We are in South Africa in the Eastern Cape region, and precisely in the area known as Langkloof, a valley between the Kamanasie and Kouga mountains in the north, and the Outeniqua- Langkloof and Tsitsikamma mountains in the south. It is the second largest fruit production area in South Africa and apples and pears are the main agricultural products.

Mr. Rademeyer tells us that his farm is 140 ha in extent, of which 80 ha  are planted with apples and the remaining with pears.

He was introduced to Martignani electrostatic machines by their spray technical adviser of 30 years, Mr. Billy Swiegelaar.

After careful analysis of their requirements and of the possible choice of machines, they decided to purchase, within 6 months, 3 x 1500 litre “Martignani” Electrostatic Sprayer B612 Turbo 2, one in December 2009, and one each in February and May 2010, which are now working full time.

Mr. Rademeyer has supplied us with the results of his careful reports on the efficiency of the machines and on the advantages achieved by using the “Martignani” Electrostatic mist blowing system in his farm vs. the conventional air blast sprayers, and the numbers speak for themselves:

Time/Labour saving: 15%

Water Saving (l/ha applied with the Martignani): 40% (Important remark: Vast areas of Langkloof  valley are currently heavily affected by drought)

Chemicals saving: 15% (aiming to 35%)

Furthermore he kindly showed us the modification he had made to the spray heads lay-out and protection plates added to the machine for their orchards to avoid damages
to the heads (see pictures).

We thanked Mr. Rademeyer for his kindness and cooperation and for having shared with us the modification made to the machines, as we, at Martignani, appreciate very much the input
we receive from our clients concerning possible improvements.

For us it is of fundamental importance to constantly develop and improve our machines.

It is our mission to supply products that can help the farmer to achieve the best possible results according to the requirements of the person who has put his trust in Martignani
and our machines.

A few images of one of  Rademeyer’s farm Electrostatic mist blower

To know more visit: Electrostatic Mist Blower vs. Air Blast Sprayer

The Electrostatic Martignani Whirlwind B612 shows superior coverage.

You can download the .pdf file clicking on the link:

Efficiency Comparison Table

Planting distance: 3×5 m – Average ground speed during the treatments: 3.5 kph Martignani-KWH Electrostatic Mist Blower used: Mod. Whirlwind B612  1500 l TURBO 2 with ELECTROSTATIC

Materials and methods

1. Characteristics of the crop
The efficiency test was conducted at “Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Mendoza” (Experimental Station of Agricultural and Pasture Farming Technology of Mendoza) of the Istituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuria (National Institute of Agricultural and Pasture Farming technology) in the city of Lujan de Cuyo, province of Mendoza in the Argentine Republic (South America).
It involved 14-year old vines of the Chardonnay variety grown in the espalier fashion to a height of 1.80 m, with a 2.50 m space between rows and 1.50 m between the plants.

2. Instruments used for the experiment

a. Berthoud “Air Blast Sprayer” (with droplets sprayed under pressure and conveyed)
- Assembly system: 3P mounted (universal three-point hitch)
-Tank capacity: 400 liters
-Type of pump: with three pistons (membranes)
-Number of nozzles: 10
- Nozzle: in ceramic – diameter of hole: 1.1 mm
-Fan: axial flow lift type or with propeller (diam. 800 mm) with two-way deflector cone

b. Pneumatic system (Mist Blower with conveyed droplets) and optional Electrostatic charge (Martignani mod. B612 Whirlwind)
- Assembly system: 3P mounted (universal three-point hitch)
- Tank capacity: 400 liters
- Type of pump: centrifugal
-Number of nozzles: 10
-Fan: centrifugal with double suction action (diam. 600 mm), 2 metering units each with 6 ball valves for wing type nozzles feeding (wing nozzle  orifice diameter: 4 mm)

3. Amount of pest control product and application doses.
During the test, the product (Mancozeb 80% P.M., a fungicide of known efficiency against mildew) was applied in doses of about 2 kg/ha.
The corresponding concentration was calculated according to the required application volume on the basis of calibration tests.

4. Field test.
The pneumatic system was subjected to 6 tests at different flow rates per unit of cultivation area, ascertaining the variations in relation to use with or without the electrostatic charge.
The treatment with the “sprayer” was conducted in the usual way and with the normally used product flow rates.
A blank test was also conducted.
The test area was divided into adjacent comparative lots.
The experimental lot measuring 825 sq m comprised three crop rows 110 m in length with 6-row side borders and the drift effect was analyzed up to a distance of 10 m (4 nearby rows).

