EOS concept Environmentally Optimized Sprayer EOS workshop Brussels

EOS – concept Environmentally Optimized Sprayer EOS workshop Brussels 25 th November 2010 Manfred Roettele

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 Filling Remnant management What is EOS ? EOS – objectives EOS - tool EOS + Standards EOS still work to do Project structure + team

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

PPP – entry routes significance General Estimate: Variability in specific situations can be very high

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

Risk areas where sprayer technology can strongly contribute to water protection Risk areas PPP – Waterprotection Risk evaluation Sprayer potential mitigation +++ FILLING ++ ++ REMNANT MANAGEMENT ++ +(+) STORAGE + - TRANSPORT to field + ++(+) RUN OFF +++ - DRAINAGE +(+) - DRIFT + (+) ++(+) POINT SOURCES CLEANING DIFFUSE SOURCE

Cleaning – key risk area Challenge: Reduce residual volumes to a minimum Picture: PC-fruit 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 tank C Non dilutable volume which cannot flow back to the tank D Rinse water tank

Standards on total residual volumes (EN 12761) Field sprayers: Example Two definitions of empty sprayer a) EN 12761 Total 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) Orchard-, Vine sprayers : Example Sprayers are cleaned 7 to 10 times per season b) ISO 22368 Total residual volume- Spray mixture out until there is not any liquid coming out of the nozzles (shut off 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%

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

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) Pilot area Remaining volumes by category in liters in % of respondents Average n Farm size ha >25 l 11 -25 l 10 l < 10 l 0 no resp. liters median DE 24 14 3 4 0 55 40 157 60 FR 21 21 21 19 6 0 18 152 52 BE 16 31 20 31 2 0 14 150 37 IT 5 6 9 16 61 4 5 140 10

Transfer of the cleaning of sprayers to the field had strongest influence on the reduction of PPP – point source water contamination (> 70 %) Rel. reduction of PPP pollution in 5 catchments sewage plants Reduction of Point source pollution through sprayer cleaning in the field (Hessen / Germany Presented by Prof. Frede Univ. Giessen at TOPPS Forum Germany Oct 2006 (changed)

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

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

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

Only about 70 % of sprayers compliant with the requirements of standard for rinse water tank capacity YES Compliance with standard 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

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

Outside contamination of orchard sprayers were measured between 0, 33 to 0, 83% of the applied amount in Italy (Balsari et al 2006) In Belgium active ingredients on orchard sprayers were found between 82, 5 and 207 g ai / ha in a spray season (Debaer et al. 2008) Outside cleaning most efficient when deposits are still wet

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

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

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

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

EOS – Project key objectives Create awareness Stimulate improvements Support improvements

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 PPP industry Sprayer makers Farmers

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)

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

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 cleaning Outside cleaning Filling Remnant Management Drift + Spray losses 86 selections out of 276

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

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

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

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

EOS - Project team Technical support group University Turin - DEIAFA Julius Kühn Institut (JKI), Braunschweig Inst. Pomology & Floriculture (ISK), Skierniewice Italy Germany Poland Research / Advice University Politectnica Catalunya, Barcelona Institut Français de la Vigne et du Vin, Davaye POVLT, Rumbeke Danish Agricultural Advisery Service, Aarhus Landwirtschaftskammer NRW, Münster Spain France Belgium Denmark Germany Visavis, Vellinge (Farm / Application consulting) Better. Decisions, Projectmanagement, Dülmen Sprayer Manufacturers ARAG, Rubiera Caffini, Verona Amanzone, Hasberge Sweden Germany Italy Germany PPP Manufacturers BASF, Limburgerhof Germany Bayer Cropscience, Monheim Germany Syngenta, Basel, Switzerland European Crop Protection Ass. (ECPA), Brussels Belgium

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