Last year several sites I manage had badly scarred nectarines in what looked like thrips damage. I took two batches of nectarines to my cooperative hort agent and she found no signs of thrips, but suggested that if it looks like a duck…
I had a few reasons to doubt it was thrips and looking like thrips damage wasn’t adequate for me to believe that was the cause, because it turns out that a freeze event can cause similar damage. Last year we had such an event.
This year I’m seeing similar damage on nects but we had no such event so I asked CHAT GPT a couple of questions. I found out what my cooperative agent should have told me last year.
It turns out that once trees have lost their flowers the thrips generally leave and I shouldn’t have expected to find evidence of them on the damaged nectarines besides the damage itself.
My extension agent was in connection with Cornell for all of this, and yet this essential information was not relayed to me. It’s also my fault for not studying the life cycle of thrips, so there are 2 or 3 lessons others can learn from my experience.
Thanks for sharing this. I decided that the scarring on my Green Gage plum, many years back, was likely thrip damage and vaguely remember reading what you’ve concluded here. I probably had to spend a lot more time with Google to come to that tentative conclusion.
CHAT is now the primary consultant in my business. It is a service I would happily pay for, if I had to. I paid to have those samples looked at by my cooperative extension.
I got pretty bad Thrip damage on my nectarines this year. I have found that during blossom stage, if you give a few hard taps on the stems, the thrips will fall out into your hand. I was lazy and missed my spray this year. Here in Calif., we get the western flower thrips.
The fact that thrips are a blooming time issue only has been discussed here often. I’ve never sprayed for them because they aren’t an issue in the greenhouse. Outdoors I have had nectarines scarred so badly that they were essentially worthless.
What sucks is that it is another new pest that requires a complete additional spray. 7 years ago Marsonnina leaf blotch appeared requiring two extra summer sprays to keep many apple varieties healthy enough to produce good fruit.
It just keeps getting harder as borders and oceans mean nothing.
Thrips! I lost a complete strawberry harvest ( 3 twenty five foot rows) to thrips. A large pick your own strawberry farm lost their entire harvest in 2018. OSU extension said they may have blown in on a large storm cloud from the south. I now check my blossoms with a stereo binocular scope to see if there are any on the blossoms, If I see any I spray with spinosad or pyrethrins. Regarding using Chat, I too have found it very helpful, I could not acquire any Tactic from the local Nutrien Ag stores in my area so I asked Chat for product that was identical, this is what it responded with (which I can acquire easily) Secondary Option (for sticking/rainfastness):
If you’re trying to replicate TACTIC’s sticker function as well (since TACTIC also includes a sticking agent), consider combining:
Sil-Fact (for spreading and penetration) PLUS
Nu-Film 17 or Nu-Film P (for sticking and rainfastness)
This combination would most closely mimic TACTIC’s dual-function formula — perhaps even outperform it in extreme rainfastness or coverage.
Summary:
Product
Closest to TACTIC?
Function
Use With
Sil-Fact
Yes (spreading)
Organosilicone surfactant
Alone or combo
Nu-Film 17 or P
Partially
Sticker / rainfastness
Combine for full effect
Southern Ag / Hi-Yield
No
Traditional surfactant + sticker
Budget/simple use
If you want a simple one-product solution, Sil-Fact is the closest match.
If you want best-in-class performance, use Sil-Fact + Nu-Film 17 together. Let me know if you’d like exact mixing rates for that combination in a 3-gallon batch.
You said:
so mixing sil Fact and Nu film 17 would achieve virtually identical results to tactic?
ChatGPT said:
Yes — mixing Sil-Fact and Nu-Film 17 would very closely replicate Tactic in terms of performance, and in some cases, may even outperform it, depending on your spray target and weather conditions.
However, Nufilm is problematic when using with systemic pesticides as it blocks the pesticides from penetrating the plants cells more than Tactic. NuFilm is stickier and supposedly delays solar degradation, but this is not useful for systemics.
Most of my tank mixes include a locally systemic fungicide or insecticide.
CHAT GPT tends to steer towards a positive answer and must be interrogated thoroughly to get a complete answer. That is how it isn’t a replacement for an expert yet, but it sure augments the ability to self-teach and to research specifics.
