Drones: Future Effects on Agrochemical Formulations
14 September 2023 Drones advancements and improvements are improving exponentially as adoption rates continue to rise. AgriBusiness Global LIVE! hosted the Drone and Sensors: Future Effects on Agrochemicals webinar on Aug. 27 interviewing a panel of five experts who covered the technology, formulations, regulations, and global adoption of drones. Webinar attendees posed questions to our experts in three categories: regulations, formulations, and drones. Dr. Piyatida Pukclai, Regional Sales and Regulatory Policy Manager for Knoell, Scott Tann, North America Business Manager for Lamberti USA, and Arthur Erickson, CEO/Co-Founder of Hylio, Inc., answer the questions below.
REGULATIONS
ABG: Are there any regulatory restrictions limiting the size of larger drones?
Piyatida Pukclai: Generally, yes. In most of the countries where they have drone regulations, size or weight criteria are stipulated in the regulations. In some countries, excess of a certain size of drone may be subject to a specific registration license and must be registered in a similar manner to manned aircraft. Regulations vary depending on the country’s regulations. Agriculture spraying drones are much bigger in size. Not only size but also type, operation (VLOS, BVLOS), etc. have been a significant barrier to more widespread use of drones. Specific regulations and guidelines for agriculture spraying drones are required. Governments need to respond swiftly to manage agricultural spraying drones properly.
ABG: With ever increasing use of drones for pesticide spraying, what will be the effects on pesticide regulations including less amount, worker protection, environmental protections, etc.?
PP: The adoption of drone technology deployment requires governments to respond with a sound regulatory framework to prevent uncontrolled and inappropriate use of these applications. Managing the potential risks associated with drone application is important. It is important to consider the various risks associated with drone application which include operator capability, environmental variables, drone specifications and product formulation. In several Asia countries, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) have been put in place for spray operators, drone manufacturers and pesticide manufacturers to comply with in order to be authorized to operate these drones in pesticide spray. The SOP rules regarding label instruction stewardship and pesticide emergencies and emergency response are also required.
ABG: Is there any regulation on the drone equipment without pesticides to ensure that drones will not malfunction? To reduce the risk of discharging pesticide on a spot on the field.
PP: To my knowledge, yes, though it is not a regulation but a guideline or a SOP for the use of agricultural drones. Mostly, the guidance or SOP stipulates the risk category and measures associated with drone operation. In general, to fly and spray with an agricultural sprayer drone requires a specific drone pilot license. The license ensures that you are operating your drone safely and legally and are aware of the regulations and considerations involved in aerial crop spraying. However, not every country monitors it strictly. Country authorities should supervise and accredit training facilities to ensure a standardized training program is in place for all agricultural drone operations. Certification and licenses should also be regularly renewed, and refresher courses conducted routinely. It’s important to check the specific requirements for obtaining an agricultural drone operator license in your country, as the rules and regulations can vary. Additionally, always operate your drone safely and responsibly and follow best practices for environmental and public safety.
ABG: In the past three decades we have been trying to improve the pesticide regulations in developing countries, do you think that drones will help?
PP: Not really. We need to consider it separately. Developing pesticide regulations requires governments to respond with a sound regulatory framework, input from all stakeholders should be used as a starting point for a more elaborate regulatory frameworks in consultation and consideration. Having pesticide regulations would help to ease the establishment of the agricultural drone regulation.
There are three core areas to develop the regulations for spraying drones. First, local civil aviation laws that operate under the umbrella of civil aviation law, and vehicle specifications are regulated by the competent authority. Second, the SOP for the safe use of drones. Safety during spray operations is enforced within pesticide regulations setting piloting requirements and safe use practices. Lastly, the product approval for spray operations may refer to existing spray registrations and established or amended regulatory procedures. With the above points, I’d say that it depends on which aspect you consider. Using drones in agriculture requires following the regulations and SOP and pesticides that will be used for spraying drones must be registered products according to the pesticide regulations in the country.
FORMULATIONS
ABG: To what extent does the active ingredient load need to increase to enable suitable application by drone?
Scott Tann: Active ingredient (AI) load will be dependent on the label rate amount necessary agronomically. Some formulations will not need a boost in AI as the targeted application will provide the proper amount rather than the off-target movement more associated with current ground sprays and aerial sprays. Other things such as new or better solvents and deposition aids should also provide for more on target applications.
ABG: What about the labeled rates of agrochemicals? How will work on and pay for the changes and update of common product labels?
ST: There is no question labels will need to be changed. Application rates will need to be adjusted based on agronomical need. Rates will be dependent on the volume of spray solution needed for the desired application. Keep in mind that less movement off target will be noted with drones so lower rates will be substantiated.
ABG: How do you avoid phytotoxicity while using drones for herbicidal spray on crops?
ST: Phytotoxicity will not be unique to the drone or the drone application. The biggest concern will arise in the size of the droplet and the ability of that droplet to get into the plant. In some cases, smaller droplets can be phytotoxic to a crop but not all. All aspects of the formulation (e.g., solvent, surfactant, etc.) will need to be screened for phytotoxicity. In some cases, the smaller droplets will cause faster evaporation or “droplet drydown,” which will reduce the phytotoxicity of the formulation.
