THE MANDATORY INSPECTION OF SPRAYERS IN BELGIUM:

HISTORY, ORGANISATION, CRITERIA AND RESULTS

J LANGENAKENS1 and P BRAEKMAN2
Agricultural Research Centre Ghent
Ghent, Belgium

Summary

The Belgian Ministry of Small Enterprises, Traders and Agriculture set up a working
group comprising researchers, technicians, manufacturers and farmers to develop a
compulsory inspection of sprayers. In this way, the government aimed at improving the
condition of crop sprayers, the image of agriculture amongst consumers of agricultural
products and the relation to the environment. The mandatory inspection of sprayers is
described in a Ministerial Decree of 9 June 1995 that states that each sprayer in use had to
be tested before 31 December 1998. The government stressed that the mandatory
inspection of spraying equipment should not be repressive but educative and beneficial for
the user, results should be reliable and objective, possible defects should be explained to
the farmer and advice should be given for optimal repair and better use of spraying
equipment.
In Belgium, all spraying equipment used for the distribution of chemicals for plant
protection has to be inspected. The inspection procedures are different from those used in
other countries. Inspections are carried out by mobile test teams with government
personnel. In order to inspect each sprayer in time, owners of spraying equipment receive
an official invitation to present their spraying machine at one of the test sites at a given
date and time. In the first cycle (1995-1998), about 25 000 sprayers were inspected in
Belgium, 17 500 sprayers of them in the Flemish region. About 82% passed the inspection
at a first visit. The other 18% required repair or replacement of some parts before passing
the re-inspection. Main defects were worn nozzles and defective manometers. About 36%
of all sprayer owners placed their sprayer aside and hired a contractor for their spraying
business.
Special attention has been paid to the organisation of the inspection in the Flemish part
of the country. All inspectors were selected according to the following criteria: good
knowledge of farming practices (preferably farmers' sons), living in the area of inspection,
able to speak the local dialect, good technical skills, flexible and with a serene personality.
The inspectors have been trained to be able to answer all kinds of questions related to
application techniques. This total approach of making the first cycle more an awareness
campaign than an inspection resulted in the acceptance of the inspection by the agricultural
world. Rules that are more stringent were enforced in the second cycle and will even be
more accentuated in the third one, starting in 2002. At present, discussions are going on to
change the test procedures. Slowly but certain the aim of having properly adjusted sprayers
in practice is reached.

1
Ministry of Small Enterprises, Traders and Agriculture, Agricultural Research Centre Ghent, Dept. of
Mechanisation, Labour, Buildings, Animal Welfare and Environmental Protection, Head of the Section
Mechanisation, Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 115, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium. e-mail:
j.langenakens@clo.fgov.be
2
Ibid. Co -ordinator of the Sprayer Inspection Services - Flanders.
II SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL DE TECNOLOGIA DE APLICAÇÃO DE AGROTÓXICOS: EFICIÊNCIA,
ECONOMIA E PRESERVAÇÃO DA SAÚDE HUMANA E DO AMBIENTE
Rodovia D. Gabriel P.B. Couto, km 65 – CMAA – Jundiaí – SP – Brasil – Cx. P. 26 – CEP 1 3201-970
Fone: (0xx11) 4582-8155 – Fax: (0xx11) 4582- 8184 – www.iac.br/~cma/Sintag - e-mail: sintag@dea.iac.br
 Key-words: mandatory inspection of sprayers

