Tag Archives: water

Wine bottle drip irrigator

I don’t have a water source at my community garden plot so this summer I’ve been experimenting with drip-irrigation devices. My favorite so far is one that uses a wine bottle, and I’m sharing instructions here in case you’re bored out of your mind during the Covid-19 lockdown. You probably have wine bottles, but if you don’t I also give tips on how to use soda bottles and buckets.

Wine bottle drip irrigator

Instructions

  1. Cut the bottom off the bottle. The above shows a 750-mL bottle but a 1.5-L works, too. I own a Creator’s bottle cutter kit (it’s fantastic) but there are videos showing other techniques.
  2. Drill a hole through the cork to accommodate 1/4″ tubing.
  3. Cut a length of 1/4″ drip irrigation tubing so that it is 1/2″ longer than the cork. Put a small piece of tape over the opening of one end.
  4. Put a few drops of outdoor glue into the hole. Gorilla Glue is nice because it tends to expand, filling gaps in the cork.
  5. Insert the taped-up end of tubing into hole, pushing until untaped part is flush. Take off tape (that was there to make sure it didn’t get filled with glue).
  6. Once glue is dry, insert cork into bottle so that the 1/2″ overhang is sticking out.
  7. Attach an adjustable valve to the tubing.
  8. Attach a 12″ (or so) length of 1/4″ tubing to the valve.
  9. Attach bottle to a 36″ stake (1×1″ wood, 1/2″ bamboo, or plastic-coated metal) using wire. Make it extremely snug so that when filled with water it won’t drift down.
  10. Crumple up some tulle (or flexible screening) to form a filter plug near cork. Tamp down using a long rod. This prevents hole and valve from clogging.
  11. Attach tulle (or flexible screening) to top with two rubbers bands. One rubber band is fine but the second is backup in case sunlight degrades one. The screening keeps out debris, but also prevents mosquitoes from ovipositing when valve is closed (and bottle is filled).

Here are some closeups:

Once done, situate the irrigator in your garden so that you can easily see the drip and adjust the valve without fighting foliage or stooping. This is why the instructions above call for a short length of tubing rather than something that fully extends into the soil near the plant (where you couldn’t see it). Evaporation from a falling drop of water is probably non-zero but I think the ability to see the drip rate is worth it.

When you water drop by drop, slowly, the soil has time to fully absorb the moisture. Drip irrigated plants thus need far less water, sometimes dramatically less. Another benefit is that water isn’t constantly splashed onto leaves, something that can distribute as well as activate pathogens. Some plants simply don’t like wet leaves (don’t judge). And many plants (such as tomatoes) also benefit from being constantly hydrated, something that is hard to accomplish with normal irrigation. Finally, plants tend to take up fertilizer better when it is slowly delivered.

Plastic bottle drip irrigator

If cutting bottles is not in your skill set, soda bottles work fine. The only major construction difference here is that you need to insert a drip-emitter coupler into a pre-drilled hole in the cap. But that’s easy — the coupler just snaps in and seals even if you skip the glue step. I’d also recommend using a 2-L soda bottle, however, instead of the 750-mL one shown below. Plus make the stake 36″, not 24″ (too short, I’ve found), and use something sturdier than what I’ve shown. Bottle can be attached to the stake with wire or (as I’ve done here) with zip ties.

The screen on the top is absolutely critical. If the emitter clogs while you’re away on vacation and the bottle fills with water, mosquitoes will move in. Mosquitoes can complete development in as little as five days.

I also recommend cramming in some flexible screening into the neck of the bottle as shown above for the wine-bottle version. Round dish scrubbers will work, too.

Bucket drip irrigator

If you want to deliver gallons of water to a plant, buckets are the way to go. Below is one I made from a florist bucket I scored from Trader Joe’s. I used a coupler, inserted as per instructions for the soda-bottle irrigator. A bucket with a lid would be much better because it could keep mosquitoes out and would reduce evaporation. Even better would be a bucket with a clear lid so that you can quickly gauge water level. Or a clear bucket (they make them!). Elevate the bucket with bricks or mound of dirt so that the lowest part of the bucket is still above the emitter so that gravity can do its thing. You can also use much larger buckets (e.g., 40-gallon ones) and then attach multiple drip emitters via splitters or crosses.

In addition to the top screen (again, an absolute must for excluding mosquitoes), I recommend some sort of internal filter to prevent emitter clogging. I opted for a piece of weed-block cloth attached to some Gorilla tape.

The big disadvantage with ground-based buckets is that you can’t easily see the dripping in action. This means that you have to stoop down to inspect each irrigator to make sure the emitter hasn’t clogged, something that happens regularly if you haven’t screened and filtered properly. I prefer the elevated, bottle-based devices because you can walk through a garden and visually see that everything is dripping at a nice rate.

Alternative setups

Just a sampling of other people’s gravity drip systems.

Drip irrigation suppliers

Some hardware stores carry these supplies, but there are plenty of online distributors, too.

Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech

Here’s an early look at the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, the newest device made by the makers of the wildly popular Spartan Mosquito Eradicator, which I reviewed in 2019.

