That was one of the central messages from Michael Wunsch, a plant pathologist with North Dakota State University, speaking at CropConnect 2026 in Winnipeg in February.

WHY IT MATTERS: White mould was a top disease threat in soybean fields in 2025.

Fungicides do not protect future growth. They only protect the canopy that exists at the time of application.

“When you spray, you’re protecting the canopy that’s there,” Wunsch said. “All that new growth is unprotected.”

That biological reality has implications for fungicide timing, especially if more than one pass is planned.

Bloom stage isn’t the whole story

White mould develops when small, mushroom-like structures form beneath the canopy in moist soil. Wunsch said growers need five to seven days of sustained soil moisture in the top inch of soil as crops enter bloom to produce spores.

Infection occurs through senescing blossoms. Once a blossom dies and forms a small pin-shaped pod, the plant becomes susceptible.

“The per cent of plants with pin-shaped pods is the per cent of plants in a susceptible state,” he said.

Because of that, he uses the percentage of plants with initial pin pods as a guide for fungicide timing. However, timing isn’t just about bloom stage — growers also need to think through their season-long plan.

“When you spray should be determined by the number of applications you plan to make,” Wunsch said.

One pass: wait for more canopy

In black and pinto bean trials conducted under high disease pressure, Wunsch’s team tested different timings based on the percentage of plants with pin pods.

When only one fungicide application was made, early applications performed poorly. Spraying at first bloom or before significant pin pod development protected only a small portion of the canopy.

During early bloom, beans are growing rapidly. Within days of an application, plants can be significantly taller and wider. That new biomass is not protected.

If only one application is planned, Wunsch said growers should generally wait until a high percentage of plants have initial pin pods — often 60 to 100 per cent — before spraying, assuming conditions favour disease.

Applying too early sacrifices protection during the period of maximum susceptibility, when the canopy is full and moisture is trapped within it.

Two passes: move earlier

The logic shifts when a second application is planned.

With a two-pass program in dry beans, Wunsch found the first spray often performed best when applied at roughly 30 to 50 per cent pin pod and sometimes as low as 10 per cent under higher-risk situations.

The reason is that the second application protects the new growth that develops after the first spray.

“You don’t want to sacrifice those early infections,” he said.

In this case, the grower is no longer choosing between early and late protection. The second pass covers the expanding canopy. However, there is still a penalty for going too late.

“Applications must be made prior to pathogen infection,” Wunsch said, adding that once the pathogen has invaded the plant, fungicides cannot eradicate it.

Three passes under high pressure

In high-pressure pinto and kidney bean environments, particularly under sustained cool and wet conditions, Wunsch’s trials showed that three applications — often seven to 10 days apart — provided the most consistent control. Under those conditions, the first application was made earlier, at first bloom, before significant pin pod development.

Subsequent applications protected new growth, and shorter intervals improved consistency under elevated disease pressure. Even so, three passes did not eliminate the disease.

Soybeans follow the same rules

Although white mould in soybeans is more sporadic on the Prairies than in dry beans, Wunsch said the same principles apply. He recommended that a single application be made when 100 per cent of plants reach the R2 growth stage unless canopy closure occurs earlier. In that case, application should coincide with canopy closure.

As in dry beans, the decision depends on risk. If conditions do not favour white mould as the crop enters bloom, he advised waiting until they do.

Practical field scouting

Wunsch offered a simple method to assess pin pod development: walk into areas of the field where white mould risk is highest, examine 10 consecutive plants in a row and count how many have pin pods. Repeat that in at least 10 locations across the field.

That percentage provides a practical indicator of crop susceptibility and can guide timing decisions.

He also urged growers to pay attention to droplet size when applying fungicides, saying it can “make a world of difference” in efficacy.

However, even with precise timing, optimized droplet size and multiple applications under high pressure, white mould was never entirely suppressed in his trials, indicating the resilience of the pathogen under current management practices.

“White mould control isn’t that good,” said Wunsch.

The post Fungicide timing for white mould depends on how many passes you plan to make appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

International regulations are a complex web for Canadian producers, speakers on a late-July Keep It Clean webinar warned.

“When you think about the different crops that are represented, our major field crops, canola, our cereals and our pulses, a large proportion of those are exported,” noted Krista Zuzak, director of crop protection and production for Cereals Canada.

