US dataswitch to UK
Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation
mixing pesticides, lifting push and swing nozzles, covering areas to specified depths with pesticides and starting motors and engage machinery. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: filling sprayer tanks with water and chemicals is work software can't reach.
What shifts is the routine end of the work: the paper around the work, not the work.
Your week, as this page understands it
Mix or apply pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, or insecticides through sprays, dusts, vapors, soil incorporation, or chemical application on trees, shrubs, lawns, or crops. Usually requires specific training and state or federal certification. The job title says “pesticide handlers”, “sprayers”, “applicators” or “vegetation”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: filling sprayer tanks with water and chemicals. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But pesticide handlers, sprayers, and applicators, vegetation is not one task. It is 10 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is filling sprayer tanks with water and chemicals, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 0%
- changing shape
- 0%
- staying human
- 100%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 3 out of 100 (2–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 10 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for pesticide handlers, sprayers, and applicators, vegetation is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
0 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.
Changing shape
0 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.
Staying human
10 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Filling sprayer tanks with water and chemicals
This work happens in the physical world: sprayer tanks, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Fill sprayer tanks with water and chemicals, according to formulas.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Filling a sprayer tank with water and chemicals is physical handling of the mix.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Lifting push and swing nozzles, hoses and tubes to direct spray over designated areas
This work happens in the physical world: push, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Lift, push, and swing nozzles, hoses, and tubes to direct spray over designated areas.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Directing spray by lifting and swinging the hose is physical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Mixing pesticides, herbicides or fungicides for application to trees, shrubs, lawns or botanical crops
This work happens in the physical world: pesticides, herbicides or fungicides, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Mix pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides for application to trees, shrubs, lawns, or botanical crops.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Mixing chemicals to the right strength is hands-on work with the containers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Covering areas to specified depths with pesticides
This work happens in the physical world: areas, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Cover areas to specified depths with pesticides, applying knowledge of weather conditions, droplet sizes, elevation-to-distance ratios, and obstructions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Applying pesticide across ground at the right depth is done by an operator on the machine.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Starting motors and engage machinery
This work happens in the physical world: motors, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Start motors and engage machinery, such as sprayer agitators or pumps or portable spray equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Starting engines and engaging pumps requires hands on the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Cleaning or servicing machinery to ensure operating efficiency
This work happens in the physical world: machinery, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Clean or service machinery to ensure operating efficiency, using water, gasoline, lubricants, or hand tools.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Cleaning and servicing spray machinery is hands-on maintenance.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Connecting hoses and nozzles
This work happens in the physical world: hoses, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Connect hoses and nozzles selected according to terrain, distribution pattern requirements, types of infestations, and velocities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Fitting the right hoses and nozzles for the terrain is hands-on setup.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Identifying lawn or plant diseases to determine the appropriate course of treatment
This work happens in the physical world: lawn, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Identify lawn or plant diseases to determine the appropriate course of treatment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (26–40 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Photo-based plant disease identification is genuinely strong, though someone usually needs to be at the site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing driving instructions to truck drivers to ensure complete coverage of designated areas
This work happens in the physical world: instructions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Provide driving instructions to truck drivers to ensure complete coverage of designated areas, using hand and horn signals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Guiding a driver with hand and horn signals needs someone standing there watching.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Planting grass with seed spreaders
This work happens in the physical world: grass, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Plant grass with seed spreaders, and operate straw blowers to cover seeded areas with mixtures of asphalt and straw.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Spreading seed and blowing straw over ground is physical work with the machines.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $46,340a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 27,050in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Almost none of this job is reading one thing and writing another (the shape today's tools are built for), because the work turns on sprayer tanks, which happens with people and things rather than on a screen. The rows above are the evidence rather than the reassurance: filling sprayer tanks with water and chemicals and lifting push and swing nozzles, hoses and tubes to direct spray over designated areas. The parts that are changing are the paperwork and the tools around the job, not the middle of it, which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: filling sprayer tanks with water and chemicals is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 0% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 0% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 100% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 10 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. The routine end of the work is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to the routine work, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether sprayer tanks are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near filling sprayer tanks with water and chemicals. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to pesticide handlers, sprayers, and applicators, vegetation (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was conveyor operators and tenders: only about 3% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 3/100 here, with only 0% of the task list in the top band, and “fill sprayer tanks with water and chemicals, according to formulas” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Conveyor Operators and Tenders
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already clean or service machinery to ensure operating efficiency, using water, gasoline, lubricants, or…, and their equivalent is to clean, sterilize, and maintain equipment, machinery, and work stations, using hand tools, shovels…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Mixing and Blending Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already clean or service machinery to ensure operating efficiency, using water, gasoline, lubricants, or…, and their equivalent is to clean and maintain equipment, using hand tools. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already plant grass with seed spreaders, and operate straw blowers to cover seeded areas…, and their equivalent is to haul or spread topsoil, or spread straw over seeded soil to hold soil…. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $39,150 against your $46,340, 15.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 0% of its task weight, across 10 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like filling sprayer tanks with water and chemicals arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Pest controllers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Pest controllers. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
Why there is no community here
Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for pesticide handlers / sprayers / applicators / vegetation launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 10 official task statements scored for Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation (United States, SOC 37-3012), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 3 out of 100 (range 2–7, band: minimal). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Identify lawn or plant diseases to determine the appropriate course of treatment” (33/100, low); “Fill sprayer tanks with water and chemicals, according to formulas” (0/100, minimal); “Mix pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides for application to trees, shrubs, lawns, or botanical crops” (0/100, minimal). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation” stay human?
- About 100% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Plant grass with seed spreaders, and operate straw blowers to cover seeded areas with mixtures of asphalt and straw” (0/100, minimal); “Provide driving instructions to truck drivers to ensure complete coverage of designated areas, using hand and horn signals” (0/100, minimal); “Clean or service machinery to ensure operating efficiency, using water, gasoline, lubricants, or hand tools” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 100% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 10 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.