Yes, I see now. The Hedgemaster desn't live in the nettles here. I was referring to the ones that @Bumble Bee was testing that didn't get used much, not my own one which lives indoors & will now need an NSTS sticker despite 3 - 5 days' use each year along with 3 slug pelleters/Avadex applicators.
One size fits all sprayer testing !,,
- Thread starter Boomerang
- Start date
- Location
- Boroughbridge, North Yorkshire
How come I never hear anybody complaining about having to get their moisture meter tested? £10 to test a few pence worth of grain and only a piece of paper to show for it.
You may only test a few loads and then it just sits in the office for the rest of the year. Should low users only test them every 5 years, or would it not be worth risking them going out of calibration and ending up over drying everything by a couple of % costing ££££s.
A sprayer is just the same. One of the most common faults that we come across is faulty pressure gauges, especially after a hard winter.
You may only test a few loads and then it just sits in the office for the rest of the year. Should low users only test them every 5 years, or would it not be worth risking them going out of calibration and ending up over drying everything by a couple of % costing ££££s.
A sprayer is just the same. One of the most common faults that we come across is faulty pressure gauges, especially after a hard winter.
spin cycle
Member
- Location
- north norfolk
i'm begginning think that perhaps a 5% or even 10% pesticide tax would be preferable....at least some of the money would go to good causes instead of hangers on
start a thread and see how it goes
I'm fed up of having to get it tested.
You have to send a sample to the merchant, and take their readings anyway..........
Good causes? Taxes go to George Osborne!
dont thats another hornets nest
Last edited:
spin cycle
Member
- Location
- north norfolk
why not...be cheaper for me....just as making me pay annual mot to cover big users arses suits them
olfarmergiles
New Member
I totally agree. Having just paid over £250 to have a brand new £1000 sprayer tested I wondered if there has been any follow up on any effect the 10 or more years of sprayer testing has had on water quality or crop residues. I'll bet nothing !
- Location
- North Notts
I think that you are probably right on that, but in the 10 years I have being testing sprayers I have saved breakdown time, wasted chemical due to perished pipes burst or chaffed, often cleaned filters the operator didn't know existed, fixed valves that were only partly working, rebuilt pumps that have being badly maintained, etc. I have found most farmers don't have a problem with it & quite often it the smaller sprayers that have the faults either though age or operators who have very little experience of sprayers, the bigger modern sprayers don't take that much more testing than smaller ones, pipework is often simpler, operators keep them well serviced as they don't want any downtime.
There isn't, there is "A careless" and a "Couldn't give a f##k"......saying that to these people is akin to the HSE stating 'theres no such thing as an accident'
spin cycle
Member
- Location
- north norfolk
so all accidents fall into one of those two categories
you never made a mistake?....what about 'to err is human'?
spin cycle
Member
- Location
- north norfolk
Frequently, but never try to justify them by claiming them to be accidents.
PS, sorry forgot to include third category "A negligent".
so if you caused an accident you would admit that you were either 1/ being careless 2/ couldn't care or 3/ being negligent
no wonder the world is down the sh1tter
- Location
- Boroughbridge, North Yorkshire
That sounds dear. Did the bill include any parts?
olfarmergiles
New Member
Sure but the same applies to all farm machinery. If you don't know how to maintain it then employ someone who does and will probably save money in the long run. By making it compulsory on the pretence that it stops pollution benefits nobody except those who do the inspection who have you over a barrel and seem to charge excessive rates for very little work. Good idea for the government as it provides employment without the taxpayer paying for it.
Campbell
Member
- Location
- Herefordshire
The Voluntary Initiative, [which resulted in sprayer testing] was set up to help prevent the imposition of any pesticide taxation and other controls. Thus showing the importance we take with application equipment and its use. Baler string boom fixings and a multi coloured nozzle arrays have long gone. Mmm, £250/test, I am well too cheap.
Any kind of inspections or testing is never going to go down well with farmers who believe that they are doing a good job. As Campbell rightly posted, the VI was designed to show, in measurable outcomes i.e. statistics, how pesticide application was cleaning up its act in order to ward off a pesticide tax and the accelerated loss of pesticdes due to pollution incidents.
£250? Try getting any other tradesman in for 2-3 hours plus travelling for less than that.
Is the VI value for money? Well, we certainly have more professional sprayer operators IMO. There are less and less dodgy looking leaky sprayers around unless that farm is non assured or it has a suitably tall patch of nettles and creative paperwork!