WHY IT MATTERS: Failing to follow the pesticide label or pre-harvest application windows sets farmers up for marketing issues and also risks Canada’s international trade reputation.

This export dependency means farmers must consider regulations beyond Canada’s borders, Zuzak added.

“Countries do have the right to set their standards and their rules that are around human and plant animal or environmental health,” she said.

Glufosinate-ammonium is a prime example, said Jeff English, vice-president of marketing and communications at Pulse Canada. While glufosinate-ammonium has generic registration for lentils in Western Canada, it shouldn’t be used due to misaligned and unset maximum residue limits, he warned.

Even glyphosate, widely used for pre-harvest weed control, carries market risks.

“We do have MRLs established in all major markets,” English said. However, the product is still flagged for caution because market acceptance varies based on end users.

Technology innovation meets trade reality

The disconnect between domestic approvals and international acceptance extends to new technologies. Zuzak pointed to spray drones as an example of innovation constrained by market considerations.

“While there are a lot of advancements in research happening around this technology, spray drones cannot yet be used to apply pesticides on field crops in Canada,” she said. “Currently, there aren’t any agriculture field crop chemicals or pesticides that have labels right now that authorize spray drone use.”

Applying via drone, besides being illegal, is thus also considered an off-label use and could pose a market risk.

Daily decisions carry global consequences

The complexity translates into detailed operational requirements for farmers.

Curtis Rempel, vice-president of crop production and innovation at the Canola Council of Canada, said that careful precision is required for glyphosate applications on canola.

“For canola staging, because of the indeterminate nature of the crop, it can be a little tricky, but we have enough research, and I think, enough visual guidelines now to really indicate that 30 per cent moisture is 50 to 60 per cent seed color change,” he said.

Farmers must also consider disease management for trade purposes.

Market-driven precaution

So far, the industry has adopted a precautionary approach where even legal products may be restricted based on market concerns rather than safety issues.

“We have our product advisory … which is annually updated, as well as our pre-harvest glyphosate staging guides and our pre harvest interval calculator,” Zuzak said.

The importance of farmer-buyer communication can’t be overstated, English said.

“We always recommend talking to your grain buyer before application, just to confirm as a fail safe.”

The post Keep it clean on pre-harvest chemical use appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Major manufacturers, as well as short-line operations, are feeling the pinch, reducing production and laying off workers.

Ben Voss is an engineer who has worked in various capacities for a number of farm equipment manufacturers over the course of his career. He also farms in Saskatchewan.

He says farm equipment sales have been declining each year since 2021-22 and that this is one of the tougher times in the industry over the past 20 years.

While it’s natural to blame soft grain prices and the drop in farm income, Voss believes structural changes in agriculture are a big contributor to this downturn.

Others in the industry may be coming to the same conclusions, but insiders tied to a firm may be hesitant to talk about this elephant in the room.

Voss has gone public with his analysis, posting a couple in-depth articles on LinkedIn.

Manufacturers tend to target the sale of large, high-tech equipment to large farmers. That’s where the demand has been for new equipment.

In the past, a ready market has existed for two-or- three-year-old used equipment as those large farmers ungraded to newer and better.

Voss argues that large operations now farm a big percentage of the total land base, and the number of second-tier buyers isn’t large enough to maintain good prices on used equipment.

Therefore, prices are soft and dropping in many used equipment categories. This is especially true in combines.

Voss points to a situation where a large, new John Deere combine with only a couple hours on it sold for auction at $400,000 less than new price. While this is an extreme example, it illustrates the magnitude of the issue.

In a market saturated with big equipment just a few years old, sale prices drop, and that has wide-ranging implications.

When you figure out what equipment costs you per acre, you typically assume a salvage value — the value you get when you trade off the machine. As salvage values drop, the cost per acre for a machine rises dramatically.

This also has a big impact on the equipment leasing market.

All the equations change when equipment depreciates much faster than anticipated.

Large farms calculating their costs are less likely to trade machines as quickly. Low-hour used equipment increasingly looks like a bargain compared to buying new.

Another pertinent aspect to the discussion is technology and whether the increasing software and computers on new equipment will stand the test of time.