Introduction

In the economic and environmental train of thoughts of recent years, attention in agriculture
has been f ocused on plant protection, and more specific on the chemicals applied on the crops.
Excessive applications of chemicals are not only uneconomical but have consequences for the
environment and the image of agriculture. They can lead to intolerable residues in plants,
environmental pollution and in the end to resistance of pests and weeds to chemical agents.
Excessive applications can be attributed to the farmer or the spraying equipment. However,
if the farmer follows the recommended dose on the packing of the chemicals or in the
accompanying leaflet, the excess can only be due to an imprecise distribution of the
chemicals. As most farmers do not spray the same swath twice, the only possible cause left
for uneven spray patterns, is the sprayer itself. Maladjusted or badly maintained sprayers can
spray up to 400 % of the desired dose while in other positions on the field this may drop as
low as 20 % (Jacques, 1983; Langenakens, Ramon & De Baerdemaeker, 1995). In other
European countries where sprayers are subjected to voluntary or mandatory inspection similar
conclusions were reached.
The condition of the sprayer is closely linked with its maintenance. Unfortunately not all
farmers and technicians involved in servicing sprayers, have the necessary technical expertise
and experience. Even technical advisers may lack the expertise to adjust a sprayer correctly.
Mostly the large variety of makes of spraying equipment, but often also the lack of proper
service manuals for the marketed sprayers are to blame for this poor technical knowledge
(Pieters, 1994).
West European countries reacted differently on this situation. In Belgium, three main actions
were taken in the last decade. In a first stage courses in spraying techniques and sprayer
maintenance and adjustment have been organised regionally. As only about 5 % of the
farmers attended such courses, other actions were needed. The ministry set up a working
group comprising researchers, technicians, manufacturers and farmers to develop a
compulsory inspection of sprayers on the one hand and standards for the certification of new
spraying equipment on the other hand. In this way, the government aimed to improve the
condition of crop sprayers and in addition the image of agriculture amongst consumers of
agricultural products and reduce adverse effects of improper spraying. The mandatory
inspection of sprayers is described in the Ministerial Decree of 9 June 1995 that states that
each sprayer in use had to be tested before 31 December 1998. Meanwhile the inspection
reached the last semester of the second cycle and changes are discussed to improve the
inspection.

Objectives of sprayer testing

The Minister of Agriculture stressed that the mandatory inspection of spraying equipment
should not be repressive but educative and beneficial for the user. The results of the
inspection should be reliable and objective. Possible defects should be explained to the
farmer and advice given for optimal repair while further recommendations concerning the
practical use of the tested equipment could complete the test.

II SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL DE TECNOLOGIA DE APLICAÇÃO DE AGROTÓXICOS: EFICIÊNCIA,

ECONOMIA E PRESERVAÇÃO DA SAÚDE HUMANA E DO AMBIENTE
Rodovia D. Gabriel P.B. Couto, km 65 – CMAA – Jundiaí – SP – Brasil – Cx. P. 26 – CEP 1 3201-970
Fone: (0xx11) 4582-8155 – Fax: (0xx11) 4582- 8184 – www.iac.br/~cma/Sintag - e-mail: sintag@dea.iac.br
 Discomfort to the farmers should be kept at a minimum. The distance from the farm to the
inspection site should not exceed 15 km. In busy periods, in which farmers are highly
involved in fieldwork, the inspection should be postponed to a later date. But most
importantly, the cost borne by the farmer should be minimal so as not to endanger their
competitiveness at international level.
Besides direct benefits for agriculture, such as better results with the same amount of
chemicals or the same biological effects with a lower dose, indirect profits are even more
conceivable in the future. Consumers’ confidence in fruits and vegetables can be uplifted
while at least as important, the environmental load can be reduced. This will undoubtedly
affect soil and water, which will gradually become less contaminated and in this way the
compulsory test of sprayers can contribute to a healthier environment (Langenakens, 1995).

The mandatory testing of used sprayers in Belgium

The mandatory inspection of used sprayers in Belgium differs in four main points from that
in other European countries as Germany and The Netherlands. In Belgium, all spraying
equipment used for the distribution of plant protection chemicals has to be inspected, whereas
in the other countries only field sprayers (with a spray boom) are the subject of a compulsory
inspection. The inspection procedures are also different from those used in other countries.
In Belgium, the tests are carried out by mobile test teams with government personnel. In
order to inspect each sprayer in time, owners of spraying equipment are officially invited to
present their spraying machine at one of the test sites at a given date and time.

