This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Technical


“It was also established that accurate low level doses of spot applied glyphosate can achieve good weed control in conjunction with good sweeping practices”


sweeping practices. No overall blanket spraying is allowed and applications are limited to just 360 grams of glyphosate per hectare of hard surface in any one application, and 720 grams per hectare annually. This use cap is related to the total surface area of open pavement in a contract or working unit (maximum 50ha). To us in the UK, used to applying 1800 grams per hectare (5 L/Ha) as an overall blanket application several times a year, this sounds pretty drastic but, when spot application at around 2 litres per hectare (720g/Ha) is made to around 50% of the overall area treated, then these targets are achievable.


Sealed tarmac surfaces are never


blanket sprayed. For conventional hydraulic sprayers using water under pressure, all equipment must be fully shrouded to contain spray drift, and also fitted with weed sensors to automatically spot spray only where weeds are present. Sprayers that are all shrouded, such as the Mankar ULV, which only apply 1- 2 litres per hectare, fit this criteria, using neither water nor drift inducing pressure, just neat glyphosate. The protection of water courses is a top priority, and particularly those drinking water catchments that feed water abstraction points. No spraying takes place within one metre of any water body in any situation. In these no-spray zones, other non-herbicidal methods are used, such as heat, steam and sweeping, or else herbicide applied only to the foliage of weeds, and not the ground, by equipment such as the Roto-


Fix weed wiper, for instance. A detailed map of water abstraction points is available on the SWEEP website (www.dob- verhardingen.nl/uk/General/) so that planners can define no-spray zones within their operating areas. In the case of a fast moving water body leading towards an abstraction point, then no herbicide is allowed on feeder hard surfaces within 10km of the abstraction point. If the water is defined as slow moving, then this falls to 1km. It is likely that, in the not too distant


future, the EU’s Water Framework Directive will head things in the UK in this direction. Fortunately, the UK has fewer of such vulnerable water sources, with drinking water often supplied by upland reservoirs, fed water from high ground.


The only herbicide cleared for general application on hard surfaces is the Monsanto product, which is the most effective at the low doses used and has excellent environmental credentials. The SWEEP system reduces the impact of pesticide water pollution by a factor of around 10, which is an impressive result by any standards.


Another impressive feature of the SWEEP system is that its component parts are available in three separate shortlists off the web site (www.dob- verhardingen.nl/uk/General/), that gives detailed guidance to all three levels of management and staff involved in implementing weed control. Shortlist 0 is aimed at council area controllers and other policy-making


officials to help them prepare a 5-year plan. Shortlist 1 is aimed at contract managers planning and managing a weed control campaign; and Shortlist 2 gives practical guidelines to operators applying herbicides where these are allowed.


This ensures the full coordination necessary between sweeping activities and weed spraying or other control methods, and gives a joined up overall system that delivers good weed control at a reasonable cost, while really protecting the environment. The EU Directives that are currently being implemented in the UK will, undoubtedly, change a lot of our past practices, especially the high rate blanket application of herbicide on a regular basis. However, the experiences of Holland, built on many years of detailed practical research by Corné Kempenaar and his colleagues of how pesticides behave on hard surfaces, rather than relying on computer models to predict this (UK PSD practice), certainly guide the way forward.


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  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156