Table

Treatment – Product flow rate
1(N) Pneumatic 209 l/ha
2(NE) Pneumatic-electrostatic 209 l/ha
3(N) Pneumatic 447.76 l/ha
4(NE) Pneumatic-electrostatic 447.76 l/ha
5(N) Pneumatic 652.17 l/ha
6(NE) Pneumatic-electrostatic 652.17 l/ha
7(A) Conventional Spraying 1160 l/ha
8(T) Blank test without pesticide

5. Coverage assessment

5.1 Visual inspection: collectors, consisting of circular pieces of polyethylene (diam. 33 mm), were distributed over the foliage of the plants subjected to each treatment, where they were applied to the upper and lower faces of the leaves.
On average, a total of 60 collectors were applied to the central row of each experimental lot and to 15 of the plants
in the middle sector. Half were applied to the vegetation at the first level of height (at 0.97 m), while the remainder were applied 1.57 m from ground level. 15 collectors were applied at random to the upper faces of the leaves and 15 to the lower faces at each level considered.
Once the treatment had terminated and the droplets had dried, the collectors were removed and examined visually so as to assess the entity and density of the impact or marks, considering two optical fields taken at random on each collector.

5.2 Chemical assessment: the pesticide deposits were examined using the universally known acid hydrolysis and colorimetric method.
A sample of 180 leaves was taken at random from both sides of the central row of each experimental lot and from 15 plants in the middle sector.
A sample of 30 leaves taken at random from each of the 4 rows near each side border after each treatment so as to analyze the side drift of each treatment.

6. Operating conditions of the machines
Machine Ground speed
in kph
Operating
pressure (bar)
Attractive force
(HP)
Pneumatic 4 1.5 45
Sprayer 4 17.22 45

7. Weather conditions
Calibration test

Date: 18 Dec. 1995
Time of day: 9:00 hrs
Temperature °C: 26.5
Humidity: 37
Cloudiness: cloudless sky
Wind: slight breeze

Field test

Date: 19 Dec. 1995
Time of day: 7:30 hrs
Temperature °C: 23.8
Humidity: 28
Cloudiness: cloudless sky
Wind: slight breeze

8. Results obtained (see TAB 1 and 2)
NOTE: the results of this report are preliminary and reserved, in accordance with the conditions established at the INTA EEA Mendoza conference.

TAB 1

Pest control efficiency of pneumatic and
pneumatic+electrostatic systems for vine cultivation Chardonnay variety cultivated with the tall espalier method)

Treatment
Volume
supplied
(l/ha)
Face Level DP
N°
droplets
sq cm
CVa(%) Cvb(%) p.s.c. e(%)
Initial
depos.
ppm
Dose
dep.
ppm/dose
kg/ha
1(N) 209 L L 80.90 940.65 22.18 16.65 4.84
217.49 93.751(N) 209 U L 89.52 720.09 37.36 32.08 4.53
1(N) 209 L U 73.95 774.77 43.87 35.32 3.33
1(N) 209 U U 85.85 720.10 37.55 31.71 4.17
2(N.E) 209 L L 73.70 1143.75 22.24 18.10 4.88
270.79 116.722(N.E) 209 U L 66.70 908.88 22.46 30.78 3.17
2(N.E) 209 L U 64.59 1184.1 25.27 25.08 3.88
2(N.E) 209 U U 64.05 906.53 35.03 29.82 2.92
3(N) 447 L L 76.51 958.43 29.23 15.53 4.41
214.02 92.253(N) 447 U L 66.02 873.38 26.78 28.34 2.99
3(N) 447 L U 79.27 836.48 31.04 36.87 4.13
3(N) 447 U U 75.32 811.65 33.60 37.04 3.62
4(N.E) 447 L L 56.54 1014.45 17.53 35.49 2.55
287.25 123.814(N.E) 447 U L 64.17 977.55 17.72 20.81 3.16
4(N.E) 447 L U 72.00 1112.18 19.24 41.19 4.53
4(N.E) 447 U U 71.18 892.05 19.63 38.10 3.55
5(N) 652 L L 71.63 671.96 27.62 43.31 2.71 26.66
91.20 39.315(N) 652 U L 68.33 726.17 27.98 29.72 2.66 4.00
5(N) 652 L U 85.96 703.27 29.61 41.21 4.08 53.33
5(N) 652 U U 78.89 502.34 30.18 35.02 2.45 6.66
6(N.E) 652 L L 72.19 753.75 16.34 27.91 3.08 60.00
110.27 47.536(N.E) 652 U L 82.06 647.20 30.94 35.52 3.42 26.66
6(N.E) 652 L U 84.04 670.10 28.94 34.20 3.72 4.66
6(N.E) 652 U U 69.06 584.49 32.72 37.02 2.12 20.00
7(A) 1160 L L 152.37 366.36 36.39 68.42 6.68 46.00
143.27 61.757(A) 1160 U L 114.96 538.94 37.51 60.50 5.59 46.00
7(A) 1160 L U 163.64 467.91 26.05 67.69 9.84 40.00
7(A) 1160 U U 182.51 361.99 40.18 51.34 9.47 63.00
8(T) ———0.00 0