Why did the Nutrien stores in your area not supply Tactic? They carry all the Loveland products, and it is a very important one of them. If you use systemics I wouldn’t add NuFilm to the mix.
Thanks for the additional insight. One Nutrien store was not aware of the product and the second said they would have to get a whole pallet. I do use systemics so appreciate the heads up. I will keep looking for a Tactic supplier. Our area is all corn, beans and wheat, or tomatoes not many commercial orchards. And you can watch your dog run away for three days.
They also don’t seem very interested in helping non-commercial growers, which is because of their business model, which is all about volume. You might get a branch further away to UPS you a bottle if you keep it simple for them. If you explain to CHAT about using a systemic pesticide they will direct you to another source of a sticker more similar to tactic in terms of not excessivly blocking systemic activity.
Here you go- what was the name again of the spreader-sticker for home growers you mentioned before that is closest to Tactic as far as less interference to systemic pesticides
ChatGPT said:
The spreader-sticker I mentioned before that is most similar to Tactic—in terms of providing good spreading and sticking with minimal interference to systemic pesticide uptake—and that is more appropriate or accessible for home growers, is Hi-Yield Spreader Sticker.
Summary:
Name: Hi-Yield Spreader Sticker
Manufacturer: VPG (Voluntary Purchasing Group)
Active ingredients: Non-ionic surfactants and latex polymers
Function: Helps sprays spread and adhere without overly interfering with the absorption of systemic materials
Why it’s similar to Tactic: It does not include oils or strong adhesives that can inhibit uptake, and it balances retention and coverage well. Hi-Yield Spreader Sticker
I bought a small bottle of Hi-Yield years ago and am just now using it up. It’s readily available and affordable. I’m glad to hear it does the job. Obviously my demands are not very great.
NuFilm is only a problem when used with systemic pesticides like Assail and Indar. I got my info from CHAT on the reasons. For other pesticides NuFilm may be the superior product based on its ability to hold off solar degradation and greater stickiness. However, Tactic works better as a spreader.
Exactly how superior Tactic is when using systemics, I’m not sure, but CHAT informed me that it is superior in this usage to NuFilm. That was all I need to know, but you can ask for more specific info from it. I did post its explanation of why Tactic is better for use with systemics.
I was advised years ago by a consultant for my main chemical company that Tactic was hands down the best spreader-sticker to use with common tank mixes (systemics have been widely used for over 25 years now), but I’m not sure he understood why. Now I believe I do.
I’m going to ask CHAT for a ball park figure on how much difference that might make for protection.
Now you’ve explained why Tactic is better than NuFilm when mixing with systemic pesticides like Indar and Assail. My question now is, how much better?
ChatGPT said:
Great question—and it’s a subtle but important one, especially in orchard spray programs.
Short answer:
Tactic is moderately better than NuFilm when mixing with systemic or translaminar pesticides like Indar and Assail, particularly in terms of uptake efficiency and translocation within the plant. The difference may not always be dramatic, but under challenging conditions—like during cool weather, heavy dew, or light rainfall shortly after spraying—it can increase efficacy meaningfully.
What makes Tactic “better”?
Tactic was designed to:
Improve adhesion and rainfastness without forming a heavy barrier
Spread and penetrate leaf surfaces efficiently
Minimize antagonism with systemic/translaminar products
NuFilm (especially NuFilm-17 or NuFilm-P) relies on pinolene resins that:
Form a waxy, water-resistant film over the plant
Can reduce uptake of systemics by sealing the surface before absorption is complete
Provide long residual and UV protection, which is ideal for protectant fungicides or insect growth regulators, not so much systemics
How much better? Practical impact
In lab or controlled field studies, the difference in pesticide uptake between a Tactic-type adjuvant and a pinolene sticker like NuFilm can be 10–30% more active ingredient absorbed, depending on temperature, spray pH, and drying time.
In real-world home orchard use, this might mean:
Better disease or insect control with fewer sprays
Fewer resistant survivors, especially important for curculio and scab
More reliable performance in light rain or heavy dew conditions
Example:
With Indar + Captan + Tactic in your tank, Indar’s systemic uptake is faster and more complete. Add NuFilm instead, and some of the Indar may sit longer on the surface or even get locked out before being absorbed—especially if drying is fast (sunny, low humidity).
