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
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
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.
apple-crop mailing list