A team from the University of Western Australia, led by Michael Walsh, got involved with Ray’s invention by conducting a number of on-farm research trials to evaluate the effectiveness of the “Harrington seed destructor.”

The results were impressive with greater than 90 per cent seed destroyed in the chaff of a number of different weed species. Over time, the destructor evolved and became more polished, with de Bruin engineering becoming involved in the manufacturing of units.

• See more photos in the Country Guide Gallery

Even in the absence of herbicide-resistant weeds, it is rare to see a completely weed-free corn, soybean or wheat field at harvest time. Some weeds will germinate late, well after the last of any residual activity from your herbicide. Often it isn’t unsightly, but most farmers that I’ve spoken with over the years strive to return as few weeds to the soil seed bank as possible. What if there was a way to destroy any “escaped” weeds at harvest, herbicide resistant or not?

The Harrington seed destructor provides some intriguing possibilities, especially in crops such as soybeans and cereals where a significant amount of weed seed will go through the combine.

Like any new technology, there are some objections. The first, usually by farmers, is the current tow-behind unit. Very few operators want to tow behind another implement in the field. Forget about this point. Why? Think of many recent innovations in electronics, the majority has got smaller. This will happen with the Harrington seed destructor; new prototypes will be smaller and attached to the combine.

The second objection is around the unit’s efficacy. Large-seed weeds like wild oats may be easy to destroy, but what about tiny weeds like Canada fleabane or pigweed? Fortunately Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has purchased a unit in Ontario, and Dr. Rob Nurse and Dr. Eric Page will be evaluating the effectiveness of the seed destructor on many common weeds.

Have a question you want answered? Hashtag #PestPatrol on Twitter to @cowbrough or email Mike!

The post Pest Patrol: Are there any promising new mechanical methods for weed control? appeared first on Country Guide.

The post PHOTOS: Seed destructors for weed control appeared first on Country Guide.

Rule #1: Unless you’re looking for games like Farmville, Farming Simulator or Kid’s Farming Sim Tractor, search for apps in Google first before searching through your device’s apps stores, be it iTunes, Google Play or Blackberry App World.

Rule #2: A number of apps are free or have free versions that offer fewer features. Bottom line, there is no downside to trying a free app. If it doesn’t meet your needs, delete it.

Have a question you want answered? Hashtag #PestPatrol to @cowbrough or email Mike!

The post PHOTOS: Pest Patrol: What are the best apps for agriculture? appeared first on Country Guide.

A time-of-day response has been observed by many scientists spanning several decades, so it’s not a fluke. However, the major objection with daytime spraying is that wind speeds are typically highest during this time, increasing the risk of drift. Although there can be days with high and gusty wind speeds, the risk of spray drift is just as significant during periods of dead calm which often occur in the early morning or late evening. At that time the temperature is usually cooler and the relative humidity is typically higher, which can result in the spray droplets remaining aloft, like fog. When the wind picks up, these spray droplets can move away from the target area, possibly causing injury to adjacent non-target areas. Off-target drift in calm conditions can occur hours after the spray event was completed*.

It is therefore more productive to focus on methods to maximize spray droplet coverage on the target during the day when wind speeds aren’t excessively high and gusty. During the 2015 Southwest Agricultural Conference in Ridgetown in January, I sat in on Jason Deveau’s talk on new sprayer tools and was intrigued by one item, especially since there was a grower in the room who was using the product and was pleased with its performance.

The product is called the “Pattern Master” by K-B Agri-Tech (see close-up at right and at top of page), and prices for different booms can be found at the company’s website. My crude math puts the price per unit at roughly $55. The manufacturer claims that the Pattern Master will “reduce drift and increase coverage” (see Figure 2  below). The American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers gave the Pattern Master its AE50 Outstanding Innovations Award for 2015.

If you’ve been struggling to get good consistent weed control with post-emergent herbicides, and if inappropriate weed staging, poor environmental conditions and herbicide resistance cannot explain the poor control, it would be worthwhile to focus on improving coverage, reducing drift and spraying during the day. To see other sprayer tools and tricks, visit sprayers101.com or view Jason’s presentation at southwestagconference.ca.

Have a question you want answered?
Hashtag #PestPatrol on Twitter to @cowbrough or email Mike!

* Taken from “Using Pesticides in Ontario” by Denise Beaton and Jason Deveau (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs)

The post Pest Patrol: Improving spray coverage and reducing drift appeared first on Country Guide.

The short answer is, “Not really.” There are other broadleaf herbicides including MCPA sodium and MCPA/MCPB that can also be used on winter wheat that is underseeded with red clover, but the former is considered too limited in the spectrum of weeds it controls while the latter is considered too expensive.

Experiments were conducted in 2009 and 2010 at four different Ontario locations to assess the crop tolerance of underseeded red clover to 10 winter wheat herbicides. Each herbicide was applied at three different timings.