Voss and others worry that the technology may become obsolete or unserviceable long before the mechanical aspects of the machine are worn out. Manufacturers are only required to provide parts for 10 years.

What good is a sprayer if the monitor fails and can’t be fixed or replaced?

Voss argues that equipment should come with a “manual” mode so it can still be functional without some of the precision agriculture technology.

Farm equipment sales have always seen ups and downs through the years, but this downturn may not be solved by an uptick in farm income.

Look at how much excess equipment capacity is sitting on dealer lots. How many new units will be sold if the depreciation rate is going to be so extreme?

Voss makes compelling arguments for why this is a structural change for which the industry will need to adapt.

The post Farm equipment sales sector sees significant structural changes appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

But as MarketsFarm analyst Bruce Burnett says in a recent Alberta Farmer Express article, “It’s not like there’s a magic commodity that you can switch to that would be instantly profitable if you’re trying to replace your canola acreage.”

The best option for canola producers may be to apply agronomy practices that can improve profits for little to no added cost, says the Canola Council of Canada (CCC), which earlier this spring posted the article, “9 agronomy tips to help increase canola profit” on its website.

Of those tips, the following featured:

Know the appropriate target plant stand

The “five to eight plants per square foot” rule has been a plant stand recommendation for canola for about as long as canola has existed.

Some recommend targeting the lower end of that range when seed costs are high and the crop selling price and yield are low. However, it’s essential to not go too low, the council says. Plant populations lower than five per square foot can compromise yield. Also, thin stands are more vulnerable to flea beetles and weed competition.

Target uniform seed emergence

Prioritizing a uniform plant population, in both the field and crop staging, can get a high-yielding crop off to a good start.

There are many ways to achieve this, but a few prominent methods include seeding into warmer soils, being mindful of proper seeding depth, leveling the drill and limiting seed-placed fertilizer. Keeping seeding tools well-maintained and slowing down when seeding also help.

Ideally, producers should seed into soil temperatures of 5 C or higher, particularly if there’s a good chance of warmer weather in the forecast. This should create “reasonably” good rates of seed survival and emergence, Jason Casselman, a CCC agronomy specialist at Fairview, Alta., said via email.

Seeding at one- to one-and-a-half inches below the packer furrow is the recommended seed depth for canola. This can reduce days to emergence as well as the seed energy necessary to emerge, he says. A depth of one inch is also the recommended start point in dry soils.

Leveling a seed drill calls for knowledge of the tool’s seeding depth range. For example, the overall seed depth average of a given drill may be one inch but the range could be zero to two inches.

“The result can be highly variable emergence date, reduced seed survival and an uneven field,” Casselman says.

“Follow the operator’s manuals to level the drill, check that openers are in good shape and inflate tires to the same pressure.”

Be mindful of how much fertilizer you’re placing in the seed row, he adds, as seed-placed fertilizer can increase seedling mortality. Limit seed-placed fertilizer to phosphate fertilizer at rates of up to 20 lbs./ac.

Choose seed with disease resistance

If you have fields with yield-robbing levels of blackleg, be sure to use blackleg-resistant canola varieties that match the blackleg races in that field. The council website can help producers find labs that test stubble for race, and also features a list identifying cultivars with blackleg-resistant genes.

Clubroot-resistant cultivars and higher sclerotinia stem rot tolerance can help reduce yield loss with relatively little additional cost, the CCC says. But resistant cultivars aren’t the only tool in this particular toolbox: starting off with more plants per square foot and an improved seed treatment may offset some need to spray.

Manage flea beetles with plant density

Much the same can be said for flea beetle management. If you’re planning one or more flea beetle sprays, target a higher number of plants per square foot. That, plus an improved seed treatment, may also offset the need to spray.

Meet crop needs for fertilizer

Generally speaking, you don’t want to cut fertilizer rates. While doing so may reduce upfront costs, the chances of improved profitability at season’s end are remote.

“Fertilizing for a 50 bu./ac. target yield is usually more profitable than fertilizing for a 40 bu./ac. target yield, as long as weather allows crops to get close to those targets,” the council says.