All spraying equip ment used must be inspected and approved

Whereas in most other countries only field spraying equipment needs to be approved, in
Belgium all spraying equipment had to be inspected a first time before 31 December 1998.
This inspection applies to almost all sprayers, including those used for orchards and
vineyards, fixed spraying installations in greenhouses, row sprayers, equipment for recreation
areas, parks and streets. Lever -operated Knapsack sprayers and portable compression
sprayers however are excluded from this compulsory test. In this way, the ordinance is equal
for all owners of spraying equipment and none of them are discriminated or favoured. Special
procedures are put in place for special applications, as sprout inhibitors for potatoes,
glasshouse sprayers etc.

The official mobile test teams

Since objectivity and uniformity are essential elements of the inspection, the government
decided that a private organisation of the inspection would be inappropriate, contrary to the
organisation of the inspection in Germany and The Netherlands. For economical reasons and
considering the moderate number of sprayers and their poor mobility the authorities in
Belgium opted for a system of mobile test teams each consisting of two official inspectors.
In view of the number of sprayers in Belgium (in 1994 approx. 34 000), seven test teams
were set up which were fully operational in the course of 1996. Each test team proceeds with
the inspection in a different region. The strategy of establishing mobile te st teams has the
advantage that they are specialised and that their equipment is continuously in use. The lower
investment to replace test equipment and the fact that the majority of the costs (over 80 %) are
personnel costs are two other important advantages. In the second cycle the number of teams
was reduced to six, to meet the lower number of sprayers (25 000 at the end of 1998).

II SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL DE TECNOLOGIA DE APLICAÇÃO DE AGROTÓXICOS: EFICIÊNCIA,

ECONOMIA E PRESERVAÇÃO DA SAÚDE HUMANA E DO AMBIENTE
Rodovia D. Gabriel P.B. Couto, km 65 – CMAA – Jundiaí – SP – Brasil – Cx. P. 26 – CEP 1 3201-970
Fone: (0xx11) 4582-8155 – Fax: (0xx11) 4582- 8184 – www.iac.br/~cma/Sintag - e-mail: sintag@dea.iac.br
 Inspection of spraying equipment by convocation
Since the inspection teams have to cover the whole of Belgium and we want to restrict the
travelling distance for the farmers, the tests have to be organised geographically and
according to a predetermined time schedule. By the choice of organisation, the test periods
for each region are set out according to the number, type and size of sprayers in that region.
To minimise time loss for the farmers and to optimise the working hours of the inspection
teams, farmers are invited on a specific day and time. The time schedule requires some
flexibility, especially in the starting up phase, so that the system becomes workable for both
parties involved. This does not exclude the fact that a number of rules must be set out in
advance and agreed upon.
In other European countries such as Germany and The Netherlands, farmers have to present
their spraying machines on a voluntary basis for a mandatory inspection. They have the
choice of different testing sites. Each machinery workshop can obtain a license to perform
the compulsory inspection of crop sprayers after their personnel have successfully completed
a course and have proven their competence. This gives the owners of sprayers the
opportunity to postpone the inspection to the last moment. Furthermore, it is very difficult and
complex to verify whether all sprayers have been inspected within the allowed space. A third
disadvantage in these countries is the geographical spreading of the test sites. Even with the
considerable number of authorised inspectors, farmers in certain regions still have to drive
substantial distances to reach a test site.

