same tank. In the amenity sector, where a wide selection of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides can be applied, the crucial aspect of mixing is to check which can live happily in the same container, as not all do by any means. Clear guidance is available to
reduce the risk of mishaps, Allbutt explains. “An operator cannot make a tank mix unless he has the approval from the manufacturers of the products being used, as the mixing of ingredients that are not chemically compatible can have adverse effects - yet some are still under the impression that free mixing of products is an acceptable practice.” Before attempting any mix, operators and/or end users need to investigate whether it’s chemically possible to do so - a process not to be undertaken when time is tight and deadlines are looming, warns Allbutt - one reason why he believes the amenity sector has grown more cautious about the method, in contrast to agriculture, where it is much more widely applied. “There’s a high risk of chemical incompatibility with tank mixing that could have potentially disastrous results and, more likely, something will not mix than will, and the user often might not know what mixes are or are not suitable.”
Allbutt puts the lack of industry knowledge down to the level of risk involved with the method, a factor confirmed by councils across the UK that have decided to move away from tank mixing in recent years. “We hardly do any tank mixing anymore, largely due to the likelihood of things going wrong,” states Mark Dempsey, support services manager for Calderdale District Council. “A few years back we were left with
big problems after leaving selective herbicide in the tank for too long. We had terrible trouble trying to clean the machine afterwards.” Although it’s “rare” for local authorities to make a mistake like this, Dempsey maintains, “we want to ensure it doesn’t happen again”.
In erring on the side of caution,
Calderdale has followed the trend set by a growing tally of other northern councils and kept the bulk of its pesticides applications in-house. Bradford, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle are reportedly contracting out, and southern authorities are said to be far more “contractor-driven”. “We use a contractor for some jobs, particularly when it makes more time and financial sense to do so - for example with our sportspitches - and have worked with several,” explains Dempsey.
Although some councils fight shy of tank mixing, commentators report a growing trend among authorities that do spray in-house towards applying a more complex cocktail of chemicals in one hit. That way, they aim to save time and money for both in-house and
“I would encourage groundstaff and greenkeepers in private and public sectors to seriously look into tank mixing as an alternative to their normal methods.”
John Allbutt
outsourced work, and reap the benefits of a more concerted, co-ordinated programme of treatment for sportsturf and amenity areas. Manufacturers are understandably alert to the potential dangers of inappropriate tank mixing, and usually provide comprehensive guidance on their packaging about what chemicals within their product range can be combined, following completion of all the necessary tests for compatibility.
Difficulties can arise when end users want to mix chemicals supplied by more than one source. Manufacturers prefer their customers to use their own brands, because they cannot give a categorical assurance that differing ones are compatible, they argue. Those wishing to buy from several
sources are left in the dilemma of being forced to train up staff to a level of competency to choose for themselves how they mix chemicals or play safe and purchase from one supplier, who can give them the assurances on compatibility that they seek.
The safe option, some say, is to scrap tank mixing in-house, leaving it to the expertise of contractors or, as councils are pursuing, seeking organic or greener options to the applications of chemicals, especially at a time when EU legislation is starting to bite and tried and trusted pesticides have been banned. Adherence to any one option shows no national trend, however. Some believe in tank mixing, others do not. The more worrying common thread, say Allbutt and others, is the lack of knowledge on correct mixing. “Tank mixing is a pretty common
practice,” a spokesperson from a leading turfgrass research body confirmed, “but contractors complain that councils do not know what they are doing, and that they are increasingly being asked to undertake unreasonable tasks.”
The onus for ensuring compatibility usually should rest with the contractor, argues one major operator that serves councils and private clubs and amenity sites across the UK and Ireland. “It’s better for local authorities to leave such a specialist service to specialist providers, because only those who deal with chemicals every day will know which can be mixed in the tank,” argues Alan Abel, technical director of Complete Weed Control. There are some definite ‘don’t dos’, he adds: “You really do not want to be mixing 2,4-D selective weedkiller with glyphosate for example, because you are left with scum floating on the top of the surface.”
A wish to mix fungicides and iron is also common. “The two do not go together,” Abel stresses. However, because of the compatibility issue, those requiring total weed control are becoming accustomed to multiple runs of glyphosate, he adds.
The code of practice for using plant
protection products, issued by DEFRA, the Pesticide Safety Directorate and the Chemicals Registration Directorate, outlines exactly what should and shouldn’t be done when tank mixing. “It’s the standard reference, the industry Bible,” states Allbutt. The code states that ‘any person using a pesticide in the UK cannot use it unless they are competent to do so’, with Section 4.5
53
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132