When does the difference matter most?
When spraying translaminar or systemic products
During marginal weather: light rain expected, high dew, or short drying windows
With resistance-prone targets (e.g. Marssonina blotch, codling moth, apple scab)
When you’re stretching spray intervals and need reliable residual control
Bottom line
Tactic is significantly better than NuFilm for systemics—not because NuFilm is bad, but because its resin film works against the mode of action of materials like Indar and Assail. If you’re applying protectant fungicides or biologicals, NuFilm can shine. But for systemic action, especially in a Northeast orchard with high disease pressure and tight spray windows, Tactic or a similar non-barrier adjuvant (like Induce) is clearly a better choice.
Overall the benefit is moderate in terms of results of a general tank mix, but the benefit for systemics is significant. That’s how I read it, anyway, but I’m not fluent in robotish.
NuFilm and Tactic are both spray adjuvants, but they serve different purposes and have distinct strengths. Here’s a breakdown of situations where NuFilm is generally superior to Tactic:
When NuFilm Is Superior:
1. Extended Rainfastness and Longevity
NuFilm (e.g., NuFilm-17) contains pinene polymers, which form a film on the leaf surface.
It significantly increases resistance to wash-off from rain, irrigation, or dew, often making sprays rainfast within 30 minutes and effective for up to 2 weeks or more.
Use it when weather conditions are unpredictable, especially before rain events.
Ideal for:
Fungicides and insecticides where longer residual activity is needed.
PGRs (Plant Growth Regulators) or defoliants.
When reapplication is hard or costly.
2. UV Protection
The pinene film offers some protection from UV degradation, helping light-sensitive actives persist longer.
3. Reduced Drift and Evaporation
NuFilm helps reduce drift and evaporation losses, especially in hot, windy conditions.
4. Slow-Release Effect
It can provide a slow-release mechanism by maintaining actives on the leaf surface longer.
When NOT to Use NuFilm (Tactic May Be Better):
Tank mix needs spreading/sticking only: Tactic is better for quick wetting and sticking, especially for contact herbicides or when full coverage is key.
Desire for shorter residuals: NuFilm can hold residues longer than needed in sensitive crops or rotating crops.
Crop safety concerns: NuFilm’s film-forming nature may be too persistent on certain tender or waxy crops (e.g., berries, grapes under certain conditions).
It is important to provide a bit of comparison with some numbers.
Yes, NuFilm extends rainfastness and surface persistence, but…
In real-world orchard conditions, especially in the Northeast where you’re often dealing with:
Frequent dew and light rains
High humidity
Fungal pressure requiring tight spray intervals
…the practical extension in protection time is often modest — maybe a day or two — and not enough to allow you to stretch your spray intervals unless the weather really cooperates.
Why the benefit is modest, even for contact pesticides:
Many contact fungicides (like Captan or mancozeb) already have some inherent wash-off resistance. NuFilm slows erosion, but it doesn’t lock them in place indefinitely.
Field studies (Cornell, Penn State, UC Davis) show:
Under light rains (<0.25"), Captan + Tactic retains good efficacy.
NuFilm extends protection under moderate rainfall — but a hard rain (>0.5") still reduces residue enough to require reapplication.
With or without NuFilm, fungicide performance drops significantly after about 7 days, especially during primary infection periods.
No adjuvant can compensate for weather extremes. If you get multiple wetting events, your protection is compromised regardless of the sticker.
Misconception to Watch For:
Some growers believe that using NuFilm eliminates the need for re-spraying after moderate rain — but that’s not supported by field efficacy data.
NuFilm buys you:
More confidence against surprise drizzle or heavy dew
A bit more rain resistance than a conventional sticker
Possibly an extra 24–48 hours of residual activity under moderate pressure
But it doesn’t turn a 7-day spray schedule into a 14-day one in wet conditions.
Yes (spreading)
Partially
No
When NuFilm Is Superior:
When NOT to Use NuFilm (Tactic May Be Better):
Why the benefit is modest, even for contact pesticides: