The inspection of soil-disinfection equipment in Belgium.

In Belgium, the mandatory inspection of field and orchard sprayers was already started up in 1995. At that time, there were only inspection protocols available for those two types of sprayers. From 2008 on, two new inspection protocols were developed: one for greenhouse sprayers and one for soil-disinfection machines. Those inspection protocols were added to the Belgian legislation and implemented since 2011. The inspection protocol for greenhouse sprayers was mainly based on the two existing protocols (field and orchard sprayers) as the working principle of those machines was similar.Soil disinfection machines used on Belgian territory needed another approach because of the differences in pressurising and application technique compared to classical spraying machines. Soil disinfection machines use a closed tank containing the vaporous disinfectant. The tank is pressurised by a compressor or a diving cylinder. As concerns the injector side of those machines there are different possibilities. Some are using a manifold with restrictor plates or a small tap per injector, others use narrow tubes towards the injectors, and sometimes nozzles are used. As one can see, there are no standard inspection methods available for those types of machines. Neither a standard spray pattern measurement, nor a separate pressure and nozzle testing is possible on most of those machines. On top there are some important safety aspects that need special attention due to the hazardous products used. The Belgian inspection protocol was almost completely developed in-house and makes it possible to inspect soil-disinfection machines in an accurate, safe and economical way

The Belgian experience with sprayer inspection activities and future challenges

In Belgium, the mandatory inspection of field crop, orchard and vineyard sprayers was already started up in 1995. Furthermore, the inspection of greenhouse sprayers and soil-disinfection machines was implemented respectively in 2011 and 2014. So Belgium can look back on more than 22 years of experiences with the inspection of sprayers.In Belgium, the mandatory inspection of field crop, orchard and vineyard sprayers was already started up in 1995. Furthermore, the inspection of greenhouse sprayers and soil-disinfection machines was implemented respectively in 2011 and 2014. So Belgium can look back on more than 22 years of experiences with the inspection of sprayers

Wireless flow-sensor to inspect spray rate controllers

In Belgium, the mandatory inspection of sprayers was already started up in 1996 and the 8th inspection cycle (2017-2018-2019) is currently running. The inspection of sprayers is performed by official and mobile teams ruled by two inspection authorities and the management is done by the Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Public Health and the Environment (FAVV). In the Flemish region the inspection is delegated to the Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO). In the past decade the number of field crop sprayers equipped with a spray rate controller increased significantly. In the first inspection cycle (1996-1998), only 4.58% of the field crop sprayers were equipped with a spray rate controller in Flanders. In the 7th inspection cycle (2014-2016), this percentage increased significantly to 26.92%. As the original inspection method for spray rate controllers showed some lacks and was time consuming, ILVO developed a simple and reliable method to test rate controllers on field crop and orchard sprayers.In Belgium, the mandatory inspection of sprayers was already started up in 1996 and the 8th inspection cycle (2017-2018-2019) is currently running. The inspection of sprayers is performed by official and mobile teams ruled by two inspection authorities and the management is done by the Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Public Health and the Environment (FAVV). In the Flemish region the inspection is delegated to the Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO). In the past decade the number of field crop sprayers equipped with a spray rate controller increased significantly. In the first inspection cycle (1996-1998), only 4.58% of the field crop sprayers were equipped with a spray rate controller in Flanders. In the 7th inspection cycle (2014-2016), this percentage increased significantly to 26.92%. As the original inspection method for spray rate controllers showed some lacks and was time consuming, ILVO developed a simple and reliable method to test rate controllers on field crop and orchard sprayers

« Cachez cette erreur que je ne saurais voir ! »

La question du traitement à réserver aux « erreurs » a donné lieu à des réponses très différentes au cours de l’histoire de la didactique des langues étrangères. Pour la méthode grammaire-traduction, les erreurs étaient des fautes qu’il fallait sanctionner (et donc exclure) pour qu’elles ne se produisent plus, tandis que l’approche structuro-behavioriste tentait de les prévenir à l’aide d’exercices qui devaient neutraliser les interférences de la langue-source vers la langue-cible. Aujourd’hui, l’erreur constitue une preuve que l’apprentissage est en progrès, puisque l’acquisition d’une langue suppose que l’apprenant élabore et vérifie des hypothèses sur son fonctionnement. C’est précisément au traitement des erreurs dans une approche communicative que nous avons choisi de nous intéresser ici. Nous nous proposons – en un premier stade – d’étudier les représentations d’enseignants de FLES et de leurs apprenants, interrogés sur leur conception et leur attitude concernant des erreurs commises ou rencontrées, et la/des norme(s) qui leur ser(ven)t de référence. À un second stade, nous verrons à quels niveaux se manifeste leur « conscience linguistique » en les exposant à une série d’énoncés considérés communément comme erronés, des « déviances-types », qu’ils devront repérer, identifier, évaluer. Par la même occasion, nous interrogerons la prégnance du clivage langue/communication chez nos témoins.The question of how to handle “mistakes” or errors has given rise to very different answers over the course of the history of foreign language teaching. According to the grammar/translation method, mistakes or errors were faults that had to be counted wrong (and thus excluded from discourse) so they would not be repeated. The structural/behavioristic approach tried to prevent mistakes by means of exercises intended to neutralize interferences occurring between the source language and the target language. Today, error is the proof that learning is taking place. The acquisition of a foreign language presupposes that the learner form and verify hypotheses concerning its functioning. We have chosen here to examine the handling of mistakes as presented in the communicative approach. In an initial phase, we propose to study the representations made by teachers of French as a foreign language and those made by their students. We will interrogate students concerning their conceptions and their attitudes about errors committed or encountered, and about the norms that these people employ as reference points. In a second section, we shall see the levels at which  a “linguistic consciousness” possessed by teachers and students shows itself when they are exposed to a series of utterances commonly considered mistakes, or “typical deviations”, which they must then identify, classify, and evaluate. At the same time, we will ask questions about the importance of the distinction language/communication for our sample participants

PSORTdb: a protein subcellular localization database for bacteria

Information about bacterial subcellular localization (SCL) is important for protein function prediction and identification of suitable drug/vaccine/diagnostic targets. PSORTdb (http://db.psort.org/) is a web-accessible database of SCL for bacteria that contains both information determined through laboratory experimentation and computational predictions. The dataset of experimentally verified information (∼2000 proteins) was manually curated by us and represents the largest dataset of its kind. Earlier versions have been used for training SCL predictors, and its incorporation now into this new PSORTdb resource, with its associated additional annotation information and dataset version control, should aid researchers in future development of improved SCL predictors. The second component of this database contains computational analyses of proteins deduced from the most recent NCBI dataset of completely sequenced genomes. Analyses are currently calculated using PSORTb, the most precise automated SCL predictor for bacterial proteins. Both datasets can be accessed through the web using a very flexible text search engine, a data browser, or using BLAST, and the entire database or search results may be downloaded in various formats. Features such as GO ontologies and multiple accession numbers are incorporated to facilitate integration with other bioinformatics resources. PSORTdb is freely available under GNU General Public License