TAB 2
“Side drift assessment (pesticide deposited in ppm = parts per million)”

Row (distance in m)
Treatments 1(2.50) 2(5) 3(7.50) 4(10)
1(N) 185.95 75.87 54.84 75.87
2(NE) 262.63 51.75 40.62 43.71
3(N) 186.57 40.62 23.92 61.02
4(NE) 186.57 59.79 52.37 68.45
5(N) 120.39 64.12 46.8 60.4
6(NE) 132.76 53.31 32.59 40.62
7(A) 190.28 94.42 25.25 38.14

Key to tables:

(N) = treatment with pneumatic system (conveyed droplets)
(N.E.) = treatment with pneumatic system and electrostatic system (conveyed droplets with electrostatic charge)
(A) = treatment with conventional spraying system (sprayed and conveyed droplets)
(T) = blank test, treatment without pesticide
CVa% = coefficient of variability of the diameter of the impacts
CVb% = coefficient of variability of the number of impacts
p.s.c. = percentage of surface covered by the impacts
e% = percentage of runoff, represents the percentage of collectors with drips
L = Lower
U = Upper

Effect of the chemical mixture’s application volume on the efficiency of the pest control treatment (Vine cultivation with the tall espalier method, Chardonnay cv.)

Figure 2 Density of the sprayed droplets

Volume of the chemical mixture used (l/ha)

Figure 3 Initial pesticide deposit

Volume of the chemical mixture used (l/ha)

Figure 4 Efficiency ratio

Volume of the chemical mixture used (l/ha)
Deposited/quantity

Figure 5 Sprayed product runoff

Volume of the chemical mixture used (l/ha)

Materials and methods

1. Characteristics of the crop
The efficiency test was conducted at “Estacion
Experimental Agropecuaria Mendoza” (Experimental
Station of Agricultural and Pasture Farming Technology of
Mendoza) of the Istituto Nacional de Tecnologia
Agropecuria (National Institute of Agricultural and Pasture
Farming technology) in the city of Lujan de Cuyo, province
of Mendoza in the Argentine Republic (South America). It
involved 14-year old vines of the Chardonnay variety
grown in the espalier fashion to a height of 1.80 m, with a
2.50 m space between rows and 1.50 m between the
plants.

2. Instruments used for the experiment
a. Berthoud “Air Blast Sprayer” (with droplets sprayed
under pressure and conveyed)
- Assembly system: 3P mounted (universal three-point
hitch)
-Tank capacity: 400 liters
-Type of pump: with three pistons (membranes)
-Number of nozzles: 10
- Nozzle: in ceramic – diameter of hole: 1.1 mm
-Fan: axial flow lift type or with propeller (diam. 800 mm)
with two-way deflector cone
b. Pneumatic system (Mist Blower with conveyed droplets)
and optional Electrostatic charge (Martignani mod. B612
Whirlwind)
- Assembly system: 3P mounted (universal three-point
hitch)
-Tank capacity: 400 liters
- Type of pump: centrifugal
-Number of nozzles: 10
-Fan: centrifugal with double suction action (diam. 600
mm), 2 metering units each with 6 ball valves for wing type nozzles feeding (wing nozzle orifice diameter: 4 mm)

3. Amount of pest control product and application doses
During the test, the product (Mancozeb 80% P.M., a
fungicide of known efficiency against mildew) was applied
in doses of about 2 kg/ha. The corresponding
concentration was calculated according to the required
application volume on the basis of calibration tests.

4. Field test
The pneumatic system was subjected to 6 tests at
different flow rates per unit of cultivation area, ascertaining
the variations in relation to use with or without the
electrostatic charge. The treatment with the “sprayer” was
conducted in the usual way and with the normally used
product flow rates. A blank test was also conducted. The
test area was divided into adjacent comparative lots. The
experimental lot measuring 825 sq m comprised three
crop rows 110 m in length with 6-row side borders and the
drift effect was analyzed up to a distance of 10 m (4
nearby rows).