The inspection methods

The inspection method used is not based on the measurement of the liquid distribution as in
other countries. Distribution measurements by means of a patternator or a spray-scanner
require a large hangar where the tests can be performed irrespective of the weather conditions.
Since few hangars are available in the Walloon part of Belgium, another way of testing had to
be sought.
A solution was realised by the Agricultural Engineering Research Station of Gembloux
(Belgium). Not the distribution itself but all parts influencing the distribution are checked for
proper operation. By checking the sprayer parts, another important objective of the
compulsory test is fulfilled, namely the need for detailed information on present defects. The
test is actually based on three main principles: a) if the manometer displays the correct
pressure, the sprayer can be easily and precisely adjusted; b) if the pressure is uniform along
the spray boom or in other words, at each nozzle holder, a similar volume will be spread by
each nozzle; and c) if the nozzles are in a good condition, are not worn or filthy, a good liquid
distribution should be obtained.
At the end of the second cycle, it is considered again to include a distribution measurement
as is done in all other European countries with a mandatory inspection. The addition of a
distribution measurement would give the most complete procedure, including a result of all
combined parameters. A decision is expected by the end of August 2001. On European level,
a decision will be taken in the CEN-meeting of December 2001.

Description of the test methods

The test methods are divided in a number of chapters viz.:

• Safety (for the sake of the inspectors)
• Clear and appropriate measuring devices

II SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL DE TECNOLOGIA DE APLICAÇÃO DE AGROTÓXICOS: EFICIÊNCIA,

ECONOMIA E PRESERVAÇÃO DA SAÚDE HUMANA E DO AMBIENTE
Rodovia D. Gabriel P.B. Couto, km 65 – CMAA – Jundiaí – SP – Brasil – Cx. P. 26 – CEP 1 3201-970
Fone: (0xx11) 4582-8155 – Fax: (0xx11) 4582- 8184 – www.iac.br/~cma/Sintag - e-mail: sintag@dea.iac.br
 • Spray instrumentation
• Hydraulic equilibrium
• Nozzle flow rate

Results

In the first months of testing, a large number of popularising articles were published in
farmers' magazines. Those articles explained not only the inspection methods, but also the
aim and the motives for the inspection. About 40 articles appeared between August and the
beginning of October 95. In the Walloon part of Belgium, a television programme for farmers
was entirely devoted to the inspection of sprayers. Furthermore, a video was developed for
schools, farmers' organisations and extension officers. Farmers were continuously informed
about the inspection and its results and evolutions during the first cycle.
In the first cycle 24 517 sprayers were tested and accepted in Belgium. About 36% of all
sprayers in use before the inspection became effective were put aside. These farmers hired
contractors for their spraying business. Large numbers of sprayers were replaced in the first
years of the inspection (about 6 500 all over Belgium).
In the Flemish region, 17 466 sprayers were tested and 17 194 of them were accepted for
further application purposes. 18% passed the inspection after replacement of worn or
defective parts. Main problems were worn nozzles and defective manometers (responsible for
86% of all rejections at the first inspection). Other causes for rejection were defective safety
covers, excessive leaks, curved spray booms (over 50 cm), defective air chamber membranes,
important pressure differences between sections, non-functional pressure regulators, defective
electronic flow regulators. A much higher number of remarks and suggestions for repair was
given: about 10% had a bent spray boom (less than 50 cm but more than 20 cm), 5% non-
functional spray boom suspension, 2% unequal distance between nozzles, 7% different
orientation of nozzles, 11% defective or worn hinges in the spray boom, 2% defective
compensatory return, 3% excessive pressure loss, 16% smaller leaks. In the category of
remarks following problems were signalled, 3% on general maintenance state, 25% for non-
readable or absent level indicator, 19% for filters lacking, 24% for obstacles in the spray jet,
8% for unsuitable pressure in the air chamber, 20% for unsuitable manometer (too small or
unadjusted reading scale), 13% with pressure loss between work manometer and nozzles, 5%
with a too large a difference between the length of the sections, 2% with sections lines with a
too small a diameter, 8% with no compensatory return and 23% with maladjusted
compensatory return (Langenakens, 1999).

