# SQF spray records: Edition 9 and Edition 10 preparation

URL: https://leafwrit.com/us/sqf-spray-records/
Reviewed: 2026-10-23

SQF Primary Plant Production treats the spray or crop-protection program and the records of chemical applications as connected evidence. Edition 9 Module 7 point 7.7.3.1 identifies chemicals, crop information, application date/method/concentration/frequency, and evidence that the treatment-to-harvest timing meets the approved interval. SQFI's Edition 10 material retains that application-record structure and adds other program requirements. Keep the audit edition visible in your record specification. [^1][^2]

## Identify the audit edition before preparing a checklist

SQFI's edition-selection guidance assigns audits before the mandatory Edition 10 implementation date to Edition 9 and audits on or after it to Edition 10, with the stated surveillance-audit exception. It says certification bodies do not mix both editions in a single audit. Preserve the edition used for your audit file rather than calling every new publication the currently applicable checklist. [^3]

This guide distinguishes the verified Edition 9 code from the published Edition 10 text. Keep a copy of the relevant code reference and your own completed field dictionary in the evidence folder. Label any transition comparison as preparation work so it does not become an ambiguous substitute for the audit's applicable requirements.

## Separate the crop-protection program from each treatment

Edition 9 point 7.7.3.1 calls for a documented and implemented spray or crop-protection program identifying applications for a target pest or disease and the threshold levels initiating application. It then specifies records of chemical applications. A program description explains how the operation manages decisions; an application entry records the work performed. [^1]

Prepare a program reference beside the treatment register. Keep monitoring or decision evidence connected to the relevant crop and location, then retain the actual application note. Distinguish the person who decided on the treatment from the person who transcribed the information, and preserve the source of any later correction.

| Evidence | What it should explain in the cited Module 7 framework |
| --- | --- |
| Crop-protection program | Target pest/disease and initiation thresholds |
| Application record | Chemical, crop, date, method, concentration, and frequency |
| Harvest evidence | Timing between treatment and harvest against the approved interval |
| Decision-maker evidence | Knowledge, product/market requirements, and competence addressed by the relevant edition |

The first three groups follow the application-program point. Edition 9 point 7.7.3.2 separately addresses the person making chemical decisions, while the published Edition 10 point contains the additional MRL-risk-assessment material discussed below. [^1][^2]

## Make chemical and crop identity traceable

The application record identifies the chemical and crop information. Keep the exact product reference with the crop and production location used in your register. A mixture nickname, general crop group, or invoice description may need a clear correspondence to the actual treatment information. Preserve that key with the season's records. [^1]

Edition 9 point 7.7.3.2 requires the decision-maker to use chemicals approved for the specified products and intended market and demonstrate knowledge of applications and withholding periods. Keep the product and destination-market evidence used in the decision file connected to the treatment rather than assuming the product name alone explains the choice. [^1]

The published Edition 10 purchasing point 7.7.1.1 addresses approval for the country of production, country of destination, and specific commodity and lists chemicals used per crop. Use those identities when preparing an Edition 10 transition comparison. Preserve any difference between the current product directory and the historical products recorded for a prior season. [^2]

## Preserve dates, method, concentration, and frequency

Both cited versions of 7.7.3.1 identify application date, method, concentration, and frequency. Prepare headings that distinguish a treatment date from a recommendation or purchase date. Keep the recorded concentration with its unit meaning and preserve the source note explaining the actual treatment. [^1][^2]

For a practical review, choose a crop with more than one recorded treatment and have a colleague identify the sequence. Ask them to find the product, interpret the method description, and explain the concentration notation. Resolve a copied value or undefined abbreviation against the application evidence rather than inferring it from the previous row.

Keep a location key even where the scheme field list uses a concise crop description. The key helps connect treatment and harvest evidence to the same production reference. If a crop or block name changes during export, preserve the correspondence so the later reader can follow the sequence without asking the original preparer.

## Link the treatment to harvest evidence

The application point requires evidence that the timing between chemical use and harvest meets the approved interval. Keep the actual treatment reference, the interval source, and harvest date or dates connected. A register containing only a calculated ready date leaves the underlying comparison unexplained if the source information is lost. [^1][^2]

For a harvest review, begin with a crop or lot reference and locate its relevant chemical applications. Identify the dates, product information, and interval used in the comparison. Preserve the actual harvest record and the source of a correction if a date was transcribed incorrectly. This is an editorial way to make the scheme's timing evidence retrievable; it supplies no product interval or treatment recommendation.