The first timing was referred to as “early” and occurred later than April 15 but when an air temperature of 0 C was forecast. The second timing was referred to as “normal” and occurred during winter wheat tillering (Zadoks 21-29, typically during the first two weeks of May). The final application timing was referred to as “late” and occurred at the flag leaf stage (Zadoks 37-39, typically late May to early June).

A couple of key learnings came from this study:

The risk of red clover injury that reduced its biomass increased the later a herbicide application was made to the winter wheat crop. Table 1 illustrates the impact that the application timing of Buctril M had on red clover density.

The 10 herbicides tested fall into three categories for their impact on red clover: “safe to use,” “roll the dice” and “forget about it.” Table 2 provides more detail as to the risks involved with each herbicide.

To learn more about these experiments, read “Response of underseeeded red clover to winter wheat herbicides as affected by application timing” recently published in Agricultural Sciences.

Have a question you want answered?
Hashtag #PestPatrol on Twitter to @cowbrough or email Mike.

The post Pest Patrol: Choosing winter wheat herbicides appeared first on Country Guide.

I would hope though, that Peter has earned many people’s respect; he certainly has mine.

After a 30-year career with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the “Wild Man” will be ending his post as the provincial wheat specialist with the field crop unit. He will not be retiring from Ontario agriculture, however, so expect many contributions in the years to come.

I have had three completely different interactions with Peter spanning some 34 years. My first encounter with him was around 1980. His farm was located on the next side road east of the farm I grew up on and where I live today. I went to grade school with his nephews and, for a brief time, his oldest son Jeremy. Peter and his brother Paisley farmed a considerable amount of ground and while riding the school bus I would often see them working the land. This was also the peak of my one-sixty-fourth-scale tractor-collecting phase and I was determined to collect any tractor I saw in the fields of Guelph Township. Their farm presented a unique challenge for this conquest. Although I was able to easily grab an Allis Chalmers 8000 series toy tractor that they had, try as I might I could never find their unusual-looking Muir Hill tractors, or the “yellow beasts” as they were sometimes referred to by my classmates. I remember they grew sunflowers, a crop you simply didn’t see anywhere else. They owned a “White” combine, just like my dad did. My dad sold his in 1991, Peter still uses that same one. Around 1984-85, Peter and his family moved to Lucan and we would not cross paths for another 15 years.

My first full-time job out of university was as a sales rep for a crop protection company. I was at one of the “ag breakfast meetings” that the ministry hosted and when asked a technical question about a product, I simply regurgitated an answer a colleague had previously given because I had little personal experience and didn’t want to come across like I didn’t know the answer.

Not surprisingly, Peter had a lot of challenging followup questions that I couldn’t provide any satisfactory responses for. A valuable lesson was learned that day: It’s all right to say “I don’t know.” From Peter’s perspective it has always been about making the best information available to the Ontario farmer so they can make the best decisions for their operations. That comes with experience and wisdom, and since that encounter I have made it a priority to talk less (which can be debated) and learn more from others in Ontario agriculture so as to gain more experience. This will be a lifelong pursuit.

Lastly, I became a colleague of Peter’s about 12 years ago and it has been invaluable. I will miss him because of his fierce loyalty to those he works with and for. I will miss him because of his incredible support, especially when things haven’t gone as planned. I’m excited for what he will do next because I have no doubt that it will benefit the agricultural community in some way.

The post Pest Patrol: OMAFRA’s Peter Johnson retires appeared first on Country Guide.

Nipplewort can either have an annual life cycle where it germinates in the spring and sets seed within that season or it can have a winter-annual life cycle where it germinates in the late summer or fall, over- winters and then sets seeds, most typically in the summer. It can be confused with sow thistle and prickly lettuce as it has yellow flowers and a similar stature. However, the leaves lack spines and are much darker and broader, with short fuzzy hairs.

Here’s the challenge. Nipplewort plants with a winter-annual life cycle will be quite large early on in the spring, making them more tolerant to herbicides and less likely to be controlled. Such populations should be targeted in the fall when the plant is smaller and more susceptible to herbicides.

Which herbicides are effective? Based on limited studies, Table 1 provides an overview of what has been learned in Ontario.

What other management “tweaks” could improve control of this species?

A Finnish study evaluated the impact of cropping practices on weed occurrence in spring cereals over the course of two decades and found an increase in nipplewort over that period which was attributed to a reduction in primary tillage. Therefore, one could assume that the use of tillage at the time when nipplewort is in the seedling stage would be helpful in reducing its population.

A Norwegian study found nipplewort to be less susceptible to herbicide treatments sprayed in the evening compared to morning and midday.

Have a question you want answered? Hashtag #PestPatrol on Twitter to @cowbrough or email Mike.

The post Pest Patrol: controlling nipplewort appeared first on Country Guide.

Specifically, I had been impressed by some preliminary results when either flumioxazin (found in Valtera, Step-Up, Fierce and Guardian Plus) or saflufenacil (found in Eragon, Integrity and Optill) was mixed with glyphosate and the adjuvant Merge.