What is the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech?

Aside from differences in label design, the Pro Tech looks just like the Eradicator — a plastic tube fitted with a cap that has several ~11/64″ holes and a hook for hanging. And it’s filled with essentially the same ingredients (water, sugar, yeast). The big difference appears to be that the active ingredient is now boric acid instead of sodium chloride.

Per the labelling, the major differences are that the Pro Tech (1) works for 30 days instead of 90 and (2) “kills mosquitoes” instead of killing 95% of them.

The name, “Pro Tech”, is presumably to signify to consumers that the device is “professional technology”. This name is line with company’s description of the Pro Tech as “next-generation” and “most advanced“.

How does the Pro Tech kill mosquitoes?

The company asserts the following occur:

  1. mosquitoes are attracted to the tubes
  2. mosquitoes land on the tubes
  3. mosquitoes crawl around until they find the 11/64″ holes in the cap
  4. mosquitoes squeeze though the holes
  5. mosquitoes walk down sides of tube toward liquid
  6. mosquitoes ingest some of the liquid
  7. mosquitoes walk back up sides of tube
  8. mosquitoes find holes
  9. mosquitoes squeeze through holes
  10. mosquitoes fly away
  11. mosquitoes die from boric acid poisoning

A typical yard might have thousands of mosquitoes, so at any one time there might be a cloud of mosquitoes gathered around the devices, at least according to the company’s advertising. I have not been able to find a photograph that shows a cloud of mosquitoes around a Pro Tech.

Do Pro Techs kill mosquitoes?

The more important question is, “Does the Pro Tech kill mosquitoes in a yard?” The rephrasing of the question is important because a loophole in the EPA guidelines allows a company to claim a device kills an outdoor pest even if the efficacy experiment was done indoors. I’m not sure whether this is the case with the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, but it’s a concern. Laboratory experiments of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) devices could easily overestimate actual efficacy for several reasons.

One worry is that boric acid can enter the vapor state. This means that mosquitoes trapped inside net cages with Pro Techs would be expected to die at a faster rate simply because boric acid is present in the air inside the cage, not because any of the mosquitoes actually squeezed through holes in the caps and ingested the liquid. Another huge problem is that when ATSB devices are tested inside cages, mosquitoes have no choice but to seek out the sugar inside the devices. So one might see mosquitoes entering the small holes of a Pro Tech inside cages even though mosquitoes in the real world would rarely do so. Under no circumstances would I recommend the EPA accept data from laboratory tests of ATSBs.

I’m not aware of any third-party evaluations of the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, but given that the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator does not work, it seems unlikely that the Pro Tech would work. I’ll update this page when peer-reviewed data are published.

Disclosures

Spartan Mosquito is suing me.

Jeremy Hirsch, inventor of the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator

Spartan Mosquito v. Colin Purrington

AC2T, Inc, a Mississippi company valued at over $100 million, is suing me in Federal court over my review of the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator. The device is a plastic tube filled with sugar, salt, yeast, and water and is purported to act as an attractive toxic sugar bait. Box claims that device will eradicate (kill) approximately 95% of mosquitoes in a yard for 90 days — the company does not release efficacy data, but claims it possesses them. My opinion is that the devices don’t kill mosquitoes, and the above review explains my reasoning. The owners, Jeremy Hirsch and Chris Bonner of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, seem particularly upset that I shared my review with state pesticide officials as well as federal regulatory agencies (EPA, FTC). The suit was brought to bankrupt and silence me, so it’s a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

Here’s the first part of my motion to dismiss the lawsuit:

“In this lawsuit, Spartan seeks to use its superior financial resources to silence a former college professor who has been exercising his constitutional rights to petition his government and advocate on an important environmental and public health issue: the effectiveness of commercially available mosquito control devices. In Mr. Purrington’s opinion, based upon his personal evaluation of Spartan’s product and his scientific knowledge, Spartan has made false and misleading claims about the efficacy of its product, thereby violating federal environmental regulations and potentially endangering public health. Most of the statements that Spartan cites in the Complaint reflect Mr. Purrington’s efforts to reach federal and state officials with information about Spartan’s misleading and false claims concerning the efficacy of its product. The remaining statements reflect Mr. Purrington’s efforts to raise public awareness of the matters about which he is petitioning, describe his own opinions, or contain facts that Spartan does not, and cannot, deny are true. Applicable law does not provide Spartan with a valid claim against Mr. Purrington under those circumstances. Notably, even if Spartan could show that Mr. Purrington should be liable for his statements, Spartan fails to plead facts that would suggest it has incurred even a cent of damage to its business to justify its claims. That omission suggests that Spartan has sued merely to intimidate Mr. Purrington rather than to recover any demonstrable damage to its business. For those reasons, Mr. Purrington respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.”

The full brief is here (PDF).

UPDATES

Spartan Mosquito, Jeremy Hirsch, and Bonner Analytical Testing Company are being sued in New York District Court for fraud. Here is the 16-page complaint.

Scientists in Florida concluded the Spartan Mosquito Eradicators do not work.