Searching for optimal weather conditions for spraying
Choose the optimal climatic conditions for spraying (wind, humidity), and opt for the lowest effective dose possible. Favorable conditions: very low wind (also pay attention to its direction), pushing weather (active vegetation), average temperatures > 8 to 10 °C and not too high (before and after intervention), humidity > 60 °C, absence of water or thermal stress. Do not treat less than three days before a rainy episode. To be adapted according to the products. Adapt the conditions to the products used (contact, root) and consult the usage recommendations on the containers.
Details on the technique :
These recommendations are part of the "Good Practices Agricultural" that should normally be implemented. They are recalled during Certiphyto trainings delivered to farmers.
Implementation period On established crops
Avoid periods with high risk of runoff
Spatial scale of implementation Plot
Application of the technique to...
All crops : Easily generalizable
This technical solution is difficult to implement for some crops (generally poor climatic conditions during the intervention period). Example: on winter rapeseed (when an end-of-winter regulator is justified by risk grids), application is often carried out under non-optimal climatic conditions.
All soil types : Easily generalizable
All climatic contexts : Easily generalizable
Adaptation of the rule to different times of the year (e.g., humidity should be considered for an intervention carried out in May/June/July, runoff risk in November/December/January/February).
Regulations
POSITIVE influence
Prohibition to treat (spraying or dusting) with wind force greater than or equal to 3 on the Beaufort scale (19 km/h). Order of 12/09/2006 relating to the marketing and use of products referred to in article L. 253-1 of the rural code
Performing an adjustment of spray quality (for example spray distribution, nozzle direction), to reduce the use of plant protection products is the subject of a CEPP sheet (action no. 57 : Reduce the use of plant protection products by adjusting your sprayer).
Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
Environmental criteria
Effect on air quality : Increasing
phytosanitary emissions : DECREASE
GHG emissions : NEUTRAL
Effect on water quality : Increasing
N.P. : DECREASE
Effect on fossil resource consumption : Decreasing
fossil energy consumption : NEUTRAL
phosphorus consumption : DECREASE
Other : No effect (neutral)
Pollutant transfer to water (N, P, phyto ...): Decrease
Decrease in the quantities of plant protection products used and their transfer to water bodies (less drift).
Pollutant transfer to air (N, P, phyto ...): Decrease
Decrease in the quantities of plant protection products used and their transfer to air (less drift).
Fossil energy consumption: no effect (neutral)
GHG emissions: no effect (neutral)
Agronomic criteria
Productivity : Variable
Variable effect on yield: if the technique is used to improve treatment efficiency, yield may increase; if implemented to reduce doses at equivalent efficacy, yield does not change.
Soil fertility : No effect (neutral)
Water stress : No effect (neutral)
Functional Biodiversity : Increasing
If reduction of quantities used and by reducing transfers. The beneficial effect on fauna and flora of plots is probably null if dose reduction does not imply a reduction in product efficacy.
Economic criteria
Operating costs : Decreasing
By reducing the quantities of products used
Mechanization costs : No effect (neutral)
Margin : Increasing
Social criteria
Working time : No effect (neutral)
Peak period : No effect (neutral)
Not necessarily a reduction in the number of interventions. The distribution and work organization may evolve if searching for favorable conditions leads to adapting the schedule (treat early morning or evening).
Observation time : Increasing
Slight increase in field observation time.
4. Favored or disadvantaged organisms
Disadvantaged bioagressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| weeds | weeds | All organisms targeted by sprayed treatments. Efficacy depends on that of the product used on the concerned bioagressor and application conditions. | |
| pathogen (bioagressor) | pathogen (bioagressor) | All organisms targeted by sprayed treatments. Efficacy depends on that of the product used on the concerned bioagressor and application conditions. | |
| pest, predator or parasite | pest, predator or parasite | All organisms targeted by sprayed treatments. Efficacy depends on that of the product used on the concerned bioagressor and application conditions. |
For more information
- Influence of micrometeorological factors on pesticide loss to the air during vine spraying: Data analysis with statistical and fuzzy inference models
- -Gil Y. ; Sinfort C. ; Guillaume S. ; Brunet Y. ; Palagos B
Biosystems Engineering, Peer-reviewed journal article, 2008
Scientific journal article. Specifies links between drift and meteorological spraying conditions
- Spray drift as influenced by meteorological and technical factors
- -Arvidsson T. ; Bergström L. ; Kreuger J.
Pest Management Science, Peer-reviewed journal article, 2011
Scientific journal article. Specifies links between drift and meteorological spraying conditions
- Strategies for crop protection saving plant protection products
- -Gran Aymerich L.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Academic work, 2006
- Summary of methods aimed at reducing the use of plant protection products in arable crops
- -Batisse Emeline
DRAFF / Vetagrosup, Academic work, 2010
- Transfers of plant protection products : choosing application periods well
Perspectives Agricoles, Press article, 2008
Keywords
Bioagressor control method : Chemical control
Mode of action : Catch-up
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use : Efficiency
Appendices
Défavorise les bioagresseurs suivants
La version initiale de cet article a été rédigée par Sébastien Minette, Nicolas Munier-Jolain, Martine Despéraux-Roblein et Julien Halska.
| Sébastien Minette | Regional Chamber Poitou-Charentes | Sebastien.MINETTE(at)poitou-charentes.chambagri.fr | Lusignan (86) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nicolas Munier-Jolain | INRA | Nicolas.Munier-Jolain(at)dijon.inra.fr | Dijon (21) |
| Martine Despéraux-Roblein | Chamber of Agriculture of Saone et Loire | mdespreaux(at)sl.chambagri.fr | Saint Germain du Bois (71) |
| Julien Halska | INRA | julien.halska(at)grignon.inra.fr | Dijon (21) |
Spam control: To use these addresses, replace (at) with @
