Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T19:47:28.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative Costs of a Weed-Activated Versus Conventional Sprayer in Northern Great Plains Fallow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

William H. Ahrens
William H. Ahrens*
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Weed Sci., N.D. State Univ., Fargo 58105
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Detectspray™ weed-activated sprayer (WAS) technology enables individual nozzles on a sprayer to turn on and off in response to the presence of green vegetation. WAS operated full season at two fallow sites in North Dakota reduced POST herbicide requirement 47 to 88%. Full-season WAS applied as needed at West Fargo reduced cost to the farmer by only 13% compared with broadcast application with a farmer-owned sprayer and assuming free labor. Winds of 8 to 16 km/h apparently moved spray off target, thereby necessitating retreatment and increasing the relative costs of WAS at Fargo. The percentage of sample quadrats having greater than 3% vegetative cover correlated positively (r = 0.78 to 0.80) with percentage reduction in spray volume achieved by WAS.

Keywords

Detectsprayinfrared sensorelectronic sensorselective sprayer
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 50 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Duff, P. 1993. Detectspray system. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 33:45.Google Scholar
2. Felton, W. 1991. Selective sprayer ushers in new era of weed control. Austral. Grain 1(3): 12–14.Google Scholar
3. Felton, W. L., Doss, A. F., Nash, P. G., and McCloy, K. R. 1991. A microprocessor controlled technology to selectively spot spray weeds. Proc. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Publ. No. 11-91:427–432.Google Scholar
4. Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1991. Residual effects of CGA-131036 and chlorsulfuron on spring-sown rotational crops. Weed Sci. 39:280–283.Google Scholar
5. Fuller, E., Lazarus, B., Carrigan, L., and Green, G. 1992. Minnesota farm machinery economic cost estimates for 1992. Minn. Ext. Serv. Circ. AG-FO-2308-C.Google Scholar
6. Hagger, R. J., Stent, C. J., and Rose, J. 1984. Measuring spectral differences in vegetation canopies by a reflectance ratio meter. Weed Res. 24:59–65.Google Scholar
7. Mayhew, P. W., Burns, M. D., and Houston, D. C. 1984. An inexpensive and simple spectrophotometer for measuring grass biomass in the field. Oikos 43:62–67.Google Scholar
8. Nelson, T. 1993. Spray Vision, a selective sprayer technology developed in North America. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 33:43.Google Scholar
9. Sloneker, L. L. and Moldenhauer, W. C. 1977. Measuring the amount of crop residue remaining after tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 32:231–236.Google Scholar