• More #PestPatrol with Mike Cowbrough: options for tufted vetch

I promised to provide an update on the level of weed control because I wasn’t completely convinced that the control we saw early in the season would last. Past experience has shown that when herbicides that burn leaf tissue quickly are tank mixed with glyphosate, perennial weeds tend to grow back quickly.

Although the treatments discussed above provided impressive burn of any emerged vetch at four weeks after application, the vetch did grow back at eight weeks after application.

However, there was an unexpected silver lining in this trial. The addition of 2,4-D ester 700 in burn-down treatments, although somewhat unimpressive at first, provided better control of vetch than any other treatment at eight weeks after application.

Bottom line: 2,4-D ester 700 applied pre-plant in soybean looks like a promising tool for the control of vetch in soybeans, provided vetch has emerged at the time of application. More trial work will be needed to verify the consistency of these results.

The post Pest Patrol: Weed control update on vetch appeared first on Country Guide.

Tufted vetch also exhibits high tolerance to many herbicides, most notably glyphosate. A rate response study was conducted by the University of Guelph over a decade ago and it took three times the normal rate of glyphosate to provide over 80 per cent visual control. Observations made by growers and agronomists are consistent with the public research. Glyphosate applied at rates typically used for pre-plant burn-down applications in soybean do not control tufted vetch.

• More Country Guide: Tufted vetch takes off

If tufted vetch is not adequately controlled before planting, there aren’t any effective herbicides at managing it once the soybeans have been planted. A summary of the most effective herbicide programs used in non-GMO soybeans over three years is shown in Table 2 (below image).

Cause for optimism in 2014 research trials?

This spring, I was able to evaluate a number of pre-plant burn-down treatments that targeted some perennial weeds, including tufted vetch. There were a couple of very impressive treatments, specifically when either flumioxazin (found in Valtera, Step-Up, Fierce and Guardian Plus) or saflufenacil (found in Eragon, Integrity and Optill) were mixed with glyphosate and the adjuvant Merge. I will provide an update in the next issue of Pest Patrol to see if this level of control continues, but for the purposes of providing a quick and clean seedbed for soybean emergence, these treatments have been impressive.

An important point: I’m choosing to show you the results of one trial with optimistic results so far. I’m doing so because this is a species that more growers struggle with and there aren’t currently many options. It is important to keep in mind that for a weed to be listed as controlled on a herbicide label, a minimum of 10 replicated trials conducted over two growing seasons must be provided. This provides a level of assurance that the herbicide will perform on the labelled species. One trial may be a fluke; we won’t know until this is replicated several times. Therefore expectations for control of tufted vetch with these treatments at this point should be low.

The post Pest Patrol: options for tufted vetch appeared first on Country Guide.

Operators should clean out their sprayers every time they switch pesticides, but respondents of a survey conducted by Colorado State University in 2013 said they only did it 60 per cent of the time. Operators should also clean out the sprayer when changing sites (e.g. moving from corn into soybeans) but only 31 per cent did so.

Finally, operators should clean out the sprayer at the end of the day, even if they intend to spray the same product the next day. Again, however, only 18 per cent did so.

These relatively low figures might partially account for the fact that 16 per cent of operators admitted to seeing off-target damage in recent years.

• From the Grainews website: Versatile debuts new SP sprayers

So, why aren’t producers cleaning their sprayers more frequently?

Respondents indicated that the biggest constraints aren’t time or cost, but the lack of a suitable place to clean the sprayer, the limited availability of clean water and limited places to put the rinsates.

Ideally, the sprayer should be cleaned at the site where product was applied. The location should not contaminate water supplies or nearby sensitive sites and should not be readily accessible to people, pets or livestock. The easiest way to do this is to have rinse water available in the field (e.g. on the sprayer or a support vehicle) so the rinsate can be applied back onto crop. Alternately, the sprayer can be cleaned at the loading area, but there should be a pad impervious to water with a sump to catch wash water and rinsate.

A review of several recommended protocols for tank cleaning reveals four key steps:

1. Avoid having excess spray mix left over (except for the unavoidable volume in the ballast);
2. Perform a low-volume rinse of the tank;
3. Use some form of tank cleaner (as indicated on the pesticide label) in a second low-volume rinse, and;
4. Finish with a third low-volume rinse.

According to the results of this survey, the size of the tank being cleaned was not a factor. Perhaps surprisingly, the impact of cleaning agents was unclear. What was obvious was that the more rinses, the more effective the cleanout. Further, as long as the volume used to rinse cleared any baffles in the tank, and was sufficient to rinse all surfaces, volumes as low as 10 per cent of the overall tank volume were able to clean the tank by 99 per cent when triple rinsing.

This is an edited version; the full report as shared with Country Guide can be found here.

The post What is the best way to clean your sprayer? appeared first on Country Guide.