 0.36Large trees 0.26 0.33 0.19 0.26Mean 0.49 0.39 0.23 0.37
Conclusion In the spray quality the overall grand mean deposits on composite leaf samples in the 1997 experiment was 50% greater than in the 1998. The ratio of deposits on sampling zones close to the sprayer (zone 1 and 4) were greater in experiment. The VF treatment gave significantly smaller mean deposits on composite samples leaves as well as on fruits. Variation in spray quality did not greatly affect the efficiency or macro- distribution of deposition from the axial fan sprayer.