Conclusions

At the end of the second inspection cycle of sprayers, it appears that the general condition of
the sprayers has improved in comparison with earlier results from voluntary tests. Where
previously no constraints were attached to the voluntary tests, financial consequences may
now result when a sprayer fails the compulsory test. The risk for financial consequences
together with a better knowledge of the sprayer makes the farmer more aware of the condition
of his spraying equipment and tends to lead to an overall improvement in the general
condition of sprayers. Farmers have become much more conscious about their spraying

II SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL DE TECNOLOGIA DE APLICAÇÃO DE AGROTÓXICOS: EFICIÊNCIA,

ECONOMIA E PRESERVAÇÃO DA SAÚDE HUMANA E DO AMBIENTE
Rodovia D. Gabriel P.B. Couto, km 65 – CMAA – Jundiaí – SP – Brasil – Cx. P. 26 – CEP 1 3201-970
Fone: (0xx11) 4582-8155 – Fax: (0xx11) 4582- 8184 – www.iac.br/~cma/Sintag - e-mail: sintag@dea.iac.br
applications and request much more technical information from manufacturers, workshop
people and chemical suppliers.
Nevertheless, a price has to be paid for the inspection, the system has become, after an initial
phase of confusion and concern of the farmers, acceptable. Most farmers admit after the test
and irrespective of the result that they have learned more about their sprayer. Workshop
technicians also declared, after observing several inspections, that they gained more insight in
the maintenance and features of sprayers. This last fact is good news for farmers as useless
and sometimes expensive repairs can often be avoided in this way. It has also contributed to
the decision to organise courses for technicians during the winter. Technicians with little
experience on sprayers are learned how to check a sprayer. Secondly and most important,
they have been instructed in finding the exact cause of occurring problems. Furthermore,
different types of nozzles have been demonstrated and their specific applications explained.
A beneficial side effect of this compulsory inspection has been noticed. During the
inspection, some new parts did not meet the necessary criteria set out in the Ministerial
Decree. As a reaction on this fact, some manufacturers of nozzles, manometers and other
parts have improved their standards or quality control. Consequently, farmers can now rely
more on newly purchased equipment, parts and spraying machinery.
In the third cycle, we hope to move one more step forwards. A proposal was put forward in
the Flemish part of Belgium to include also a distribution measurement in the tests. This
measurement would be a more demanding criterion, but would result in better functioning
equipment. All other criteria have been adapted to continuously improve the status of the
sprayers in use.

References

Jacques M . The dynamic behaviour of sprayer booms and the resulting spray distribution of
spraying machines (in Dutch). MSc Thesis, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Department of
Agricultural Engineering, K.U. Leuven, Belgium, 1983. 124 pp
Langenakens, J.J., Ramon, H., De Baerdemaeker, J. 1995. A Model for Measuring the
Effect of Tire Pressure and Driving Speed on Horizontal Sprayer Boom Movements and
Spray Pattern. Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 38(1)65-72.
Langenakens J., 1995. The compulsory inspection of sprayers used in agriculture in
Belgium (in Dutch). Press Report. 17 pp
Langenakens J., 1996. Internal report: results of the inspection of sprayers 1995-1996. 3 pp
Langenakens J., 1999. Internal report: results of the inspection of sprayers 1995-1998. 9pp
Ministry of Small Enterprises, Traders and Agriculture , 1995. Ministerial Decree on the
compulsory inspection of spraying machines (in Dutch and French). Belgisch Staatsblad van
12/8/96, 23444 - 23475
Pieters M., 1994. Report on the results of volu ntary inspections (in Dutch). Internal Report
Research Station of Agricultural Engineering, Merelbeke. 8 pp

II SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL DE TECNOLOGIA DE APLICAÇÃO DE AGROTÓXICOS: EFICIÊNCIA,

ECONOMIA E PRESERVAÇÃO DA SAÚDE HUMANA E DO AMBIENTE
Rodovia D. Gabriel P.B. Couto, km 65 – CMAA – Jundiaí – SP – Brasil – Cx. P. 26 – CEP 1 3201-970
Fone: (0xx11) 4582-8155 – Fax: (0xx11) 4582- 8184 – www.iac.br/~cma/Sintag - e-mail: sintag@dea.iac.br