EOS – concept Environmentally Optimized Sprayer

1. EOS – conceptEnvironmentallyOptimized Sprayer EOS workshop Brussels 25th November 2010 Manfred Roettele

2. OUTLINE TOPPS – lessons EOS a spin off from TOPPS Entry routes of PPP into surface water and their significance Risk mitigation measures work Risk areas and sprayer technology Cleaning FillingRemnant management What is EOS ? EOS – objectives EOS - tool EOS + StandardsEOS still work to do Project structure + team

3. TOPPS - Lessons (1)* Point sources are the most significant entry route of pesticides into surface water Mitigation of point sources is easiest entry route to avoid water contamination (TOPPS stakeholder survey n=600) * LIFE/ECPA project: Train Operators Prevent Point Sources – Common BMPs, Awareness, Information Training, Demonstrations in 15 countries (2005 – 2008)

4. TOPPS - Lessons (2) • Common Best Management Practices (BMPs) are the starting point for efficient mitigation (Procedures need to be detailed) • Water protection is a multi-stakeholder task! • Adoption of a process view is necessary to understand each others problems and • to contribute to solutions WHAT + HOW TO DO THINGS

5. TOPPS - Lessons (3) • Efficient BMPs - • development and knowledge transfer needs to be optimized in most countries • (Structure + Training + Advice) • Potential to improve equipment and infrastructure is not fully realized • f.e. Reduction of residual volumes, better cleaning procedures, remnant management

6. TOPPS - Lessons (4) • Development of common • BMPs across EU Member states is possible (EU-core) • (consistent, credible, transparent, locally adaptable- equal playing field) EU Core BMPs

7. EOS – project is a spin of from TOPPS • Focus is on • Point sources the easiest entry route to avoid (fast wins) • Water Protection is a multi stakeholder task (Cooperation) • Efficient mitigation concepts need to focus on the entire „Crop Protection Process“ (holistic view) • Mitigation potentials of improved equipment and infrastructure not yet fully realized (Communication – understand the concerns) • Knowledge transfer and risk awareness – (behaviour change)

8. PPP – entry routes into surface water Point sources most significant > 50%

9. PPP – entry routes significanceGeneralEstimate: Variability in specific situations can be very high

10. Advice + improved equipment and infrastructure reduced PPP losses to surface water by about 90% : Example Vemmenhoeg Sweden Source: J. Kreuger, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

11. Risk areas where sprayer technology can strongly contribute to water protection

12. Cleaning – key risk areaChallenge: Reduce residual volumes to a minimum A Left over spray (more than the volume needed to cover spray area – not exact calibration; unprecise water filling ect.B+C Total residual volume, which remains in the sprayer (cannot be delivered at the intended application rate)B Dilutable volume which can flow back to the tankC Non dilutable volume which cannot flow back to the tankD Rinse water tank Picture: PC-fruit

13. Standards on total residual volumes (EN 12761) • Twodefinitions of emptysprayer • EN 12761Total residual volume- Spray mixture which remains in the sprayer, which cannot be delivered with the intended application rate. Indicator: 25% drop of pressure (Focus on application) • ISO 22368Total residual volume- Spray mixture out until there is not any liquid coming out of the nozzles (shutoff circulation .- check manufacturer instructions?) Indicator: nozzles blow air (Focus on cleaning)Between the two definitions difference in total residual volume can be up to 50% Field sprayers: Example Orchard-, Vine sprayers : Example Sprayers are cleaned 7 to 10 times per season

14. Best sprayers today are already 50 % better than the standard Compliance of new sprayers with the standard EN 12761 refering to total residual volumes in sprayers. ENTAM tests analysed; C.Debear, PC-fruit, Belgium, AAB Conf. Cambridge 2008 ENTAM=European Network of testing Agricultural Machines

15. Perception of residual volumes by operators is very variable and associated with uncertainty Spray volumes remaining in the sprayer after application . Farmer surveys pilot areas: (DE,FR,BE mixed farms, field sprayers; IT vine/orchard farms, vine sprayers – TOPPS farmer survey 2007)

16. Transfer of the cleaning of sprayers to the field had strongest influence on the reduction of PPP – point source water contamination (> 70 %) Rel. reductionofPPPpollution in 5 catchmentssewageplantsReductionof Point sourcepollutionthroughsprayercleaning in the field(Hessen / Germany Presented by Prof. Frede Univ. Giessen at TOPPS Forum Germany Oct 2006 (changed)

17. TOPPS - BMP – Recommendation: bring as little as possible residual volume back to farm Triple rinsing:Introduce clean water in the spray tank 3 times and dilute the residual spray volumes. Spray diluted amount out in field after each rinsing step.Time consuming, step down from tractor etc) Continuous rinsing: Second pump delivers fresh water continously to dilute residual spray liquid. Sprayer pump continously pushes out the diluted volume.More convenient, faster

18. User friendliness is an important aspect to have the application of mitigation measures accepted Example: Rinsing practice – TOPPS audit 2007 Pilotarea

