Plant nutrition & health

Why application traceability decides your export

For Chilean export fruit, a residue above the destination market's MRL is a rejected shipment. China —the main destination for Chilean cherries— keeps tightening its limits under the GB 2763 standard, whose GB 2763-2026 version takes effect on 1 March 2026 and covers 585 pesticides. Tracking pre-harvest intervals with a notebook and a wall calendar is no longer a defensible option.

Risk isn't managed at harvest, it's managed at every application: which product, at what dose, in which block, and with how many days of pre-harvest interval before harvest. If that record lives in a hand-updated spreadsheet, control depends on nobody ever making a mistake.

The real problem (no marketing)

A Chilean farm's nutritional and crop-protection program usually lives split across a spreadsheet, a notebook and the field lead's memory. Every gap in that record is a risk of destination rejection or an audit finding:

The underlying cost isn't only rejection risk: it's that crop-protection input spend —among the largest on the farm— isn't allocated to the block or compared across seasons, so nobody knows whether the program is optimized or merely inherited.

How this module solves it

The module runs the nutritional and crop-protection program per block and season with the official catalog, and turns MRL and pre-harvest control into an automatic barrier, not an act of faith. Validation happens before applying, and harvest is blocked if the interval isn't met:

1. 01

   Program with official catalog

   You define the program per block and season with dose, volume, equipment and operator, over the official catalog of authorized products.

2. 02

   MRL validation by market

   Before applying, the module validates the product against the destination market's MRL. If it doesn't comply, it warns you before the mix leaves the store.

3. 03

   Harvest block by pre-harvest interval

   PHI control is automatic: if the block doesn't meet the required days, harvest stays blocked until it does.

Every mix, volume and calibration is kept in a digital record, and the GlobalG.A.P. evidence folder is audit-ready in one click. Input consumption is allocated to the block, so the program's cost flows into cost per block and can be compared across seasons.

Integration with your current stack

The compliance demanded of Chilean fruit —GlobalG.A.P., MRL by market, records for the SAG— doesn't live in a single system, so the module connects to your stack instead of duplicating it:

And because it shares master data with irrigation, fertigation is scheduled on the same base: what you apply through irrigation in irrigation & water management and what you apply as crop protection end up in one per-block history.

Ready for the most demanding markets

Chilean fruit sells into markets with different and increasingly strict rules: China updates its GB 2763 standard —the GB 2763-2026 version applies from 1 March 2026 with 585 pesticides— and the European Union keeps MRLs that change without long notice. A crop-protection program that doesn't validate against the destination market before applying is betting that no rule will move.

The module solves this by making destination a variable of the program: you define which market each block goes to, and MRL validation runs against that destination, not an average. The same product can be valid for one market and banned for another, and the module flags it before the mix leaves the store.

For exporters sending the same cultivar to several destinations, this multi-market logic is the difference between segmenting fruit with confidence —this block meets China, that one only the EU— and sending everything to the least demanding market out of fear of a rejection. China MRL stops being a vague threat and becomes a rule the system verifies for you.

And because all the evidence —recipes, doses, calibration, interval met— is linked to the per-block GlobalG.A.P. folder, compliance stops being a parallel project assembled before each audit. It's a by-product of operating well: you record to produce, and that same record leaves you ready to certify and to defend the shipment if a receiver asks.

The cost of getting this wrong is asymmetric, which is why it's worth stressing. A destination rejection doesn't just lose the container: it can trigger reinforced inspection on the exporter's next shipments, damage the receiver relationship and, at worst, temporarily close a market. Against that, the cost of validating each application against the MRL before applying it is marginal. The module doesn't promise nothing will ever happen; it promises that control stops depending on one person remembering the right figure at the right moment — and that rigor opens a different commercial conversation, because an exporter who can prove a low-residue program can negotiate with receivers who pay more for it.

Metrics you'll move

The metrics the module moves go straight to risk and cost: the share of applications that meet the pre-harvest interval, crop-protection cost per hectare compared across seasons, and MRL rejections at destination, which the goal is to drive to zero.

Each indicator enables a decision:

That cost, allocated per block, stops being a common pot and becomes comparable across blocks and seasons.