Low volume spraying

[Andy Howard]

On my travels around France this year I have twice come across farmers who spray fungicides, insecticides and round up at 40-50l of water per hectare and half the rate of chemical. One was even doing it for all herbicides. They only spray early in the morning and not during the day. Does anyone have any experience in the UK? I know the industry will scream resistance but if there is a way of reducing our chemical costs by Half then I don't mind a few early starts! Any thoughts?

 

[SilliamWhale]

I'm sure they must use such low volumes on broad acres in places like Western Australia. Seem to remember they use a pick up to pull sprayed so they can't be using much water.

 

[fudge]

Variety selection, rotational change and product choice are perhaps more fruitful avenues if your exploring cost cutting. Black grass control in particular will suffer under this approach IMO.

 

[Andy Howard]

Not really interested in the herbicide part. More the fungicide

 

[Chalky]

Look at Airtec & Danfoil results from decades ago.

Forgetting the modern label recs re water rate- a lot of systemic products dont need that much water really.

The trials of the above systems were based of fungicides as I remember

 

[fudge]

Avoid the expensive products and choose resistant varieties. Siskin and evolution do well, even in untreated trials. If the weather turns bad you'll want higher rates.

 

[Clive]

I recall reading a study on glyphosate and water rates and the best results were at 20l/ha ! more water is not always a good thing as it dilutes wetters etc

I think low volume are more common in australia ?

 

[Andy Howard]

I recall reading a study on glyphosate and water rates and the best results were at 20l/ha ! more water is not always a good thing as it dilutes wetters etc

I think low volume are more common in australia ?

Did they reduce rates though? This is my key question is not whether we can use low water rates it is whether it allows low dose rates.

 

[Clive]

Did they reduce rates though? This is my key question is not whether we can use low water rates it is whether it allows low dose rates.

I can't recall or find it now but you would assume if there was a better response for same chemical rate at lower water volumes then there would be scope to reduce chemical rates and still get the response you want at the higher rates

 

[SilliamWhale]

Look at Airtec & Danfoil results from decades ago.

Forgetting the modern label recs re water rate- a lot of systemic products dont need that much water really.

The trials of the above systems were based of fungicides as I remember

I suppose what happened is that nozzles came along or more recommendations for 100 lt ha which was a relatively cheap way of getting some of the benefits of airtec/ low water.

The guy on another thread saying lower doses of CTU (or was it IPU?) thanks to new developments of the active may indicate how lower doses can do more in the future

 

[TelesnaAg]

Most sprays here would be between 50 to 100 litres /ha...might get the odd guy doing 40 maybe....

Depends on what your spraying? Crop canopy size etc....target....etc...

Ant...

 

[yellow belly]

at 10 k at 50 litres a jet would be very fine in the droplet spectrum which will be very drifty
not to much of a problem in large fields but small fields not so easy

the benefit of low water rate and high acreages per tank diminishes with small fields especially if always returning to the gate and folding up between fields

 

[CORK]

In most situations, the water is only a vehicle for getting the chemical to the target. If you have the right application technology, water could certainly be reduced dramatically.

 

[Fuzzy]

I'm sure they must use such low volumes on broad acres in places like Western Australia. Seem to remember they use a pick up to pull sprayed so they can't be using much water.

It is worth remembering that Australia Wheat yields are much less than in the UK, so presumably there are less plants needing chemical and i guess water. If there yield is say a third of that in the UK, and they use half the chemical they are actually using more chemical per tonne of crop produced.

 

[Fuzzy]

BTW i have just seen a sprayer in 100acre field of wheat. Quite normal for this time of year, but wind speed around here today is 20-30mph with gusts too unbelievable... Most of the spray wont be in the field for sure......maybe he was trying an ultra low dose!!!!!!!!!

 

[homefarm]

We used a spra-coupe and thought we we did get more response for a given dose at lower volume.
The lower volume was achieved by increasing speed not reducing jet size.
The Hgca results we discussed in another thread also linked speed and volume for best results
100L at 16kph was the best, if I remember, but would 50L at 32kph be even better.
We had good results with 70l at 20kph.

 

[Flat 10]

I was going to say does no-one remember spra coupe from 20 years ago..???????????

 

[Farmer.sa]

In my view spray quality is far more important then volume, done 3 years farm trials only with fungicides @50l/ha, 80l/ha and 100l/ha all at varying pressures, same results over all water rates only spray quality made a difference in yield/ control! Did not reduce chemical rate though, maybe it's one to trial....... Not sure if any Chem company's will sponsor it though!!!

 

[Teejay]

I did a college project on sprayers in the early eighties and the the farm where I worked had an ultra low volume sprayer. Sometimes it would work really well and sometimes it was a complete waste of time. The other problem was the concentration of chemical not meeting label recomendation.

 

[eagleye]

you really need to know a lot about the chemical to use different rates and water volumes. some product need coverage others just need to get the right amount into the plant.
Denmark have been working on getting the best from reduced rates for years as they had to reduce the amount of active ingredient applied by law.