warksfarmer
Member
Good because coverage at 8km/hr is so much more accurate. That and along with 200l/ha water rate for everything does a far better job.
Serviced agronomists, do they take advantage of the customer?
- Thread starter An Gof
- Start date
Good because coverage at 8km/hr is so much more accurate. That and along with 200l/ha water rate for everything does a far better job.
while i agree with the speed point Im not sure that data shows 200l/ha is any better than 100, although I do most at 140except pre ems which I do at 200
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
That little fella that follows you along on sunny days and you cannot get rid of - its your shadow!!
Your really into conspiracy aren't you. Shergar is still alive - but keep it to yourself!!
Best wishes,
warksfarmer
Member
All I know is since we slowed down and upped water rates we have done a much better job. Of course what that means is you need a bigger tank and bigger booms to maintain daily output, but that’s what they’ve been doing in Europe for many years and why we made the switch 6 years ago.
warksfarmer
Member
The only conspiracy I truly believe is with crop inputs. As an industry we’ve been shafted for years and when you see it first hand with an immediate £150/ha saving it makes you realise what’s been going on. Being done over here is our own fault, nobody else’s, but when you’ve learnt the hard way the right thing to do is tell others so they can get off the gravy train.
Crop judging last week I met a guy who had been through his wheat 9 times with the sprayer and 5 times with the fert spreader. He proudly showed what he thought was his best crops. The crops looked the same as ours and because it was the farm management class I didn’t even place him because it was bad management. His answer to everything was ‘that’s what the agronomist says do’. As a 50 + year old guy he hadn’t a clue what he was doing or more importantly why because he had been sold to and worried into applying stuff that’s not needed.
- Location
- Shropshire
Agree with that post, save to say you would not see a drop in efficacy down to 150, and many manufacturers back 150l/ha as being the optimum water rate for their chems
There has been extensive NIAB TAG research work at Silsoe to prove that there is no drop in efficacy at 100 l/ha. Obviously you wouldn't be blight spraying a big potato canopy at 100 l/ha nor of that water volume was explicitly banned on the label. There's nothing wrong with 200+ l/ha, it's just not always necessary but if you have the capacity and it makes you sleep better at night, go for it.
warksfarmer
Member
When deciding what size sprayer tank to get I got a contractor to run through a wheat crop at 100l, 150l and 200l at the same speed, same pressure etc. I appreciate it’s a basic none scientific test, but the 200l/ha paper was far more covered than the others which you’d expect. We wanted to stick with flat fans as well and the higher volumes seem to work well with them. Everybody to their own and all that though.
Hereward
Member
- Location
- Peterborough
Flat Fans are great on still calm days, we just don't get as many as we used to!
With Guardian Airs you have so many more spray days, so whilst there may be a slight coverage compromise the timing is usually much better.
Near to roads, gardens, footpaths etc., I would not use Flat Fans if I could help it. They show so much drift/mist, which may not have much effect, but to the general public looks awful.
yellow belly
Member
- Location
- south west lincolnshire
It is possible You could farm in a low disease place
I have land wedged between woodland to the north and south and the village to the west which is higher than surrounding land
Aphids arrive a week later than a mile or 2 away lower down due to lower temperatures this can also affect disease
The work on water volumes shows 100 litres just as good as 200
With roundup it is better at 100 litres if the water has level of hardness
This also affects some other chemicals
If 200 litres and 8 kmh became the law the sprayer manufactures would rub their hands together would need double the capacity
I’ve actually read pier reviewed papers that proved glyphosate worked better at lower volumes
I find it funny that anyone thinks 200L would get more coverage than 100L when you co sister how small a volume of water even 200L is
Biggest coverage gains come from boom height which is dictated by stability and nozzle choice and weather conditions which is often dictated by availability of sprayer capacity
Many products we apply are systemic anyway so the idea of coating a leaf with product is of little relevance - as long as a plant gets the correct dose of a systemic it doesn’t matter if that’s on one spot or all over it
Doctors don’t improve effectiveness of drugs and vaccines by injecting us all over in multiple locations around our body !
- Location
- Bedfordshire
Many chemicals have been peer reviewed to work better at 100l/ha.
re systemic chemicals:
Mammals have a blood stream that moves drugs around the body. In plants it is not as simple. Triazoles I believe only move up the leaf (hence leaf tipping where it accumulates), glyphosate only down (into the roots). Someone more technical may enlighten us on other chems. Some chemicals work best if applied to the leaf axil.
The problem is that we often have a tank mix with each chemical having a different optimum way of working.
re systemic chemicals:
Mammals have a blood stream that moves drugs around the body. In plants it is not as simple. Triazoles I believe only move up the leaf (hence leaf tipping where it accumulates), glyphosate only down (into the roots). Someone more technical may enlighten us on other chems. Some chemicals work best if applied to the leaf axil.
The problem is that we often have a tank mix with each chemical having a different optimum way of working.
Been to our local crop group meeting tonight which was an open book on chemical prices.
