GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 GiESCO 2019 9 Survey reveals training needs for airblast sprayer operators

Survey reveals training needs for airblast sprayer operators

Abstract

Context and purpose of the study – In California, little training in sprayer calibration or pesticide drift management is required to apply pesticides. Yet, there is a need to maximize pesticide efficacy and minimize drift. Therefore, our team is developing a training course on airblast application best practices. We distributed a survey to identify current practices and used importance-performance analysis to interpret responses to the importance of spray related topics and satisfaction with previous training.

Material and methods – In 2018 we solicited survey replies, receiving 219 responses from winegrape and orchard industry members. Respondents rated 18 spray topics using a Likert-type scale. Topic categories included sprayer calibration, weather, techniques to reduce drift, and applicator attitude. Respondents rated 1) how important each topic is to them and 2) how satisfied they are with the quality of training they had previously received; or “no training received”. Results were calculated by topic as the mean importance (y) and satisfaction with training (x), and graphed using (x,y) as coordinates. The overall importance and performance means were used to define graph quadrants; the resulting topic placement in the quadrants prioritized training needs. We also asked: “Do you change your sprayer set up?”, “What steps do you take to calibrate?” and “Have you experienced a pest control failure that could have been related to a poor spray application?”

Results – Checking spray coverage ranked the most important topic while improving safety ranked highest for satisfaction. Topics fell into quadrants: 1.-high priority: checking coverage, selecting nozzles, reducing costs, and measuring flow; 2.-less emphasis: measuring application rate, measuring speed, improving safety, checking wind speed, reducing drift, and checking pressure; 3.-low interest: reducing spray loss to the ground, adjusting air flow, determining droplet size, checking temperature, determining if an inversion exists, using the low-drift technique “Gear up, Throttle down”, and checking relative humidity; 4.-low priority: checking wind direction. Responses to “What steps do you take to calibrate?” included measuring speed (44.9%), spraying out the tank to a known area (35.6%) and checking nozzles (34.7%). Only 8.1% of respondents check coverage and 5.9% admitted not calibrating or not often. 38% do not change their sprayer set-up once the season begins. Over half experienced a pest control failure they suspect was due to poor application; grape powdery mildew had the highest perceived failure. Respondents understand drift is undesirable but assign less importance to practices to reduce drift incidence, possibly due to lack of training received by 6-23%. Our course will focus on high priority topics; and checking weather and equipment to minimize drift.

DOI:

Publication date: June 18, 2020

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Poster

Authors

Lynn WUNDERLICH1, Franz NIEDERHOLZER2, Lisa BLECKER3, Rhonda J. SMITH4, Stephanie BOLTON5

1 UCCE, 311 Fair Lane, Placerville, California, 95667 USA
2 UCCE, P.O. Box 180, 100 Sunrise Blvd., Colusa, California, 95932 USA
3 UCIPM, 2801 Second St., Davis, California, 95618 USA
4 UCCE, 133 Aviation Blvd. Santa Rosa, California, 95403 USA
5 Lodi Winegrape Commission, 2545 Turner Rd., Lodi, California, 95242 USA

Contact the author

Keywords

Airblast sprayer, calibration, training, survey 

Tags

GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Local adaptation tools to ensure the viticultural sustainability in a changing climate

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

Adaptability of grapevines to climate change: characterization of phenology and sugar accumulation of 50 varieties, under hot climate conditions

Climate is the major factor influencing the dynamics of the vegetative cycle and can determine the timing of phenological periods. Knowledge of the phenology of varieties, their chronological duration, and thermal requirements, allows not only for the better management of interventions in the vineyard, but also to predict the varieties’ behaviour in a scenario of climate change, giving the wine producer the possibility of selecting the grape varieties that are best adapted to the climatic conditions of a certain terroir. In 2014, Symington Family Estates, Vinhos, established two grape variety libraries in two different places with distinctive climate conditions (Douro Superior, and Cima Corgo), with the commitment of contributing to a deeper agronomic and oenological understanding of some grape varieties, in hot climate conditions. In these research vineyards are represented local varieties that are important in the regional and national viticulture, but also others that have over time been forgotten — as well as five international reference cultivars. From 2017 to 2021, phenological observations have been made three times a week, following a defined protocol, to determine the average dates of budbreak, flowering and veraison. With the climate data of each location, the thermal requirements of each variety and the chronological duration of each phase have been calculated. During maturation, berry samples have been gathered weekly to study the dynamics of sugar accumulation, between other parameters. The data was analysed applying phenological and sugar accumulation models available in literature. The results obtained show significant differences between the varieties over several parameters, from the chronological duration and thermal requirements to complete the various stages of development, to the differences between the two locations, confirming the influence of the climate on phenology and the stages of maturation, in these specific conditions.

Deconstructing the soil component of terroir: from controversy to consensus

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors.
The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect.
Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses.
This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.

Mechanisms involved in the heating of the environment by the aerodynamic action of a wind machine to protect a vineyard against spring frost

One of the main consequences of global warming is the rise of the mean temperature. Thus, the heat summation by the plants begins sooner in the early spring, and by cumulating growing degree-days, phenological development tends to happen earlier. However, spring frost is still a recurrent phenomenon causing serious damages to buds and therefore, threatening the harvests of the winegrowers. The wind machine is a solution to protect fruit crops against spring frost that is increasingly used. It is composed of a 10-m mast with a blowing fan at its peak. By tapping into the strength of the nocturnal thermal inversion, it sweeps the crop by propelling warm air above to the ground. Thus, stratification is momentarily suppressed. Furthermore, the continuous action of the machine, alone or in synergy, or the addition of a heater allow the bud to be bathed in a warmer environment. Also, the punctual action of the tower’s warm gust reaches the bud directly at each rotation period. All these actions allow the bud to continuously warm up, but with different intensities and over a different period. Although there is evidence of the effectiveness of the wind machines, the thermal transfers involved in those mechanisms raise questions about their true nature. Field measurements based on ultrasonic anemometers and fast responding thermocouples complemented by laboratory measurements on a reduced scale model allow to characterize both the airflow produced by the wind machine and the local temperature in its vicinity. Those experiments were realized in the vineyard of Quincy, in the framework of the SICTAG project. In the future paper, we will detail the aeraulic characterization of the wind machine and the thermal effects resulting from it and we will focus on how the wind machine warms up the local atmosphere and enables to reduce the freezing risk.

The modification of cultural practices in grapevine cv. Syrah, does it modify the characteristics of the musts?

The work shows the results of a year of experimentation (2020) in a Syrah variety vineyard in La Roda (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). The trial approach was on a randomized block design with two factors: Irrigation (I) and Pruning (P).
Irrigation schedules were adjusted to apply amounts close to 1,500 m3/ha. With this provision, 2 different irrigation treatments were proposed: I1) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to post-harvest (providing at least 20 % of the total amount of irrigation water to be provided post-harvest); I2) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to harvest (usual irrigation practice in the study area). Pruning was proposed with two treatments, one at the end of January (P1), which is pruning on a conventional date; and P2) pruning carried out at the beginning of budding. In total, 4 repetitions were designed with 4 elementary plots, each one of them representing one of the proposed treatments (I1P1; I1P2; I2P1; I2P2). In total, 16 plots were worked on and each elementary plot consisted of 30 strains, distributed in 3 lines.
The productive response was evaluated with the yield results of the harvest harvested at 23 ºBrix. The qualitative response was measured in the musts through the indices of technological (acidity, pH and potassium) and phenolic maturity and aromatic compounds in free and glycosylated fractions. The treatments tested had, in general, an effect on the different variables analyzed.