Casselman again recommends limiting seed-placed fertilizer to minimize seedling damage. For soils with low to medium phosphorus levels, he suggests placing a starter rate in the seed row (15-20 lbs. of phosphorus pentoxide, the equivalent of around 30 to 40 lbs./ac. of monoammonium phosphate (MAP)).

“Soil tests will often recommend a higher rate of phosphorus for canola, so the balance is best added into the fertilizer blend placed outside the seed row,” he says.

The risk of seed-placed fertilizer comes from the nitrogen component of ammonium phosphate, ammonium sulphate and all nitrogen fertilizers, he says.

“Ammonia can damage seedlings through direct toxicity while nitrate will damage seedlings by desiccation through the salt effect.

“These salts, when dissolved in soil water, have an osmotic effect that can hold back moisture from germinating seeds and seedlings. When soil moisture is lacking, this effect is worse for seed and seedlings.”

Potassium should stay out of the seed row because of its high salt index. The same goes for sulphur, which can damage seedlings when in close proximity.

“Canola has a much lower tolerance to seed-placed potassium than cereals, and stands can be reduced if seed-placed potassium rates exceed safe rates, especially with drills that have low seedbed utilization,” says Casselman.

It’s best to apply fertilizer at time of seeding. Doing so tends to avoid the kind of losses associated with fall application. It also eliminates the need for an in-crop top dress.

Control weeds early

Farmers are all too familiar with the dangers of weeds, but they should know canola’s yield potential is more vulnerable to early weed competition than most grains. That’s why early weed control is paramount.

“If a farmer budgets for two sprays, early applications cost the same as late applications, but early applications can increase yield and profit,” the council says.

“For perennials and winter annuals that have overwintered and for competitive annuals like kochia, a pre-seed tank-mixed burn-off is often the most economical first application.”

Cut when all seeds are firm to roll

Canola achieves optimum seed yield and quality when swathed at 60 per cent seed colour change (SCC) or later, the CCC says.

To estimate the SCC in your field, Casselman recommends taking a plant and dividing the main stem into thirds and then inspecting the stems from each third. At 60 per cent SCC, seeds from the top third of the main stem will still be green but firm to roll.

“Seeds from the middle third will be mostly brown, with some speckling and mottling. Seeds from the bottom third, the most mature, will have completely turned brown‑black in colour.”

The canola council set the 60 per cent target based on a multi-location study from the early 2000s, It found canola swathed at 50 to 60 per cent SCC on the main stem yielded at least eight per cent more than fields swathed at 30 to 40 per cent SCC. Canola swathed at 60 to 70 per cent SCC yielded 11 per cent more than fields swathed at 30 to 40 per cent.

Minimize combine loss

Harvest losses out of the back of a combine are not negligible. In fact, these losses can exceed 10 per cent of yield in challenging harvest conditions or when going too fast with a poorly-set combine.

“You can’t manage what you don’t measure” applies here and in this case, management requires a drop pan, the CCC says.

“The right settings will require some trial and error, especially when learning the ropes with a new combine. Growers can reduce losses to one or two per cent with attention to detail and adjustment to changing harvest conditions.”

Rotate crops to improve yield

Generally, two- to three-year breaks between canola crops is considered enough to reduce crop disease severity, select for weed resistance and increase yield. Adding a third crop to a wheat-canola rotation isn’t easy, but the long-term benefits of doing so can improve canola profitability.

More specifically, a one-year break between canola crops can reduce carryover of blackleg fungus onto canola stubble, says Casselman. However, it takes a break of at least two full years (a one-in-three rotation) to reduce disease severity and yield loss risk.

A three-year break (a one-in-four rotation) for all intents and purposes eliminates yield loss risk from blackleg.

For clubroot, growing resistant hybrids is an effective tool when combined with a minimum two-year break between canola crops, Casselman says.

Evidence from three rotation studies in Canada — two at Normandin in Quebec’s Saguenay region and one in Alberta — indicates two years between host crops (one-in-three rotation) is the minimum rotation to manage clubroot spores in a field, he notes.

“Thomas Ernst, who did the Alberta study, observed an eight- to 20-fold drop in resting spore concentrations with a two-year break after growing clubroot-resistant canola. With a one-year break, Ernst found that resting spore numbers never dropped enough to provide any reduction in risk.”

