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…

The effects of alternative herbicide free cover cropping systems on soil health, vine performance, berry quality and vineyard biodiversity in a climate change scenario in Switzerland

There is an urgent need in viticulture to adopt alternative herbicide-free soil management strategies to mitigate climate change, increase biodiversity, reduce plant protection products and improve soil quality while minimizing detrimental effects on grapevine’s stress tolerance and fruit quality. To propose sustainable solutions, adapted to different pedoclimatic conditions in Switzerland, we developed a multidisciplinary 4-year project, started in 2020. Objectives of the project are to a) evaluate the impact of green covers (spontaneous flora, winter cover crop and permanent ground cover) on environmental and agronomic parameters and b) develop subsequently innovative strategies for different viticultural contexts of Switzerland. The project is divided into 3 phases: 1) diagnosis, 2) on-farm and 3) on-station experiments. Phase 1) consisted in an assessment of 30 commercial vineyards all over Switzerland, where growers already use different herbicide-free soil management strategies. The most promising practices identified in this exploratory phase will be replicated in commercial vineyards across Switzerland (“on-farm”) as well as in a classical randomized block design in an experimental plot (“on-station”). For phase 1), measurements consisted in evaluation of soil status (compaction, structure, roots development), soil microbial diversity (metagenomics), plant diversity and biomass, vine physiology (water stress, vigor, leaf nitrogen) and berry quality (acidity, sugar, available nitrogen). Interestingly, the permanent ground cover resulted in a higher Shannon index thus a higher biodiversity as compared to the other itineraries. The winter cover crop increased vine nitrogen and vigor while deteriorating soil quality, leaving the soil more exposed and compacted likely due to more frequent tillage. The spontaneous flora led to higher berry sugar accumulation, less nitrogen and higher malic acid concentration putatively due to a higher water retention of the flora in a particularly wet vintage. Phases 2) and 3) are required to confirm those tendencies, over the 3 next vintages and different climatic conditions.

A predictive model of spatial Eca variability in the vineyard to support the monitoring of plant status

[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"...

Grapevine yield estimation in a context of climate change: the GraY model

Grapevine yield is a key indicator to assess the impacts of climate change and the relevance of adaptation strategies in a vineyard landscape. At this scale, a yield model should use a number of parameters and input data in relation to the information available and be able to reproduce vineyard management decisions (e.g. soil and canopy management, irrigation). In this study, we used data from six experimental sites in Southern France (cv. Syrah) to calibrate a model of grapevine yield limited by water constraint (GraY). Each yield component (bud fertility, number of berries per bunch, berry weight) was calculated as a function of the soil water availability simulated by the WaLIS water balance model at critical phenological phases. The model was then evaluated in 10 grapegrowers’ plots, covering a diversity of biophysical and technical contexts (soil type, canopy size, irrigation, cover crop). We identified three critical periods for yield formation: after flowering on the previous year for the number of bunches and berries, around pre-veraison and post-veraison of the same year for mean berry weight. Yields were simulated with a model efficiency (EF) of 0.62 (NRMSE = 0.28). Bud fertility and number of berries per bunch were more accurately simulated (EF = 0.90 and 0.77, NRMSE = 0.06 and 0.10, respectively) than berry weight (EF = -0.31, NRMSE = 0.17). Model efficiency on the on-farm plots reached 0.71 (NRMSE = 0.37) simulating yields from 1 to 8 kg/plant. The GraY model is an original model estimating grapevine yield evolution on the basis of water availability under future climatic conditions.  It allows to evaluate the effects of various adaptation levers such as planting density, cover crop management, fruit/leaf ratio, shading and irrigation, in various production contexts.

Soil quality in Beaujolais vineyard. Importance of pedology and cultural practices

A pedological study was carried out from 2009 to 2017 in Beaujolais vineyard, to improve physical and chemical knowledge of soils. It was completed in 2016 and 2017 by the current study, dealing with microbial aspects, in order to build a reference frame for improved advice in soil management. Microbial biomass was measured on representative plots of the six most common soil types identified in Beaujolais and, for each soil type, on plots with different levels of the main impacting parameters: total organic carbon, pH, cation exchange capacity, extractable copper. A total of 59 soil samples were collected. Confirming the results of various trials carried out in Beaujolais over the past 20 years, the results of the present study showed that the soils were still alive, but exhibited a large variability of biological parameters, which appeared dependant on both pedological and anthropic factors. Therefore, a good interpretation of biological parameters and advice for vine growers must rely on a pedologically-based referential with differentiated main driving factors. For example, the control of pH is of primary importance in granitic soils and in no way organic matter addition can improve soil quality if pH is too low. Conversely, in calcareous soils, biological parameters are more directly affected by direct or indirect (cover crops for example) inputs of organic matter. The use of biological parameters, such as microbial biomass, is of great potential value to improve advice on agro-viticultural practices (soil management, fertilization, liming, etc.), basis of a sustainable wine production on fragile soils.

Influence of agronomic practices in soil water content in mid-mountain vineyards

In the context of LIFE project MIDMACC (LIFE18 CCA/ES/001099), several pilots have been installed in vineyards in mid mountain areas of Catalonia (NE Spain) to test well stablished agronomic practices to increase the adaptation of Mediterranean mid mountain to climate change. Soil water content (SWC) at three different depths (15, 30 and 45cm) was measured in continuum from August 2020. One pilot (WC) included a well-established green cover (GC), a new GC (NC) and a conventional soil management (CM, tilling+herbicides). NC presented an intermediate state between WC and CM, responding similarly to CM in autumn but quickly reaching similar SWC to WC, then following the same evolution till next spring, with CM presenting lower values along autumn and winter. Then vegetation activation decreased SWC in all plots, (much slower in CM, lacking GC). Sensibility to spring rains is again intermediate for NC, which joins SWC evolution of CM by the end of spring till next autumn. It is expected that NC will resemble WC more and more as its GC develops. In the pilot combining vine training (VSP vs Gobelet) and hillside management (slope vs terrace), no clear pattern could be related with these conditions. However, both terraces seem to be more sensitive to spring rains. A third pilot included new vineyards (7 and 1 year old). In the new vineyard (N), higher canopy development, a spontaneous green cover and row straw resulted in a slower SWC dynamic, not so sensitive to rains but conserving more soil water in spring and most of summer, even with presumably a higher water extraction by vines. In the newest vineyard (VN) the deepest sensor is still sensitive to rain events all over the year and SWC is always highest at this depth, revealing small water capture by vines.