If we “must" continue this:

> Our injury results seem to follow the acute toxicity/exposure phenomenon, 
> whereby injury is higher when the concentration is higher not more dilute. 
> This is not unlike when one is exposed to a toxin in water, air, or direct 
> contact. 

In orchard trials, reducing volume and maintaining coverage requires adequate 
spraying technology. i/e Not a gun.

What does your spray deposit look like in your trials?

Copper ions in large droplets (or high volume) react with leaf tissue until the 
water evaporates. 

Small droplets evaporate quicker and reduce the toxicity.

This is something you can’t see if you paint the trees with a film of water 
using a gun. 

When you attempt to reduce volume using the same gun, all you do is apply 
“less” droplets… But they are still slow drying big droplets. 

So you are likely to conclude more concentrated material is more toxic… This is 
not surprising, right? 

But not so relevant to orchard spraying with small droplets.

Conclusions drawn from trials performed with guns using large droplets are not 
always directly  applicable with airblast sprayers.

it’s Happy hour time = Drinking 2 beers or one glass of wine is the same for 
the alcool test, right?

But beer “rental” is shorter than for wine because that excess volume can’t 
stay in your bladder so long. So for a given metabolic rate I’m betting alcohol 
in your blood is higher with beer. i/e beer would get you hammered quicker than 
wine. I could be wrong, but at least it’s cheaper.

Point is: concentration vs volume is not so straightforward and spray 
application technology can greatly impact results.

caveat emptor.



apple-crop mailing list

Reply via email to