According to Casselman, University of Saskatchewan professor Christian Willenborg, a weed scientist, declared volunteer canola the major weed associated with continuous canola cultivation. Volunteer canola covers a gamut of risk, from yield reduction to unwanted crop competition to higher disease build.

“They can also reduce harvest quality if volunteers mature later and increase green seed counts,” Casselman says.

Some tips for reducing volunteer canola include short breaks between canola crops, rotation of herbicide tolerance systems and using pre-seed and fall herbicide timing on top of in-crop applications.

“Rotation with other crops provides expanded options to rotate among herbicide groups. Winter cereals or perennial legumes can be part of a system of integrated weed management,” he says.

The post Good agronomy urged under uncertain canola market appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Smaller drones designed for surveying, and crop/livestock monitoring are already a tool in many farmers’ toolboxes, but the larger spray drones are also becoming more practical in a Prairie context.

“With the spraying we’re doing on canola and other crops, we’re losing too much money on tracks, and it’s getting costly for airplanes and helicopters,” said Dwayne Bacon, a farmer from Kinistino, Sask. attending the event.

“This will be a new thing for farmers to get into,” he added.

The spray drones on display had the capacity to cover 40 to 50 acres per hour. However, while the technology is there, regulatory approval for the applications of most interest to farmers is lacking.

“The regulations are running behind the technology… which puts farmers in a tough position,” said David Koop, chief operating officer of Green Aero Tech.

Under the current Canadian regulations, spray drones are legally allowed to do such things as applying fertilizer and spreading seed, but no pesticides have regulatory approval from Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

“It’s not allowed, but is it being done? Absolutely. And is it the primary interest? Absolutely,” said Markus Weber, president of Landview Drones. He expected the vast majority of spraying drones were being used for applying pest control products, desiccants and herbicides. “I realize that’s not currently considered legal by PMRA, but that is what most of the people buying spraying drones are doing.”

“There are definitely people being told that it is legal to apply on their own farm by vendors that are eager to sell these drones. That is not the case, the PMRA considers it equally illegal if you’re spraying on your own farm or spraying on someone else’s farm,” said Weber.

“There are people going in with their eyes closed, but there are also people going in with their eyes wide open and they don’t have another option,” said Weber, noting that small farmers often have no other choice for applying fungicide in-crop without a high clearance sprayer.

“It will be a year full of drama, and I’m looking forward to that drama because I think that’s what it will take in this business to get things to change,” said Weber.

“Many farmers don’t realize that spraying off label with a drone is considered illegal by PMRA, and I hope those aren’t the people that are prosecuted,” said Weber, noting he expected to see some enforcement in 2024 with heavy fines a possibility.

While approval for agricultural chemicals could be years away, there was a glimmer of hope when the PMRA approved the Garlon XRT brush-control herbicide for drone usage in just the past week.

“We look forward to when we’ve gone through the process and are able to do everything,” said Koop, adding “farming’s tough up here, and guys need every single edge they can get.”

The post From AIM: Expect a year of drone drama appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Now, research by the Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute (PAMI) along with the College of Agriculture at the University of Saskatchewan and Agrimetrix in Saskatoon is asking, ‘Can we make them more aerodynamic?’

Spray placement is already a complex equation of wind and other weather conditions, but how does air disturbance from the sprayer itself factor in? 

It comes down to air disturbance from the sprayer.

It’s simple to assume that a boom with nozzles pointed straight down is going to put that spray onto the crop or the soil. Under the best of conditions, this is true, but nature rarely provides the best of conditions. 

“Drift is not beneficial. We want to concentrate the spray in the area that it is desired and not have it go anywhere else,” said Lorne Grieger, PAMI’s director of technical sales. “When you’re looking at the sprayer, how it’s physically put together in terms of the structure and how it’s operated, we want to understand how that impacts the potential for spray drift.”

If you’ve ever watered a garden patch by putting your thumb over the end of the hose, you have an idea of how hard it is to get an even spray exactly where you want it. You’ll have droplets of all sizes going in several different directions. Some spots will get more water than others.

A hose nozzle from the local hardware store will do a better job of even coverage and give you options ranging from a long jet of water to a fine mist. Still, it may be confounded by a sudden breeze that can misdirect the stream. 