## Edition 10 adds explicit MRL-risk-assessment material

The published Edition 10 point 7.7.3.2 calls for a documented agricultural-chemical maximum-residue-limit exceedance risk assessment covering all crops in the certification scope. Its listed evidence includes chemicals and active ingredients per crop, comparison between origin and intended destination-market MRLs, mitigation procedures, and a documented corrective-action plan for exceedance. [^2]

Keep that transition evidence identifiable beside the application register. Record which crop and destination the assessment concerns and preserve the data sources used for the comparison. Distinguish a chemical-use record from a laboratory result, a risk assessment, and a corrective-action instruction. They contribute different evidence to the food-safety system.

Do not merge Edition 10 comparison notes into an unlabeled Edition 9 checklist. Preserve the edition and point reference for every internal requirement you compare. SQFI's no-mixing statement makes that distinction directly relevant to preparing a reviewable audit packet. [^3]

## Record authorization and retention

Edition 9 point 2.2.3.1 requires manual or digital records to be legible and suitably authorized or signed by the people undertaking the activities. Its retention point 2.2.3.2 ties retention to customer or regulatory periods, or at minimum product shelf life. Preserve the basis used for your record-retention schedule instead of inventing a universal SQF spray-log year count. [^1]

The published Edition 10 record point 2.2.3.1 says methods and responsibility for maintaining and retaining records are documented and implemented. Identify the record owner, review role, and retrieval location in the operating instructions. Keep any longer legal or customer requirement attached to the applicable category in the archive index. [^2]

## Keep US worker information alongside the certification file

For covered WPS operations, application/hazard information includes the SDS, product and active ingredients, treated-area description, actual start/end dates and times, and the label REI. WPS also has its own display and retention duties, including two years after REI expiration for the retained information. Preserve that legal workplace file alongside the certification evidence. [^4]

Use a shared treatment reference where helpful, while keeping the different field meanings and starting events apparent. A certification-facing register and a worker-information display can draw from the same application evidence without becoming interchangeable documents.

## Rehearse the evidence handover

Select one actual crop reference and retrieve the program entry, decision evidence, completed application, interval source, and harvest record. Identify the applicable SQF edition and point references. Then locate record authorization, the archive basis, and relevant WPS attachments. Ask a colleague to repeat the trace using the saved copies that would be supplied for review.

Keep a short discrepancy list naming the exact document, field, and source needed to resolve each problem. Preserve corrected versions with their explanations and retire unused obsolete checklist blanks from the preparation area. This proposed exercise turns the cited scheme requirements into a concrete evidence package without claiming that a blank form, app, or export grants SQF approval.

## Preserve the surveillance-audit reference during transition

SQFI's edition guidance says a surveillance audit resulting from an Edition 9 audit remains against Edition 9 when scheduled after the mandatory Edition 10 date. Keep the original audit reference and the surveillance scope together so a transition worksheet does not conceal that stated exception. [^3]

Prepare a version register identifying the standard edition, point reference, internal procedure, responsible reviewer, and supporting document. Mark whether a comparison concerns the applicable audit file or preparation for a later edition. When a procedure is revised, preserve which record template was in use for the reviewed period and why a change was made.

Have a colleague locate the crop-protection requirement, the application evidence, the harvest comparison, and the correct edition reference from that register. Resolve mismatched numbering or obsolete blanks before circulating the audit packet. This exercise makes the edition-selection rule and its surveillance exception concrete without assuming a final transition calendar beyond the scheme owner's stated process.

### What must SQF pesticide application records include?

The cited Module 7 point includes chemical, crop, date, method, concentration, frequency, and evidence that timing before harvest meets the approved interval. [^1][^2]

### Is the SQF crop-protection program the same as a spray log?

The cited point requires both the documented program with target/threshold information and chemical-application records. Keep their evidence connected. [^1]

### How long must SQF spray records be kept?

Edition 9 ties record retention to customer or regulatory periods, or at minimum product shelf life. Preserve the applicable basis rather than assigning a universal year count. [^1]

### Can an SQF checklist mix Edition 9 and Edition 10?

SQFI says certification bodies do not mix both editions in one audit. Label transition comparisons separately from the applicable audit checklist. [^3]

## Sources

- [SQFI — Primary Plant Production, Module 7 (Edition 9-era document)](https://www.sqfi.com/docs/sqfilibraries/blog-documents/20227fmin_primaryplant_v3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=c8b165bb_9), read 2026-10-23
- [SQFI: Primary Plant Production, Edition 10](https://www.sqfi.com/the-sqf-code/choose-your-code/library-of-codes/primary-plant-production), read 2026-10-23
- [SQFI: which code edition to use](https://www.sqfi.com/the-sqf-code/comply-with-the-code/which-code-edition-should-i-use), read 2026-10-23
- [40 CFR §170.311 — application and hazard information](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/170.311), read 2026-10-23