Table

Treatment   Product flow rate
1(N) Pneumatic 209 l/ha
2(NE) Pneumatic-electrostatic 209 l/ha
3(N) Pneumatic 447.76 l/ha
4(NE) Pneumatic-electrostatic 447.76 l/ha
5(N) Pneumatic 652.17 l/ha
6(NE) Pneumatic-electrostatic 652.17 l/ha
7(A) Conventional Spraying 1160 l/ha
8(T) Blank test without pesticide

5. Coverage assessment
5.1 Visual inspection: collectors, consisting of circular
pieces of polyethylene (diam. 33 mm), were distributed
over the foliage of the plants subjected to each treatment,
where they were applied to the upper and lower faces of
the leaves.
On average, a total of 60 collectors were applied to the
central row of each experimental lot and to 15 of the plants
in the middle sector. Half were applied to the vegetation at
the first level of height (at 0.97 m), while the remainder
were applied 1.57 m from ground level. 15 collectors were

applied at random to the upper faces of the leaves and 15
to the lower faces at each level considered.
Once the treatment had terminated and the droplets had
dried, the collectors were removed and examined visually
so as to assess the entity and density of the impact or
marks, considering two optical fields taken at random on
each collector.

5.2 Chemical assessment: the pesticide deposits were
examined using the universally known acid hydrolysis and
colorimetric method.
A sample of 180 leaves was taken at random from both
sides of the central row of each experimental lot and from
15 plants in the middle sector.
A sample of 30 leaves taken at random from each of the 4
rows near each side border after each treatment so as to
analyze the side drift of each treatment.

6. Operating conditions of the machines
Machine Ground speed
in kph
Operating
pressure (bar)
Attractive force
(HP)
Pneumatic 4 1.5 45
Sprayer 4 17.22 45

7. Weather conditions
Calibration test

Date: 18 Dec. 1995
Time of day: 9:00 hrs
Temperature °C: 26.5
Humidity: 37
Cloudiness: cloudless sky
Wind: slight breeze

Field test

Date: 19 Dec. 1995
Time of day: 7:30 hrs
Temperature °C: 23.8
Humidity: 28
Cloudiness: cloudless sky
Wind: slight breeze

8. Results obtained (see TAB 1 and 2)
NOTE: the results of this report are preliminary and
reserved, in accordance with the conditions established at
the INTA EEA Mendoza conference.

TAB 1

Pest control efficiency of pneumatic and
pneumatic+electrostatic systems for vine cultivation
(Chardonnay variety cultivated with the tall espalier
method)

Treatment
Volume
supplied
(l/ha)
Face Level DP
N°
droplets
sq cm
CVa(%) Cvb(%) p.s.c. e(%)
Initial
depos.
ppm
Dose
dep.
ppm/dose
kg/ha
1(N) 209 L L 80.90 940.65 22.18 16.65 4.84  
217.49 93.751(N) 209 U L 89.52 720.09 37.36 32.08 4.53  
1(N) 209 L U 73.95 774.77 43.87 35.32 3.33  
1(N) 209 U U 85.85 720.10 37.55 31.71 4.17  
2(N.E) 209 L L 73.70 1143.75 22.24 18.10 4.88  
270.79 116.722(N.E) 209 U L 66.70 908.88 22.46 30.78 3.17  
2(N.E) 209 L U 64.59 1184.1 25.27 25.08 3.88  
2(N.E) 209 U U 64.05 906.53 35.03 29.82 2.92  
3(N) 447 L L 76.51 958.43 29.23 15.53 4.41  
214.02 92.253(N) 447 U L 66.02 873.38 26.78 28.34 2.99  
3(N) 447 L U 79.27 836.48 31.04 36.87 4.13  
3(N) 447 U U 75.32 811.65 33.60 37.04 3.62  
4(N.E) 447 L L 56.54 1014.45 17.53 35.49 2.55  
287.25 123.814(N.E) 447 U L 64.17 977.55 17.72 20.81 3.16  
4(N.E) 447 L U 72.00 1112.18 19.24 41.19 4.53  
4(N.E) 447 U U 71.18 892.05 19.63 38.10 3.55  
5(N) 652 L L 71.63 671.96 27.62 43.31 2.71 26.66
91.20 39.315(N) 652 U L 68.33 726.17 27.98 29.72 2.66 4.00
5(N) 652 L U 85.96 703.27 29.61 41.21 4.08 53.33
5(N) 652 U U 78.89 502.34 30.18 35.02 2.45 6.66
6(N.E) 652 L L 72.19 753.75 16.34 27.91 3.08 60.00
110.27 47.536(N.E) 652 U L 82.06 647.20 30.94 35.52 3.42 26.66
6(N.E) 652 L U 84.04 670.10 28.94 34.20 3.72 4.66
6(N.E) 652 U U 69.06 584.49 32.72 37.02 2.12 20.00
7(A) 1160 L L 152.37 366.36 36.39 68.42 6.68 46.00
143.27 61.757(A) 1160 U L 114.96 538.94 37.51 60.50 5.59 46.00
7(A) 1160 L U 163.64 467.91 26.05 67.69 9.84 40.00
7(A) 1160 U U 182.51 361.99 40.18 51.34 9.47 63.00
8(T) ———0.00 0