In the garden, this isn’t a serious problem. With a pesticide, it certainly can be.

You don’t want anything drifting across the road to do damage in a neighbouring field. You want to account for every drop.

Measuring disturbance

The PAMI team’s work started with a computer simulator to get a broad idea of where drops might go during application.

“We used a tool called Computational Fluid Dynamics, which is a computer simulation of air flows,” Grieger said. “Then we coupled that with the equipment to understand what the impacts or implications are with using the physical structure of a high-clearance sprayer.”

Modelling a moving sprayer is more complex than you might think. It’s a solid object moving through the air while it dispenses a liquid out the back from a long boom. As it moves, it sets up small eddies and whorls within the air. To make it even more complicated, that air is moving too. This can have all kinds of influences on where the spray goes.

“Part of the simulation process is simplifying… a very complex type of system,” Grieger said. “This allows us to break it down into something that can be modelled and can be solved.”

The computer separates the equipment into its component parts: the tractor, the tank and the boom. The software can calculate how air would move around the different shapes and how it would probably act in very specific locations.

Researchers can then tweak some of the inputs such as ground speed or wind direction and come up with a good idea of how the air will behave around the sprayer and how it will affect the spray itself. 

Once satisfied with the data, it was time to test the model in the real world.

“We did simulation work looking at a self-propelled sprayer operating in the field.” Grieger said.

Grieger’s team mounted several small anemometers — sensors to measure both the direction and speed of the air at several points behind the sprayer and around the boom.

“The intent of using the anemometers was to understand how laminar or how turbulent the air would be at various locations behind the sprayer and the boom itself,” Grieger said. “We wanted to understand the direction of the air. Is it going straight or is it going to the side? Or it also may be going up.”

That last option, he noted, would certainly have the potential for extra drift.

Laminar flow is a layer of air moving from one point to another, very much like the air flowing from a furnace vent. Under ideal circumstances, it will flow straight and unimpeded along the floor. Staying with the vent analogy, when the dog walks into the warm stream, curls up and lies down, there is suddenly an uneven obstacle that the air has to move around. The dog is now a source turbulent flow. If he’s lying on his back with his legs in the air, the effect is even greater, since the strange shape can cause the air to move in strange directions.

That sleeping dog is a simpler obstruction than a sprayer moving across the field. 

“The combinations of the physical components can impact what you see behind the unit itself,” Grieger said.

If there’s a slight breeze blowing, it may be a laminar flow straight over the square cab, but it starts to move in all kinds of directions as it meets the less regularly shaped tank, tires or the boom, with all its hoses and superstructure. These are the eddies that wind up slipping under the nozzles, thus influencing drift.

There were a few takeaways from the work, some of which echoed standard advice from spray experts. Grieger’s team noted lower drift potential in lower boom heights and slower ground speeds, although a caveat on that last point noted that varying conditions mean there is no perfect speed setting for spraying.

The other thing they found, however, was that the aerodynamic efficiency of the boom was affected by the width of the tractor portion of the machine. Nozzles closer to the end of the boom were less affected by turbulence caused by the machine in the middle.

Impact

What Grieger’s work was really developing was research methods for analyzing the engineering of future farm equipment. The ideas generated by this kind of research could contribute to the development of better simulation software and better design and operation of equipment like sprayers.

“This is the first step in terms of overall understanding. What does it look like in the field when you’re using a high-clearance sprayer? What does it do to your spray drift potential?” Grieger said. “And then, once you have the data, you can use that as a benchmark for making any adjustments or changes to the implement.”

– This article was originally published at the Manitoba Co-operator.

The post The role of aerodynamics when crop spraying appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Swings in weather, from drought last year to wet this year, can affect water quality, said the author of the popular blog, Sprayers 101.

“Things do change,” he said. “And also, our herbicides and our use patterns also change slightly. For example, we’ve had a slight increase in price — a significant increase in price in some cases — of some herbicides. And that’s an incentive then for farmers to use lower rates.”

Water quality becomes even more critical with low-rate glyphosate, which is generally out of favour when prices are lower, said Wolf, noting he’s taken lots of recent calls about water quality.

Most of those are on water conditioning and hardness — issues for producers who draw from groundwater rather than surface water dugouts. Changing water levels from last year’s drought may have shifted the quality of that groundwater.