19. Sprayer inside cleaning Rinsing efficiency of sprayer depends on low residual volume, rinsing technology, sufficient rinse water capacity, sprayer and tank design Concentrations % of drainable volume in sump, rinse water used according to standard EN 12761: H.J. Wehmann JKI France: if residual volume can be diluted to 1 % remaining liquid can be left in the field

20. Only about 70 % of sprayers compliant with the requirements of standard for rinse water tank capacity Compliance with standard YES NO Compliance of new sprayers with the standard EN 12761 refering to rinse tank capacities of sprayers. ENTAM tests analysed; C.Debear, PC-fruit, Belgium, AAB Conf. Cambridge 2008

21. Outside PPP contamination especially for sprayers operating with air support can be high Outside cleaning in the field is an effective mitigation measure

22. Outside contamination Outside contaminationoforchardsprayersweremeasuredbetween 0,33 to 0,83% oftheappliedamount in Italy (Balsari et al 2006) In Belgiumactiveingredients on orchardsprayerswerefoundbetween 82,5 and 207 g ai / ha in a spray season(Debaer et al. 2008) Outside cleaning most efficient when deposits are still wet

23. Risk area filling • Two options • filling in the field • filling on the farm yard • Two aspects • Filling of concentrated PPP • Filling of water Precausionary measures

24. Risk area filling • protect the water source no direct contact (Return valve, Intermediary tank) • be sure the amount of water you fill into the sprayer is correct. • avoid foaming during filling (no air inclusion) • 85 % of operators fill water using the scales at the tank. …. but • measuring scales at the tank are often not easy readable and often not very precise

25. Risk area remnant management If rinsing process has been done correctly in the field remnants will be rather small. Management of remnats needs also right infrastructure (Biobeds/filters) • Sprayer design relevant • Collection of residual volumes from the sprayer • Avoid leakages / spills during maintenance (filters, nozzles) • Cover difficult to clean devices

26. What is EOS ? Project to integrate sprayer technology into broader risk mitigation to protect the environment along the crop protection process + tools helping to achieve a broader understanding for risk mitigation

27. EOS – Project key objectives Create awareness Stimulate improvements Support improvements

28. Create awareness Understand that risk mitigation goes along the crop protection process : Stakeholders PPP Application Efficacy +/- Infrastructure Develop a platform for discussions between Sprayer manufacturers and Crop protection : understand each others concerns ... out of silos Farmers PPP - industry Sprayermakers

29. Stimulate improvements • Knowing the significance of risks will focus sprayer development more on EOS • Constructive cooperation with stakeholders • Develop additional sales arguments for EOS sprayer (easier to sell) • Transparent information will help EOS sprayers in the competitive environment (benefit will be obvious)

30. Support improvements • Provide solid decision base for stakeholders deciding on incentives to improve equipment • Communicate on EOS innovations • Make use of PPP more sustainable • Help farmers to make future proof decisions

31. EOS – provides an evaluation tool focus is on environmental protection Risk areas and problems are weighted based on their significance + Technologies / technical solutions are evaluated on their risk mitigation capabilities Areas: Inside cleaningOutside cleaningFilling Remnant ManagementDrift + Spray losses 86 selections out of 276

32. Evaluations are based on best in class technology • based on performance measurements • expert judgements

33. EOS evaluation tool is not interfering with the standards (EN/ISO) EOS We consider the standards a minimum requirement which should be met Standard Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item n

34. EOS is a dynamic tool …. steady and further development is needed based on constructive stakeholder cooperation and interaction …. we are convinced it is a good idea and it has the potential for many WIN / WIN relationships …. we look forward to fruitful further development and support from many stakeholders

35. Gräfenroda, DE EOS – Process End 2010 …… January 2010 1st Plenary Meeting Münster, DE EOS Brochure Technical Support Group Teleconferences 2nd Plenary Meeting Modena, IT Technical Support Group Teleconferences 3rd Plenary Meeting Monheim, DE Technical Support Group Teleconferences 4th Plenary Meeting Braunschweig, DE Photo Gallery Technical Support Group Teleconferences Web-based application

36. EOS - Project team Technical support group University Turin - DEIAFAItalyJulius Kühn Institut (JKI), Braunschweig GermanyInst. Pomology & Floriculture (ISK), Skierniewice PolandResearch / Advice University Politectnica Catalunya, Barcelona SpainInstitut Français de la Vigne et du Vin, Davaye FrancePOVLT, Rumbeke Belgium Danish Agricultural Advisery Service, Aarhus Denmark Landwirtschaftskammer NRW, Münster Germany Visavis, Vellinge (Farm / Application consulting)Sweden BetterDecisions, Projectmanagement, Dülmen Germany Sprayer Manufacturers ARAG, RubieraItalyCaffini, Verona Italy Amanzone, Hasberge Germany PPP Manufacturers BASF, Limburgerhof GermanyBayer Cropscience, Monheim GermanySyngenta, Basel, SwitzerlandEuropean Crop Protection Ass. (ECPA), Brussels Belgium

37. Thanks to all who have contributed to EOS + Thanks for your attention