TAB 2

“Side drift assessment (pesticide deposited in ppm = parts
per million)”

Row (distance in m)
Treatments 1(2.50) 2(5) 3(7.50) 4(10)
1(N) 185.95 75.87 54.84 75.87
2(NE) 262.63 51.75 40.62 43.71
3(N) 186.57 40.62 23.92 61.02
4(NE) 186.57 59.79 52.37 68.45
5(N) 120.39 64.12 46.8 60.4
6(NE) 132.76 53.31 32.59 40.62
7(A) 190.28 94.42 25.25 38.14

Key to tables:

(N) = treatment with pneumatic system (conveyed droplets)
(N.E.) = treatment with pneumatic system and electrostatic system (conveyed droplets with
electrostatic charge)
(A) = treatment with conventional spraying system (sprayed and conveyed droplets)
(T) = blank test, treatment without pesticide
CVa% = coefficient of variability of the diameter of the impacts
CVb% = coefficient of variability of the number of impacts
p.s.c. = percentage of surface covered by the impacts
e% = percentage of runoff, represents the percentage of collectors with drips
L = Lower
U = Upper

Effect of the chemical mixture’s application volume on the efficiency of
the pest control treatment (Vine cultivation with the tall espalier
method, Chardonnay cv.)

Figure 2 Density of the sprayed droplets

Volume of the chemical mixture used (l/ha)

Figure 3 Initial pesticide deposit

Volume of the chemical mixture used (l/ha)

Figure 4 Efficiency ratio

Volume of the chemical mixture used (l/ha)
Deposited/quantity

Figure 5 Sprayed product runoff

Volume of the chemical mixture used (l/ha)

The Randi Farms is situated in the municipality of Fusignano (Ravenna) and is managed by Dr. Massimo Randi with the collaboration of his brother Denis and father Luigi.

The vocation of the farm is decidedly viticultural, being about 25 hectares of vineyards, although other cultivation such as peach trees, wheat and beetrootin smaller quantities are not left out.

The technical approach of “Martignani” Electrostatic-Mist Blowers was integrated some time ago following a professional conference between Dr. Randi and Dr. Bellettini, the latter presently being an agricultural technician (Agronomist) and manager of the Martignani srl Italian counting house.

The contactwas concretised in the spring of 2005 with the purchase of the Mod. Whirlwind B-612 TURBO 2 Pneumatic Mist Bower with Electrostatic charged droplets.

At first the insecticide treatments were carried out by Luigi. It was then Dr. Massimo who dealt with thephytosanitary management of the family vineyards, personally carrying out the defence operations on board a tractor..

We have now come to the fourth season using the Martignani Mist Blower and Dr. Massimo tells us about the convenience of having invested in this equipment and how we have reached the optimization of the productive processes.

At the speed of 8,3 Km/h with a volume/ha of 200 litres, 7,5 ha are treatedin the morning and7,5 ha in the afternoon while the remaining hectares are completed the following day.

Previously, with a conventional atomizer (or Air Blast Sprayer) distributing 600 litres/ha, several refuelling and a total of 4-5 days of time were required.

Only some treatments , such as those against moth infestations of the grape-vines, are carried out at a higher volume (400 l/ha), while the remaining, and larger part, of the field is treated at 200 l/ha.

In these 4 seasons,the Randi family has certainly optimized the technical management of the vineyard in the best possible way, saving tons of water, hours of manpower and above all 20% of chemical product (or active ingredient) used for both contact and systemic chemicals, in every treatment.

Above all, they have reduced the phytosanitary defence operations to only 2 days, enabling them to concentrate and aim the remaining hours of manpower at other activity within the company.

Finally, it gives us great pleasure to report that, for some years, the Randi company has been part of the Bagnacavallo consortium which is the producer and distributor of the well known “Burson” (http://www.vinography.com/archives/2004/07/2000_burson_rosso_ravenna_cons.html ) wine obtained from “Longanesi” grapes.

For further information on the Randi company, visit www.randivini.it and/or send an email to info@randivini.it