In many areas of Manitoba, flooding has increased turbidity (suspended particles and sediment whipped up by water flows) in surface water sources.

“The turbidity is the big issue, turbidity and organic suspended solids,” said Wolf. “Those are very difficult to actually get around.”

Both glyphosate and Reglone are seriously impacted by the amount of suspended solids in water, but that measure isn’t always included in test result, he noted. Some tests may label water generally as appearing clear, “but how clear is that exactly?

“What does it mean for herbicides? That’s really unclear right now,” said Wolf.

“There are turbidity indices that some water tests provide, and we don’t know how those are related to efficacy. We really only know the most rudimentary of information.”

While turbidity may be visible, chemistry is not, said Kim Brown-Livingston, Manitoba’s provincial weed specialist.

She, too, urges producers to test their water.

They may need help to interpret the test results, said Wolf.

“Water test results look like a chemistry exam,” he said. “They have all of these terms and so I think it is difficult to know, because we don’t all have that chemistry background. Consulting with an expert is advisable rather than guessing.”

The post Weather swing prompts questions on spray water quality appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Farmers and scientists for years have reported problems with dicamba drifting away from where it is sprayed on fields, causing damage to plants not modified to resist the herbicide.

The EPA said it received about 3,500 reports this year indicating that more than a million acres of non-dicamba-tolerant soybean crops were allegedly damaged when the chemical drifted from where it was applied. Trees and crops like rice and grapes also suffered damage, the agency said.

The number, severity and geographic extent of the incidents was similar to 2020, when the EPA tightened restrictions on dicamba use, the agency said.

“Right now we don’t know whether over-the-top dicamba can be used in a manner that doesn’t pose unreasonable risks to non-target crops and other plants,” said Michal Freedhoff, an EPA assistant administrator.

The EPA is evaluating all its options for addressing future dicamba-related incidents, Freedhoff said.

Further restrictions would be a blow to Bayer, which sells the herbicide and seeds to grow dicamba-resistant crops. The company has settled lawsuits brought by land owners who say their crops were damaged by neighbours using dicamba.

Bayer, which has said dicamba can be used safely, had no immediate comment.

Some farmers and seed companies have called for regulators to limit spraying to the spring season, before crops are planted.

Regulatory changes will probably not be fully implemented by the 2022 growing season, the EPA said. The agency said it will work with states that want to impose further restrictions, though.

In June 2020, a U.S. appeals court blocked dicamba sales and ruled the EPA had substantially understated risks related to its use.

In October 2020, the EPA under former president Donald Trump re-authorized the use of dicamba-based herbicides, invalidating the court ruling.

— Tom Polansek reports on agriculture and ag commodities for Reuters from Chicago.

The post U.S. EPA reviewing dicamba over crop damage claims appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

If it lives up to its promise, farmers would save countless dollars in reduced herbicide use, benefit the environment, and maybe even gain the upper hand in battling herbicide resistance.

In Canada, the face of spot spraying has been Weed-It — a unit that’s become virtually synonymous with the so-called ‘green-on-brown’ precision-spraying technology touted as ideal for pre-seeding burn-down.

Although producers love the idea, their enthusiasm is tempered by both the cost — about $1,500 per foot of boom — and its utility, said Ken Coles, general manager of farmer-directed research organization Farming Smarter.

“The fact that it’s really only a tool for pre-seed burn-down and chem fallow-type applications probably limits people’s excitement because they usually buy a sprayer to do everything,” said Coles.

Farming Smarter hosted reps from Croplands Equipment at a field day earlier this summer to talk about the latest iteration of the Weed-It, the Quadro.

The Quadro sprays in three modes: full coverage, dual function (which can shift between low- and high-application rates) and spot spraying. But it can’t spray weeds in crop — that requires ‘green-on-green’ sensor technology, which is still in its fledgling stages and limited mainly to the European arena.

Another barrier to adoption of spot-spraying technology is that it is high tech.

“A lot of people know that any machine with that kind of complexity takes the control from the farmer in a sense because they can’t fix and tweak their own equipment — they have to rely on someone like a technician or a highly skilled person to come in,” said Coles. “That definitely scares people a little bit.

