895411_TWIN_BOOK-GB.pdf

(322 KB) Pobierz
TWIN SYSTEM TWIN FORCE
TWIN STREAM
Introduction
This report we hope will:
• give you a complete introduction to air assisted spraying.
• inform you about the results and experiences farmers and
researchers have achieved with TWIN sprayers.
HARDI attach great pride to the well-grounded research docu-
mentation that has been collated to form the main structure of this
TWIN BOOK. We, also, warmly acknowledge the contribution of
independent researchers and advisory Bodies who have invested
in this development. However, the use of air assistance is not
unique to HARDI´s TWIN SYSTEM, for many manufacturers seek
to use similar features. The resulting commercial range of air
assisted sprayers vary widely both in engineering, design and
performance.
Several principles are available and sometimes test results,
which have been derived with the TWIN, are attached to these
other types too. We would like to assure you that the selection of
results that follow in this TWIN BOOK have been achieved with
the TWIN and are most likely to be unique to it. The TWIN
SYSTEM remains the only air assisted sprayer which can truly
entrain sprayed drops to apply them with predetermined velocity
and approach angles. This patented underlying principle is your
key route to enhanced sprayer and pesticide performance.
HARDI INTERNATIONAL A/S
December 1998
TWIN BOOK
895411-GB-98/12
1
Index
Introduction .....................................................................................1
Crop index .......................................................................................2
Conclusion after 10 years on the market ........................................3
1. Economical benefits ................................................................ 3
1.1. Less unwanted impact on surroundings ...................................5
1.2. High spraying capacity ............................................................ 5
1.3. More spraying hours available per day .................................... 7
1.4. Higher forward speed ...............................................................8
1.5. Reduced application rates ....................................................... 8
1.6. Less down time for tank filling ..................................................9
2. Reduced chemical dose rates / High quality products .............9
2.1. Improved biological efficacy ................................................... 10
2.2 Even liquid distribution ........................................................... 18
2.3. Optimum timing ...................................................................... 21
APPENDIX A ................................................................................. 23
APPENDIX B ................................................................................. 29
APPENDIX C ................................................................................ 34
NOTE 1 ......................................................................................... 38
NOTE 2 ......................................................................................... 39
HARDI Select ................................................................................ 41
Reference ...................................................................................... 43
Crop index
Cereal:
Weed control in spring barley ................................ 14
Weed control in spring barley ................................ 14
Fungicide treatment in barley ................................ 15
Fungicide treatment in barley ................................ 16
Insect control ......................................................... 17
Insect control ......................................................... 17
Desiccation of linseed ........................................... 18
Coverage on front and back side of
lower part of sunflower .......................................... 32
Insect control ......................................................... 33
Weed control of couch grass ................................. 13
Fungicide treatment ............................................... 14
Insect control ......................................................... 16
Weed control ......................................................... 13
Spray deposit and distribution ............................... 21
Cotton:
Oilseed:
Parsnip:
Pea:
Potatoes:
Sugar beet:
Weed control ......................................................... 12
2
Conclusion after 10 years on the market
The Twin sprayer has all through the last 10 years demonstrated its
advantages. Feed-back comments from world wide users can be
clustered into three main groups.
1. More economical plant protection.
2. More freedom to spray at the right time.
3. Less pollution of the surrounding environment.
Farmers have achieved with the Twin:
• reduced consumption of pesticides (-16 % on average) compared to
conventional spraying.
• 100 % higher field work rate.
These real benefits to the user are the result of combination of many
advances which Twin air assistance has, and continues to offer, beyond
that achievable from the highest standard of conventional spraying.
It is these true technical advances that are now individually described.
1. Economical benefits
CONCLUSION
A TWIN sprayer can justify the higher investment with the following
benefits:
•
•
•
•
•
•
at least double field work rates / less overtime salary
lower water rates and less downtime for filling
real chemical savings
better timing / more spraying hours available per day
higher field efficacy for each spraying
the exacting demands of both speciality and traditional crops can
be met with one sprayer.
Calculated examples
for 75, 150 and 300 ha farm units and 3 chosen
sprayer sizes show that the extra investment in a TWIN sprayer can be
economical already at a chemical saving of approx 7 %
(Table 1.).
This figure is of course sensitive to the type and size of farm in question
- some conditions will be even more favourable for TWIN and in other
cases, especially for small farms with traditional crops, a TWIN normally
cannot be justified just looking at the pure economical benefits.
3
If a farmer reduces the average 16% of his chemical use due to TWIN,
9% of the savings can be added to his net-profit. Furthermore the
spraying can be done in only half the number of days otherwise neces-
sary for a conventional sprayer to do the job.
The calculations have been carried out with the PC-programme
HARDI SELECT, which based on individual farm input can predict
which conventional and TWIN sprayer gives the lowest cost for spray-
ing a hectare. The operational conditions for the above mentioned
examples are described in
Note 1.
If interested in a calculation for your
property please see the fill-in form in
Appendix C.
Table 1
shows how many days are needed to spray 3 different farm
sizes depending on the type of sprayer. Also the minimum chemical
savings to make the investment in air profitable and average net
savings are shown.
Farm size
Sprayer size
Sprayer type
TWIN
(TWIN
STREAM)
75 ha
12m, 1000 l, mounted
Conventional
(MASTER)
TWIN
(TWIN
SYSTEM)
150 ha
18 m, 1200 l, mounted
Conventional
(MEGA)
300 ha
24 m, 2200l, trailer
TWIN Conventional
(TWIN (COMMANDER
FORCE)
MHY)
Number of days
needed for the
spray job
Pesticide savings
necessary to pay
the price difference
for TWIN
Net. Pesticide
savings with
TWIN**
8
19
16
39
25
59 *)
5,3%
6,9%
7,3%
10,7%
9,1%
8,7%
*) 59 days available for spraying is seldom realistic, it could therefore be argued that the TWIN
should be compared with a conventional sprayer with larger tank and boom size
**) User surveys show the average chemical saving with TWIN is 16% compared to conventional
spraying
Other reasons for buying TWIN
There are great differences in how much importance farmers associate
with reduced chemical dose rates: livestock farmers for instance who
traditionally have problems getting the spray job done on time, or
vegetable and potato growers for whom timing in itself is extremely
4
important. Both agree that the greatest advantages of a TWIN sprayer
are the high field work rates and low sensitivity to wind, with the ben-
efits of a better biological efficacy being secondary.
In Netherlands the Ministry of Agriculture supports the farmers investment
in air assisted spraying equipment with a 20 % subsidy on the retail price
plus the freedom to write off 100 % in the first year if the farmer wants.
1.1. Less unwanted impact on surroundings
High field work rates and less dependency on wind speeds will allow
spraying at the right time, when the pest is most sensitive to even a
very low dose rate. Less drift and lower chemical consumption reduces
potential negative side effects on the environment and human safety;
there will be less exposure to pesticide in downwind water, on sprayed
or adjacent downwind crops.
Also the soil deposit can be reduced as shown in
Figure 19
- the
increased on-plant deposit simply leaves less to be lost on the ground.
1.2. High spraying capacity
CONCLUSION
Because of more spraying hours available per day, lower water quanti-
ties and less down time for filling a TWIN sprayer will normally have at
least double capacity in ha/season compared to a conventional sprayer
(Table 2).
This means of course that an air assisted sprayer can cope
with a larger farm size or a TWIN sprayer can do the job of 2 conven-
tional sprayers on large farms.
If also taking advantage of the fact that the new developed TWIN
FORCE sprayers are made to drive faster without increasing the wind
drift, and the speed is increased from 7 to 15 km/h, spraying capacity
will all together triple compared to a conventional sprayer with same
tank and boom size.
More spraying hours/day
Higher driving speed
Lower water quantities
Less down time for water filling
Higher spraying capacity
5

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin