New data shows that speed-driven applicators may not hamper coverage

by Eric Prostko, UGA Extension Weed Specialist

If you spend much time out in the field, it is commonplace these days to see the new fighter-jet-like pesticide applicators that have become very popular down on the farm. With 80-foot to 120-foot booms, GPS guidance systems and dilithium crystal-powered warp drives (another geeky Star Trek reference), growers can quickly and efficiently cover a lot of ground when making pesticide applications.

After watching these awesome machines in action, I have become much more interested in how factors such as tractor speed and boom height might be influencing the performance of herbicides.

In a previous Tailgate Talk column, I tried to address the issue of how tractor speed can potentially influence pesticide spray coverage. You might recall that in that article, I showed some data that would suggest that increasing tractor speed can reduce spray coverage.

Since the release of that data in print and at county production meetings, I have received many positive and negative comments about this research.  Since time is perhaps a farmer’s most precious commodity, it is very unlikely that any will seriously consider slowing down a tractor as much as I would prefer.  Consequently, my UGA engineering colleague Glen Rains and I decided to do more research in 2016 to further investigate.

With the help of two famous brothers from Crisp County, their John Deere 4630, 80-foot boom sprayer, and about 4-5 hours of their time (Figure 1), Dr. Rains and I were able to collect some additional data about the effects of tractor speed and boom height on spray coverage.  Results of those tests are presented in Figure 2.

Using AI11004 and AI11006 nozzles tips calibrated to deliver 15 GPA at 45 PSI, there were no significant differences in spray coverage between two tractor speeds (8.5 MPH and 13 MPH) and two boom heights (40 inches and 60 inches).  This is good news for you NASCAR applicators out there but it, unfortunately, contradicts our previous work from 2015.  Different tractors, nozzle tips, environmental conditions, and research methods were used in these evaluations, which could partially explain those differences.

Read the rest of the story in Southeast Farm Press.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: