PHOTO: TACTICAL ROBOTICS
CROP PROTECTION ▶▶▶
Drone spraying takes off as regulations relax worldwide
BY MICK ROBERTS I
t makes sense to use drones for spray ap- plications – they can operate over sodden fields and tall crops where no machine could normally move, fly quickly to exact
locations to treat target areas precisely, as well as be pre-programmed to navigate their own way around. Recent equipment introductions, and regulation changes in particular, look likely to see aerial applications by UAVs to increase substantially and quickly around the globe. In the USA sales are set to rise by a third in a year – probably thanks to new regulations that now permit drone applications. And, with John Deere showing its developments at the Ag- ritechnica Show in 2019, it looks like drone spraying is moving into the mainstream. In countries with advanced agriculture, aerial spraying by drone completes the precision farming virtuous circle. This begins with remote
Move over dogs – drones are a farmer’s new best friend! In just a few years there’s been a huge rise in the use of drones in agriculture. Their popularity is set to soar globally as countries grant operators permission to also apply crop protection products.
NEED TO KNOW
▶ China uses three times the volume of pesticide/ha than the USA ▶ XAG’s drone service has sprayed 20 million ha in China and 38 other countries
▶ Drift wake from a UAV is randomised by the multiple rotors and their speeds
crop scouting targeting treatment areas that are followed by applications on a pre-programmed route. And this, can not only be achieved re- motely, but also truly autonomously. Drone spray applications also provide massive benefits for farmers in countries with developing
Drone spraying rules vary across the globe
The restrictions on use and strictness of reg- ulations regarding spraying from drones vary around the world, according to the type of farming and whether countries have ad- vanced or developing agriculture. This is per- fectly illustrated by the world’s three largest economies, the USA, EU and China. First the EU. In all member states aerial spray applica- tions, including drones, are completely banned. There are discussions between farm- ing and industry associations and govern- ments, but most experts predict it’s unlikely the ban will be lifted in the near future. In the USA drone spraying is now permitted in many states, provided pilots comply with
18
strict Federal Aviation Administration opera- tional rules as well as separate requirements for aerial applications. In 2018, China intro- duced new regulations for commercial opera- tions with drones weighing more than 25kg. Under the same regulations, for agricultural spray applications pilots will also require Class V – Crop Protection training. A survey across Africa in 2016 found 73% of the 79 countries did not have any rules or regula- tions in place, 19% have some regulations, while the remaining 8% were formulating the rules. For more details see our ‘Global drone regulations’ map at: www.futurefarming. com/drones.
▶ FUTURE FARMING | 22 May 2020
agriculture. Indeed, in countries like China and India, they have essentially enabled farmers to leap from hand-held applicators, skipping vehi- cle-mounted boomed machines, and going straight to drones. At the same time drones im- prove application timeliness, reduce the need for skilled labour and cut hand-held sprayer operators’ exposure to harmful pesticides.
Reducing overuse Drones are playing a major role in the Chinese government’s aims to use advanced technolo- gy to modernise its agricultural production and help combat the overuse of chemicals in the country. A report by the FAO and World Bank shows the volume of pesticides it uses is three times more than the USA per hectare of land. Elsewhere around the world the lack of regula- tions is slowing the wider deployment of spraying drones on farms. This is either due to rules not keeping up with technology or sim- ple outright bans on all aerial applications – as in the whole of the EU. While many countries are catching up by including drone use in civil aviation law, the difficulty is compliance with
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