I came home flabbergasted. Can you believe that there are service agronomists who are charging their customers OVER £90 for a 10L can of 500g a.i. CTL
They would do well to remember the old adage “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”
Some of the group were spending OVER £150/Ha on their fungicide programmes for WW. Think there’s some agronomy companies that need a lesson on sustainability.
Yes .
ollie989898
Member
Ahhh another month ticks by and as usual another monthly serviced agronomist rant. 
You can nearly mark the calendar by them these days.
Basically, two farmers got shafted for years by one company and a guy who abused their trust and now they are out to exact revenge. Any notion of not tarring everyone with the same brush is lost in the consequent red mist.
Anyone who believes that all independent agronomists must be whiter than white is just as bad. I've known farmers refer to characters as the 'invisible man' because they never saw him. Others complained a pallet load of slug pellets would arrive before the rape had even been drilled. Entire areas blanket sprayed with herbicide because it saved walking it, still: 'cheap' chemical..... But no it's serviced agronomists who got metaldehyde in water supplies and get other stuff banned because it's 'not needed'.
As for the legendary reduced fungicide, herbicide or growth reg spend, I'm all in favour. BYDV is just a figment of your imagination and crops don't lodge if you plant them in the correct phase of the moon.
You can nearly mark the calendar by them these days.Basically, two farmers got shafted for years by one company and a guy who abused their trust and now they are out to exact revenge. Any notion of not tarring everyone with the same brush is lost in the consequent red mist.
Anyone who believes that all independent agronomists must be whiter than white is just as bad. I've known farmers refer to characters as the 'invisible man' because they never saw him. Others complained a pallet load of slug pellets would arrive before the rape had even been drilled. Entire areas blanket sprayed with herbicide because it saved walking it, still: 'cheap' chemical....
. But no it's serviced agronomists who got metaldehyde in water supplies and get other stuff banned because it's 'not needed'.As for the legendary reduced fungicide, herbicide or growth reg spend, I'm all in favour. BYDV is just a figment of your imagination and crops don't lodge if you plant them in the correct phase of the moon.
Ahhh another month ticks by and as usual another monthly serviced agronomist rant.
Basically, two farmers got shafted for years by one company and a guy who abused their trust and now they are out to exact revenge. Any notion of not tarring everyone with the same brush is lost in the consequent red mist.
Anyone who believes that all independent agronomists must be whiter than white is just as bad. I've known farmers refer to characters as the 'invisible man' because they never saw him. Others complained a pallet load of slug pellets would arrive before the rape had even been drilled. Entire areas blanket sprayed with herbicide because it saved walking it, still: 'cheap' chemical....
As for the legendary reduced fungicide, herbicide or growth reg spend, I'm all in favour. BYDV is just a figment of your imagination and crops don't lodge if you plant them in the correct phase of the moon.
Trouble is @ollie989898 you need the slug pellets on farm ready to go if there is a problem. By the time you’ve worked it out and have to treat every hour counts on OSR at cotyledon stage.
There’s some middle ground between theory and practicality. In my case the slug pellets go on at a lower dose when the rollers go into the OSR fields after drilling. It’s no good piddling about to see if you have a problem.
Oh and it’s my decision, no service agronomist involved
PS OSR looking great this year, full crop right up to the hedge
Guess we will never know if that’s because I treated it or there were no slugs. Either way 3kg/Ha pellets was a good insurance and didn’t require and extra pass
- Location
- the brecks norfolk
But its not about slug pellets is it. If your on land that has a slug problem and your planning on planting osr you need them there. Ready and waiting.Ahhh another month ticks by and as usual another monthly serviced agronomist rant.
Basically, two farmers got shafted for years by one company and a guy who abused their trust and now they are out to exact revenge. Any notion of not tarring everyone with the same brush is lost in the consequent red mist.
Anyone who believes that all independent agronomists must be whiter than white is just as bad. I've known farmers refer to characters as the 'invisible man' because they never saw him. Others complained a pallet load of slug pellets would arrive before the rape had even been drilled. Entire areas blanket sprayed with herbicide because it saved walking it, still: 'cheap' chemical....
As for the legendary reduced fungicide, herbicide or growth reg spend, I'm all in favour. BYDV is just a figment of your imagination and crops don't lodge if you plant them in the correct phase of the moon.
The big problem here is serviced chaps being shafted with over priced chemicals they just don't need. Look back at the T2 thread and see what ridiculous programmes some were being prescribed all made up of exclusive high margin products and snake oils. It's just day light robbery that would have made dick turpin proud!
One prime example was the use of Alitrin evo. At no point could anyone justify to me it's use over modus. It was just priced at twice the price to extract more from the farmer and add more to the companies bottom line and increase the bonus for the sales man.
Agreed, when service agronomists are supplying 10L cans of CTL at over £90 and recommending Adjust at over £50 per 5L can then that is just plainly taking advantage of their customer. To be honest I have always had the utmost respect previously for a local agronomist who has been found to be supplying these products at these prices. It’s made we question that opinion. In this case the agronomist can’t blame it on management as he is a director of the company.
Devon James
Member
- Location
- Devon
Did he take part in a local farm walk recently?
- Location
- the brecks norfolk
Has the agronomist in question given any justification for his prices?