4 ms·

No the farmer doesn't. The key paragraph is at the end: > He’s currently leading development of a new type of drone—a scout—designed to quickly inspect fields

No the farmer doesn't. The key paragraph is at the end: > He’s currently leading development of a new type of drone—a scout—designed to quickly inspect fields for pest infestations or poor growth or to assess crop yields. But these days his job is more about managing his team of engineers than about doing hands-on engineering himself. “I’m more of a translator between the engineers and the market needs,” he says. The spray drone idea is IMO ridiculous because a proper crop duster plane carries 100x the volume at only 10x the cost (or lower) of this drone. The scout drone on the other hand could give farmers new abilities that they could only replicate by physically walking the fields, but I'm pretty sure drone companies like DJI have been in this market for nearly a decade. I'd like to call complete bullshit on this line: > These tractors can cost up to half a million dollars to purchase and about US $7 a hectare to operate. The vast majority of farmers don't use half million dollar tractors for spraying. The half million dollar beasts are for tilling megafarms that'd require a multi-million dollar army of drones to replicate just one function of the tractor (spraying - which isn't the main function anyway). Best case scenario they face the same issue crop duster planes do: Farmers usually can't afford their own plane on top of all the other things they need, which means they won't be able to afford their own drones. Most also can't really afford to hire them out on a regular basis because all the farmers want to rent them all at the same time, leading to competition over a limited resource.

lettergram 2y ago
> These tractors can cost up to half a million dollars to purchase and about US $7 a hectare to operate. I was about to say... I use my $95k tractor to spray my 100 acres no problem
- BenjiWiebe 2y ago
  And on our farm we use a tractor worth ~half of that to spray.
  - Kon-Peki 2y ago
    Make the tractor free and you still have to buy the spray; the whole world has to deal with the externalities of the spray. Tech solutions to reduce/eliminate spraying are what need to be worked on. Not drone sprayers. "Cheap" drone sprayers make the problem worse.
bluGill 2y ago
> The spray drone idea is IMO ridiculous because a proper crop duster plane carries 100x the volume at only 10x the cost (or lower) of this drone. This is also one of the most dangerous piloting jobs there is and a fair number of experienced die in crashes. They have to fly very low across a field then turn around at the end - if anything goes wrong (not seeing a power line at the end of the field) you have no altitude to recover. Only a few pilots will even fly them and they tend to be in demand which means when a farmer wants the work done sometimes they can't get it done. Plus those planes are mostly from the 1970s or before - sure rebuilt a few times, but still overall old. There is a lot of room to replace a crop duster even if this is more expensive (and not needing a pilot could make is less expensive). > The vast majority of farmers don't use half million dollar tractors for spraying. The half million dollar beasts are for tilling megafarms that'd require a multi-million dollar army of drones to replicate just one function of the tractor (spraying - which isn't the main function anyway). A brand new John Deere R4023 sparer has a list price of $330k. I assume there are options, but also farmers can get various discounts but that still is a good price start with for discussion. Of course if you are buying a new sprayer you have more than 100 acres.
buildsjets 2y ago
I believe the concept is that through targeted application rather than broadcast application, you don't NEED to carry 100x the volume as you would in traditional aerial applicator. You carry less product, but you need to use less, and therefore you have to purchase less. There are also the environmental benefits of not applying herbicide where it not actually needed, and benefits of not expending energy and resources to produce a wasted product. Also you are underestimating the cost differential between the drone and a crewed aircraft. The article says this guy's drone costs $50,000. $500,000 is going to buy you a 30 year old clapped out pile of crap with a radial piston engine and a belly full of corrosion. A new crop duster, for example a very common, and fairly small, Air Tractor AT-600, is going to be $1.7-2.0M depending on options. And, you have not accounted for the extraordinarily high recurring cost of operating a small turbine aircraft, including flight crew, ground crew, maintenance, storage and insurance. Fuel burn is 75 gallons per hour at $6.25 per gallon (That's today's price at the duster base in Linton, North Dakota, 7L2 airport. Say hi to Mike the chief mechanic for me.) So a direct operating cost of $500/hour right off the bat, whether you are spraying or commuting. And the cost of maintaining a fixed base of operation (i.e. an airport.) Costs which mostly go poof with a drone you can throw in a pickup truck. And of course the cost of operating in a highly regulated industry such as ongoing training and certification, maintaining an anti-drug program and workforce monitoring, etc. And yes, this would clearly be marketed as a service for hire, as many existing agricultural services are. That is not novel in the industry.
bri3d 2y ago
DJI spray drones are quite an old idea, a much better value than Hylio drones, and very popular in China. They're especially favored in smaller-acerage targeted application scenarios like orchards as well as specialty applications like terrace farms where tractors are less efficient, but they work OK on large-scale fields as well. An Agras T50 is $25k. That's not that bad compared to a normal tractor and really, really cheap compared to an Air Tractor, especially when you start considering wet cost. The big issue preventing you from seeing more of these the US is regulatory. Right now, agricultural drones are a huge pain to fly, although the situation has been improving: * The drone needs both an operator and a visual observer. * The drone needs to be within line of sight (this is easier when it's huge, but still a significant limitation). * The operator needs an FAA Part 107 license. Until this year they also needed a second-class medical as part of the overweight waiver process, but now third-class medicals are OK. * The operator needs a Part 137 spray license. * The drone needs to be on a special list to get a 49 USC Section 44807 exception (basically, a carve-out to Part 137 allowing certain drones above 55lb to be used for agriculture). Until recently, this process was horrible and required specific authorization, experimental certificates, and all kinds of waivers, but thankfully it's been cleaned up. Hylio got a waiver to allow up to 3 simultaneous flights and no visual observer. If more of these exemptions are issued (or the overall regulation loosens), I suspect spray drones will actually become quite popular. Even with the current pilot limitations, it's already possible to run an agricultural spray business using DJI drones that easily beats traditional crop dusting in terms of price-per-acre. The main issue is acres available, since the current setup is so inefficient - there just isn't enough supply to really disrupt the crop dusting market when it comes to large megafarms. Once a single operator can observe autonomous flight from tens of drones at once, things will become quite competitive - you can buy a lot of T50s for the price of an Air Tractor. Fixed-wing spray drones are an even better idea than inefficient quadcopters, and I look forward to seeing more of these designs, like the Pyka Pelican, hit the market as well.