“I think in general there’s a certain hesitation because of cost and fear of technology. I think these are things that develop and improve over time; (products) need to be calibrated and fine-tuned.”

Still, the potential for significant herbicide savings is very attractive, said Coles.

Croplands, a subsidiary of Nufarm, says the Weed-It Quadro can save up to 90 per cent on chemical costs when spraying early weeds. It also claims a payback period of around two years for producers spraying 8,000 acres per year.

“That definitely caught people’s attention,” said Coles. “When the presenters talked about the amount of cost savings and the ability to use expensive pesticides sparingly, then I think that certainly generated a certain amount of interest.

“There’s also the fact that it’s on a full-scale, high-clearance sprayer with a detachable boom.”

The farmer attendees also seemed to enjoy the highly visual presentation by Croplands reps, added Coles.

They placed water-sensitive paper next to a weed and demonstrated how the chlorophyll-detecting sensors could differentiate between the two objects. Croplands says these sensors can sense a green weed in a field (even at night) and command spray nozzles to target it in an area as small as a centimetre.

“They could visually see the spray turn on and off as it was going over a weed.”

Croplands, which also operates in Australia, says it has sold more than 10,000 of the Weed-It sensors to farmers and customer operators Down Under. Parts of Australia have particularly severe outbreaks of herbicide-resistant weeds — that and reducing herbicide costs are commonly cited as the main drivers of Weed-It’s success in that country.

The post Spot spraying gets lots of looks but many farmers seem hesitant appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Regina-based Brandt announced Tuesday it has closed its previously-announced deal to buy the assets of GeoShack Canada — two weeks after Dallas-based GeoShack declared that “a mutually beneficial deal… has not been attained.”

GeoShack has been the “long-time exclusive supplier” for Topcon Positioning Systems equipment in Ontario, including sales, service, and rentals of GPS and other equipment for the ag, construction, survey and engineering industries, through locations in Toronto, Ottawa and London.

California-based Topcon’s agricultural products include precision seeding, spraying and harvest equipment as well as autosteer and guidance systems.

Brandt, which already had a “pre-existing Topcon footprint” in Western and Atlantic Canada and last month made a deal with Topcon for distribution rights to the Quebec market, is now “the exclusive dealer for Topcon Positioning Systems and other complimentary tools and technology for the entire Canadian market.”

GeoShack, in a separate release Monday, said the deal also makes Brandt “likely Canada’s largest geopositioning technology supplier.” Its staff in Ontario are employed by Brandt “effective immediately,” GeoShack added.

“The combination of… GeoShack’s Ontario-based team and Brandt’s national infrastructure is going to be powerful for our Ontario customers,” GeoShack president Scott Beathard said in the same release.

“We’ve worked very hard to build strong relationships and a solid operation in the Ontario market over the last 16 years and we’re completely confident that Brandt will continue to grow the business and provide unmatched value for clients in that market.”

“We’ve worked hard to make this a great deal for our survey, engineering and construction customers in Ontario and Quebec,” Brandt CEO Shaun Semple said Tuesday.

“Brandt’s 56 locations from coast to coast to coast coupled with GeoShack’s strategic locations in Ontario will position Brandt, with the industry’s largest team of experts, to provide an unmatched degree of aftersales support,” Brandt said.

Brandt’s deal with GeoShack parent Ultara Holdings also includes Inteq Distributors, a “complementary business” with a distribution centre at Exeter, Ont. providing sales and service on “an extensive selection of construction instruments, optical equipment, survey supplies and accessories.”

Both the GeoShack and Inteq brands and operations in Ontario will be “transitioned” into Brandt Positioning Technology, the company said.

Neither Brandt nor GeoShack said exactly why the deal had appeared to die late last month, nor did either company say what had happened to revive it. Privately-held Brandt did not disclose the financial terms of the final deal.

Formed in 1995, GeoShack expanded to Ontario in 2003 when it merged the Toronto- and Exeter-based businesses of Laserline Ontario with those of three other independent distributors in Texas, Ohio and Michigan.

Outside Ontario, GeoShack will still have 16 U.S. locations in eight states. –– Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Brandt closes GeoShack deal, locks up Topcon sales in Canada appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.