PP: Improperly used pesticides can cause phytotoxicity to crops and cause loss of production. Label interpretation is important. The strict abidance to the product label requirements and taking effective measures to avoid risks will reduce phytotoxicity. Furthermore, several manufacturers provide this information on their websites, or you may check from academic/scientific journals. For example, chlorothalonil in high concentrations is prone to phytotoxicity in pear trees, persimmons, peaches, and plums. The apple cannot be used within 20 days after the flower has fallen. Kasugamycin has slight phytotoxicity to soybeans and lotus roots. Profenofos in high concentration has certain phytotoxicity to cotton, melons, and beans, and phytotoxicity to alfalfa and sorghum; for cruciferous vegetables and walnuts, it is recommended to avoid using it during the flowering period of the crop.
ABG: Any idea/experience on organic herbicides and drones? Because organic herbicide usually requires high water volumes?
ST: Many of the high-water volume requiring organic herbicides will need to be reformulated as oil-based suspensions or EC formulations. In many cases moving to oil-based formulations will enhance the efficacy simply by the hydrophilic nature of the new formulation.
ABG: With fertilizer applications being accused of excessive application waste, do you see drones being used for applying targeted fertilizers and micro dosing to reduce waste. Specifically, do you think it will be economical?
ST: From a formulation standpoint, drone formulations of fertilizer will lend themselves better to less application waste. The penetration for oil-based fertilizer applications as well as the ability to stick, the oil-based formulations should reduce the application waste.
ABG: What is the efficacy of using regular pesticide formulation in drones? Does it reduce efficacy of the pesticide. Is there an optimum height above the crop for effective spraying?
ST: Efficacy is dependent on too many factors to answer this question. Experiments would need to be designed to determine the efficacy effect based on variables of drone applications (i.e., speed of application, height of application, droplet size, etc.)
DRONES
ABG: What about the application quality in “3D” crops (orchards, vineyards), where droplets released from above cannot reach the sides, inside fruits or bottom part of the leaves of the crop? This is still not being accomplished.
Arthur Erickson: The UAS have propeller downwash characteristics that aid in both penetrating through the top canopy of “3D” crops but also recirculating the application via vortices that help it coat the hard-to-reach parts of the crops. The application spreads laterally in rotating vortical patterns which can get up under the fruits and leaves.
ABG: How are drone operators getting connected with acres to spray? Do you think a company like Rantizo will see success in being a connector?
AE: There is sky-high demand for aerial application services and not enough applicators right now. Therefore, it’s naturally quite easy for drone applicators to find work and often they have to turn work away because they already have too much on their plate. I believe players like Rantizo can bring significant value by vetting applicators and establishing themselves as a streamlined platform (sort of like Yelp) for searching for and picking quality applicator businesses for your needs. Additionally, Rantizo can handle other aspects of the operation, such as billing, regulatory compliance, reporting, etc. which some applicators won’t want to handle themselves.
ABG: Are there any examples where field sensors work in conjunction with aerial imaging technology?
AE: Use of drones for aerial imagery and scouting of crops both before and after application is becoming increasingly popular. Out of respect for the customers I won’t name specifics, but we have several customers that utilize crop analysis platforms such as Pix4D to scan fields before and after spraying to determine the effectiveness of the kill.
ABG: Regarding quality on 3D crops, do you have any scientific data proving that quality?
AE: There are some U.S. universities that have been working on studies that address this for several years (i.e. Ohio State). I think we should start seeing more and more of these reports and papers being published in the coming months and years. There are several papers out from Chinese scientists addressing this topic.
ABG: How far away in time is the real time weed identification for spot spraying with drones?
AE: It is already here in early forms. Once an ML algorithm is trained to identify what you’re targeting, you can then send up a scout drone to map the area and then feed that prescription map to an accompanying spray drone for it to apply on just those problem areas. Hylio’s technology already supports this as do several other platforms as far as I know. The tricky part right now is in the training of the weed identification models. You have to put that work in upfront but once it’s dialed in it can be very effective.
ABG: What is the cost of use of drone spraying – USD per Ha or acre?
AE: Depends greatly on the specifics of the operation. Usually around $1-2/acre when considering the maintenance and battery costs.
ABG: Are drone swarm applications being developed? How complex would be an application like that?
AE: Hylio has already had swarm technology for several years, and it is being deployed in the field by customers right now. It’s fairly complex under the hood, but I think our software has streamlined the control and monitoring fairly well.
ABG: Have drone applications been considered for seedling applications yet?
AE: Yes, many people are doing this already.
ABG: Is there a strong urgency for more rugged drones? For example, to fly and use the drone in higher wind or light rain? Or is drone use limited to fair weather use since there are limited uses for current time?
AE: Rugged is always good considering how rough agricultural conditions can get. However, keep in mind that many applications shouldn’t be done in high wind or while it’s raining anyway so the ruggedization of the drone isn’t really going to help in that regard, it just makes the drones more robust for day-to-day use.
ABG: Can drones apply both a broadcast application (nutrition/biological) simultaneously with a spot application (seed control) across the same field?
AE: Yes, Hylio drones are capable of this already, and I’m sure some other providers can do something similar as well.
ABG: Can you discuss operating costs – time/money – as compared to more traditional application approaches?
AE: Very much depends on the individual situation, but generally I would say that we see raw (directly drone related) operating costs of approximately $1-2/acre.
ABG: Have you tested efficacy of cotton whitefly with drone sprayer in comparison with conventional sprayers? if yes then elaborate the results.
AE: We have not specifically done this.
ABG: With fertilizer applications being accused of excessive application waste, do you see drones being used for applying targeted fertilizers and micro dosing to reduce waste? Specifically, do you think it will be economical?
AE: Yes. We are already seeing this with some customers. I think this will become much more commonplace in the coming years, and I do think it will be much more economical than the traditional blanket application of fertilizers.
Get The Newsletter Today!
