Brunner, Jay F.

Doerr, Michael D.

Van Ee, Gary

Undetermined

ScholarsArchive@OSU

Section No. 4, Chemical Control/New ProductsSUMMARY OF ENTOMOLOGY TESTS USING A NEW ULV SPRAYERTECHNOLOGYJay Brunner1, Gary Van Ee2 and Mike Doerr11 Washington StateUniversityTree Fruit Research and Extension CenterWenatchee, WA2Michigan State UniversityDepartment ofEngineeringE. Lansing, MIThere are severalways to reduce pesticide use but one that has not been explored in anygreatdetail inWashington is sprayer technology. Dr.GaryVanEe ofMichigan StateUniversity, a well know agricultural engineer, has spent a great deal ofhis careerworking on improving sprayer technology. While on sabbatical leaveinWenatchee, heexamined the principles of sprayertechnology as it relates to severaldifferentaspects offruit production in the Pacific Northwest. Improved sprayer technology mayprovideopportunities to reduce pesticide application costs, reduce rates of somepesticides andimproveperformanceofcertain agricultural chemicals.Scientists at WSU Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center tested two types ofexperimental sprayersover a varietyofuses. Althoughdifferent in design the Proptecand the Curtec sprayers deliveredpesticides using very similar technology to produceuniformsmall droplets. The generalexperimental designwas to compare the smalldroplet-tower sprayers delivering pesticide at 30gals/acre (10Xconcentrate) whiletraveling at 4 mphwith a conventional sprayer delivering a full dilutesprayof 300gal/acre traveling 1.5 mph. Tests included a dormant oil spray againstSanJose Scale,field-aged residue tests againstleafroller (results in table 1 and 2 below),and plantgrowth regulator activity on apple. Table 1 shows very little difference between the twosprayers. The chemicals testedhave three verydifferent modes of action, but all threemust be ingested to be effective. Success 2 SC (spinosad) acts on the neuromuscularjunction,DipelWDG (Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki) is a stomachpoison and Confirm2 F (tebufenozide) is an insect growth regulator. Coverage is critical to the effectiveapplication of these insecticides. Table2 estimates the relative proportion of activeingredient deposited on test trees by the twocompeting sprayertechnologies. Thesprayers were loaded witha copper fungicide andboth sprayers werecalibrated to deliverthe samequantity of material. Targets wereplacedat various locations in a seriesoftrees. After application the targets were removed from the trees and the copperresiduewas washed from the targets. Analysis oftherinsade generated these data. Theconventional sprayer deposited about 70% as much copper as the Curtec. The two67sprayers deposited similar amounts ofproduct in the lower and middle portion of thetreewith the Curtec sprayer depositing significantly more high in thetree.Table 1. Test ofapplication strategy and concentration onfield-aged residues againstobliquebanded leafroller neonates, 1999.Treatment Rate/100 gal28DATAvg. corr.%mortality2Applicator2 1DAT 7 DAT 14DATSuccess 2 SCSuccess 2 SC6floz60flozRearsCurtec100.0c100.0clOO.OdlOO.Od96.7d95.8d89.7c81.0cDipel WDGDipel WDG2 lbs20 lbsRearsCurtec99.0c90.3b82.2c68.6b56.8c44.2b24.6b24.0bConfirm 2 F1Confirm 2 F118floz180flozRearsCurtec98.1c97.1c98.1d98.1d93.9d98.1d90.2c90.8cMeans inthe same column followed bythe same letter not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD,p=0.05). Anymeanfollowed bythe letter 'a' not significantly different from theuntreated control.1Latron B-1956 was added to both Confirm 2Ftreatments ata rate of8fl oz/100 gal.2Rears applicator- Rears Pack-Blast PTO airblast sprayer applying product at 300 gal/acre as adilute spray(tractor traveling 1.5 mph). Curtec applicaor- Applying product at30 gal/acre as a 10X concentrate spray(tractor traveling 4 mph).Table 2. Test ofapplication strategy ontheoretical deposition ofactive ingredient asmeasured with copper, 1999.Relative measure ofCufppnflHeight Locale Rears CurtecHigh East 0.70 1.47Middle 0.41 1.34West 0.94 1.50Average ofHigh sites 0.68a 1.44bMiddle East 0.76 0.96Middle 0.54 0.71West 0.70 0.58Average ofMiddle sites 0.66a 0.75aLow East 0.68 0.91Middle 0.71 1.06West 0.79 Q.»Average of Low sites 0.73a 0.83aAverage of each test site 0.69a 1.01bMeans inthe same ROW followed by the same letter not significantly different (paired t-test, p=0.05).68

Summary of entomology tests using a new ULV sprayer technology

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/jm214w049

Summary of entomology tests using a new ULV sprayer technology

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarsArchive@OSU