WASHINGTON, June 29, 2016 - On-farm technology is advancing
faster than many lawmakers and regulators acknowledge. However, trade groups
and some agribusinesses are trying to improve on that situation by taking
regulators to the field.
About 30 officials from EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs
got to see the latest in spray drift reduction technology at a Field Day
earlier this month sponsored by the Association of Equipment Manufacturers and
Agricultural Retailers Association.
Held at the University of Maryland’s Wye Research and
Education Center in Queenstown, the event featured demonstrations of a variety
of technologies designed to reduce pesticide drift.
The goal was to familiarize EPA staff with the full range of
options available to growers. The agency issued a protocol for testing of spray
equipment two years ago, but AEM is concerned that the agency’s program is not
broad enough.
“Their vision of Drift Reduction Technology (DRT) is way too
small, way too narrow,” said Nick Tindall, AEM’s senior director of government
and industry relations. “It’s far too focused on just (spray) nozzles.”
The voluntary DRT program envisions rating different
technologies using a four-star system – one star for drift reduction between 25
percent and 49 percent; two stars for 50-74 percent reduction; three for 75-89
percent reduction; and four for a reduction of drift of 90 percent and higher.
“EPA expects the use of verified (drift reduction
technologies) to significantly reduce pesticide spray drift and loss from the
application site, thereby keeping more of the applied pesticide on the treated
field and reducing risks to the surrounding environment, nearby humans, and
property, including crops,” the protocol says. “Pesticide products labeled for
use with DRTs may also increase applicators’ flexibility in applying those
pesticides by reducing the need for more restrictive application measures as
compared to those required for the use of standard application equipment.”
When it announced the voluntary program in October 2014, EPA
estimated that about 70 million pounds of pesticides worth up to $640 million
are lost annually to drift. “And, state agencies use substantial resources each
year investigating drift complaints,” the agency said.
The idea behind the EPA program, said Tindall, is “the
higher the star rating, the fewer use restrictions” on the pesticide being
applied. One concrete benefit could be smaller application buffers, which would
mean more of a crop gets treated.
EPA’s drift control models, however, “don’t account for the
multi-dimensional world of spray drift control,” Tindall said. For example,
“You’ve got a three-star nozzle on there, but how do you quantify (drift) when
you’re using that in conjunction with section control, auto-steer, pulsing
technology, or boom height control. Those are factors that need to be taken
into account in these drift models because that’s the technology that’s out
there to control drift.”
Section control refers to technology that automatically
shuts off nozzles on sections of the boom as they pass over previously treated
areas, which results in savings in chemical costs. Pulse technology, which controls
how long the nozzles remain open, allows for uniform application even when
ground speed is variable.
So far, however, EPA has yet to rate any equipment.
Tindall said “a couple of nozzles” have been submitted, but because of the limited scope of the testing protocol, “I haven’t really heard rumblings from my member companies.”
He said he’s hopeful that the Field Day will result in a
better working relationship between EPA and AEM. “We educated a lot of key
people at EPA about this technology,” he said. Tindall wants to see EPA staff
working with technical experts from the equipment industry to develop standards
that take into account the full range of drift reduction technologies.
Companies at the Field Day included John Deere, AGCO, Case
IH, GVM, TeeJet and Hardi. The National Agricultural Aviation Association was
also there, with Helicopter Applicators Inc. demonstrating aerial application
technology.
“We had good interactions with the EPA and state
pesticide officials who attended,” said Connor Bergin, AGCO marketing manager.
“They are educated and informed about the issues and asked high-level questions
about application rates, nozzles and other technologies we’ve implemented on our application equipment.”
#30
For more news, go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com
