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, validated against the MRL matrix you imported, and turns pre-harvest control into a database-level barrier, not an act of faith. The harvest block triggers if the interval isn't met or the MRL was declared exceeded, unless an override is logged:

1. 01

   Program on the MRL matrix

   You define the program per block and season with dose, volume, equipment and operator, validated against your organization's MRL matrix.

2. 02

   MRL status by market

   Every executed order is evaluated against the destination market you declared: you check the status —compliant, exceeded, not evaluated— before harvesting.

3. 03

   Harvest block by pre-harvest interval

   The PHI harvest block is a database-level rejection: if the block doesn't meet the required days, or the MRL came back exceeded, the harvest is rejected unless you declare an override reason.

Every mix and applied volume is kept in a digital record, and the GlobalG.A.P. readiness checklist flags which control points you already meet and which depend on field evidence the system can't verify on its own. 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 evaluates GlobalG.A.P. directly against your own data instead of requiring a separate system:

And because it shares master data with the Water module, fertigation is scheduled on the same base: what you apply through irrigation in water & irrigation 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 in the compliance tab you review each executed order's MRL status against that destination, not an average. The same product can be valid for one market and come back exceeded for another, and the status shows it before you harvest.

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 the full application register —recipes, doses, interval met— downloads in one click alongside the per-block GlobalG.A.P. readiness checklist, 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 data brings you closer to certifying and to defending 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, consumption per block and active ingredient compared across seasons, and MRL rejections at destination, which the goal is to drive to zero.

Each indicator enables a decision:

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