Coding And Evaluation Of Spray Records For IPW

A Technical Guide
for Wine Producers

RECENT ARTICLES | WYNBOER HOME

Coding And Evaluation Of Spray Records For IPW

Elleunorah Allsopp, ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij, Stellenbosch
INTRODUCTION
The new system for registration and certification of Integrated Production of Wine (IPW) requires evaluation forms for spray records to be fully and correctly completed in order to qualify for an IPW Certificate and an IPW Conformance Certificate. The purpose of the coding of agrochemical products and the evaluation system for spray records is to measure the impact of each spray/application on the environment.
CODING FOR INTEGRATED PRODUCTION (IP)
Only herbicides, pesticides and fungicides registered in terms of Act 36 of 1947 are coded. Coding aims to evaluate the suitability of different products for use in IP, based on their potential risk to Human Health and Safety, the Environment and Beneficial Organisms.
At present only information from published Technical Bulletins by manufacturers and the "Pesticide Manual of the British Crop Protection Council" are being used for coding. Different formulations of each active ingredient or combinations of active ingredients are coded separately and linked to the brand names of products that have been submitted for coding. The following parameters are used for coding: Human health and safety
Hazard/Toxicity group classification (toxicity and risk for humans during handling)
Environmental impact
Solubility in water, half-life in soil, KOC or KOW values, LD50 for land and water birds, LD50 for freshwater and saltwater fish, risk for water organisms (Daphnia and algae) and soil organisms (earthworms) expressed as LD50 or EC50 or IOBC classification. The latter is based on a set of internationally accepted standard tests, compiled by the International Organisation for Biological Control (IOBC), which classifies products as follows: Class 1 = Hardly any risk, Class 2 = Low risk, Class 3 = Moderate risk and Class 4 = High risk.
Impact on Beneficial Organisms

Bees: IOBC classification or Topical/Oral LD50
Predatory Mites: IOBC classification.
Predatory Lacewings: IOBC classification
Predatory Beetles: IOBC classification
Parasitic Wasps: IOBC classification
A weight (score) is allocated to each parameter, for example a half-life in the soil of less than 10 days is considered to pose hardly any risk at all and receives a weight of 1. A half-life of 10 to 90 days is considered to pose a moderate risk and receives a weight of 4. Certain parameters also count more than others and a formula has been devised in terms of which these weights are added to determine the total potential environmental risk of a product. Products are divided into four categories: Low risk (IP coding = 1), Medium risk (IP coding = 2), Medium to High risk (IP coding = 4) and High risk (IP coding = 8).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF EACH APPLICATION
The impact of a single application of a herbicide or plant protection remedy depends not only on the potential impact of the product itself (i.e. the inherent characteristics of the product). It is also determined by the amount of the active ingredient that is deposited in the environment, how and where it is applied (e.g. full cover spray, spot spray or stem application) and at which stage during the growing season it is applied. The product with the lowest environmental impact can, therefore, not be chosen solely on the basis of its IP coding.
EVALUATION OF SPRAY RECORD
The evaluation of the spray records is an aid to determine the environmental impact of the spray programme on the environment. Spray records for herbicides, pesticides (for insects, mites, snails, nematodes) and disease control remedies (mainly for fungi) are evaluated separately in Appendix 2A, 2B & 2C in the Guidelines. Most of the natural enemies of pests such as mealybug and mites reach peak populations late in summer and at the start of autumn. Applications of fungicides after harvest to reduce the inoculum potential for the next season are not as harmful to natural enemies as applications of insecticides at this stage. For this reason post-harvest fungicide applications are less heavily weighted than applications of pest control remedies.
Appendix 2 is a summary of the spray records of all the blocks on the farm. Each application is entered on a separate line to simplify calculations and also because the point weights of applications will differ at different times of the season and at different spray volumes.
Evaluation of Herbicide Applications (Appendix 2A in the Guidelines)
First read the guidelines regarding cultivation and weed control, in particular the guidelines with regard to the use of pre-emergence herbicides. To complete this table accurately and calculate points, the following information is required for each application:

Active ingredient (a.i.) and/or brand name of product (on label or in Appendix 3E)
Formulation of product used (e.g. 180 SL or 100 SC)
Volume of the product formulation applied per hectare
IP coding of product as listed at Appendix 3A
Examples: see Table 1. The quantity of active (kg)/ha to be applied is determined as follows: Suppose the 180 SL formulation of glyphosate (Sting) was used and the recommendation was that 4L per hectare be applied. This means that 1L of the product contains 180 g active, therefore 4L contain altogether 4 x 180 = 720 g or 0.72 kg active. If a product contains two active ingredients, e.g. Preeglone 120/80 SL with paraquat and diquat as actives, the two actives are added together (i.e. 120 + 80 = 200 g a.i./L) to determine how much active had been applied per hectare.
The percentage of vineyard area that has been treated, is calculated by adding the total area of all the treated blocks, regardless of whether spraying was done on ridges only, or in work rows or over the full surface, and it is then expressed as a decimal of the total vineyard area on the farm (20% = 0.2).
The guidelines stipulate that pre-emergence herbicides should only be used to control specific problem weeds that cannot be controlled by post-emergence remedies. If a pre-emergence herbicide is used in areas where these problem weeds do not appear, such usage is considered to be outside the guidelines and the points are multiplied by 10.
Add the points for all the applications to see within which cut-off points the total for the herbicide programme falls. Cut-off points are given at the bottom of Table 1. This point (0, 2, 3 or 5) is now transferred to item 7.2 in Appendix 1 (Evaluation form for the Farm in the guidelines) and multiplied by two.
Evaluation of Pest Control applications (Appendix 2B in the Guidelines)
First read the guidelines for each applicable pest and especially note the prescribed monitoring. To complete this table correctly and calculate points, the following information is required for each application:

Active ingredient (a.i.) and/or brand name of product (on label or in Appendix 3E)
Formulation of product used (e.g. 750 WG or 500 EC)
Volume of spray mixture applied per hectare
IP coding of product as listed in Appendix 3B & D
Stage of growing season at which applied
Examples: See Table 2. The amount of active (kg)/ha applied, is determined as follows: Suppose the 750 WG formulation of chlorpyrifos was applied as a dormant spray at 2 500L spray mix/ha (1L per vine). In Appendix 3B it has already been calculated that 100L of the spray mix, made up according to the registered dose, contains 96 g active. That means 2 500L spray mix contains 25 x 96 = 2 400 g or 2.4 kg active.
The percentage of vineyard area that has been treated, expressed as a decimal (10% = 0.1), is calculated as for herbicides. If spot treatments took place, the percentage area covered by all the spots/vines together, is estimated.
If control for a pest took place, but the prescribed monitoring (e.g. nematode analyses) was not done or any of the other stipulations in the guidelines were not complied with, the treatment falls outside the guidelines and the points are multiplied by 10.
Add the points for all the applications to calculate the total for the pest control programme. This total is now carried over to Appendix 2C as soon as the total for the disease control programme has also been determined.
Evaluation of Disease Control applications (Appendix 2C in the Guidelines)
First read the guidelines for each applicable disease. To complete this table correctly and calculate points, the following information is required for each application:

Active ingredient (a.i.) and/or brand name of product (on label or in Appendix 3E)
Formulation of product used (e.g. 750 WG or 500 EC)
Volume spray mix applied per hectare
IP coding of product as listed in Appendix 3C
Stage of growing season at which applied
Examples: See Table 3. The quantity of active (kg)/ha applied, is determined as follows: Suppose Dithane M-45 800 WP with mancozeb as the active was applied at 500L spray mix/ha. In Appendix 3C it has already been calculated that 100L of the spray mix, made up according to the registered dose, contains 160 g active. This means 500L spray mix contains 5 x 160 = 800 g or 0.8 kg active. Suppose a product has two active ingredients, e.g. Mikal-M 440/260 WP with fosetyl-AL and mancozeb as actives. The total amount of active per kg or L formulation is 440 + 260 = 700 g. In Appendix 3C it has been calculated that 100L spray mix contains altogether 245 g active. If 1000L spray mix has been applied, the total amount of a.i./ha 10 x 245 = 2.45 kg.
The percentage of vineyard area treated, expressed as a decimal (10% = 0.1), is calculated as for the other spray programmes.
If control was applied for a disease, but the stipulations or conditions in the guidelines were not met, the treatment falls outside the guidelines and the points are multiplied by 10.
Add the points for all the applications to calculate the total for the disease control programme. Now carry over the total for the pest control programme (2B), add it to this total and see within which cut-off points the total for the spray programme falls. Cut-off points are given at the bottom of Table 3. This point (0, 2, 3 or 5) is now transferred to item 13.3 in Appendix 1 (Evaluation form for the Farm) and multiplied by 10.
Use of copper and sulphur
Copper is a heavy metal that does not easily leach out of the soil, consequently there is a danger of it building up in the soil. If copper levels in soil become too high, the soil is no longer suitable for agriculture. The IP coding of copper oxychloride is 2, but with a spray volume of 1000 L/ha 4.25 kg of copper is deposited. This explains why the evaluation point for such an application is relatively high (Table 3). Producers are advised to alternate the use of copper remedies with other contact pesticides such as remedies with mancozeb as active ingredient for post-harvest treatment against downy mildew.
Sulphur is not very environment friendly either and dusting sulphur in particular is a risky product to store and apply. Even the organic movement in Europe is currently looking for alternatives to sulphur and copper. The manufacture, transport and storage of dusting sulphur is risky, especially because it is flammable, with the result that it is no longer a cheap product. As a result of these risks and the accompanying cost to manufacturers, as well as pressure from consumers, it is possible that dusting sulphur will not be freely available in future. Producers who use dusting sulphur are advised to start investing in other options.
The examples in Table 3 show that, as in the case of copper, the high volume of active ingredient applied per hectare causes applications of sulphur to be quite heavily weighted. Repeated use of copper and/or sulphur in the course of the season may cause the total for the spray programme to exceed 100, in which case it will be evaluated as "poor". Even if 0 points are scored under 13.3 (Appendix 1), this in itself will not cause the farm to fail in achieving the IPW pass rate of 80 (50%). The fact that certain applications have a greater impact on the environment than others cannot, however, be ignored or argued away.
The evaluation of the spray programme measures the impact of the programme on the environment and may be used as an aid to adjust the spray programme to such an extent that the environmental impact is kept to the minimum.
Further enquiries: contact Elleunorah Allsopp on (021) 809 3007 or email allsoppe@arc.agric.za.
Examples and instructions on how to complete Appendix 1 and 2 of the IPW guidelines also appear in the Guide to the Completion of the IPW Evaluation Forms for Farms (available on www.ipw.co.za).
ABSTRACT
Coding and evaluation of Spray Records for IPW
Agrochemicals are coded for Integrated Production (IP) and spray records are evaluated to determine the environmental impact of each application. According to the new system of registration and certification for Integrated Production of Wine (IPW), spray record evaluation forms must be completed correctly to be able to qualify for an IPW Certificate and an "IPW Conformance Certificate". Information from published "Technical Bulletins" of manufacturers and "The Pesticide Manual of the British Crop Protection Council" are used to code registered weed control and crop protection remedies in one of four categories, based on their potential risk to the environment: "Low risk" (IP coding = 1), "Medium Risk" (IP coding = 2), "Medium to High Risk" (IP coding = 4) and "High Risk" (IP coding = 8). The impact of an application on the environment is determined by the IP-coding, the amount of active ingredient applied per hectare, application method and the stage of the season that it is applied. Spray records for herbicides, pest control and disease control are evaluated separately in Appendix 2A, 2B and 2C of the IPW guidelines. The evaluation form represents a summary of all the vineyards on the farm. To complete the evaluation, the following information is required for each application: active ingredient and formulation of the product applied, spray volume per hectare and IP coding of the product. Examples are given of how to complete spray record evaluations and the use of the cut-off points to evaluate the complete spray programme for Appendix 1 of the guidelines.

Wynboer is incorporated in WineLand, magazine of the SA wine producers.
Subscribe to WineLand

Visit our sister sites:

South African wine farmers' representative organisation

Facts, figures, contact details and much more in the 2009/10 Directory