lettergram 2y ago

> These tractors can cost up to half a million dollars to purchase and about US $7 a hectare to operate. I was about to say... I use my $95k tractor to spray my 100 acres no problem

BenjiWiebe 2y ago
And on our farm we use a tractor worth ~half of that to spray.
- Kon-Peki 2y ago
  Make the tractor free and you still have to buy the spray; the whole world has to deal with the externalities of the spray. Tech solutions to reduce/eliminate spraying are what need to be worked on. Not drone sprayers. "Cheap" drone sprayers make the problem worse.

bluGill 2y ago

> The spray drone idea is IMO ridiculous because a proper crop duster plane carries 100x the volume at only 10x the cost (or lower) of this drone. This is also one of the most dangerous piloting jobs there is and a fair number of experienced die in crashes. They have to fly very low across a field then turn around at the end - if anything goes wrong (not seeing a power line at the end of the field) you have no altitude to recover. Only a few pilots will even fly them and they tend to be in demand which means when a farmer wants the work done sometimes they can't get it done. Plus those planes are mostly from the 1970s or before - sure rebuilt a few times, but still overall old. There is a lot of room to replace a crop duster even if this is more expensive (and not needing a pilot could make is less expensive). > The vast majority of farmers don't use half million dollar tractors for spraying. The half million dollar beasts are for tilling megafarms that'd require a multi-million dollar army of drones to replicate just one function of the tractor (spraying - which isn't the main function anyway). A brand new John Deere R4023 sparer has a list price of $330k. I assume there are options, but also farmers can get various discounts but that still is a good price start with for discussion. Of course if you are buying a new sprayer you have more than 100 acres.

buildsjets 2y ago

I believe the concept is that through targeted application rather than broadcast application, you don't NEED to carry 100x the volume as you would in traditional aerial applicator. You carry less product, but you need to use less, and therefore you have to purchase less. There are also the environmental benefits of not applying herbicide where it not actually needed, and benefits of not expending energy and resources to produce a wasted product. Also you are underestimating the cost differential between the drone and a crewed aircraft. The article says this guy's drone costs $50,000. $500,000 is going to buy you a 30 year old clapped out pile of crap with a radial piston engine and a belly full of corrosion. A new crop duster, for example a very common, and fairly small, Air Tractor AT-600, is going to be $1.7-2.0M depending on options. And, you have not accounted for the extraordinarily high recurring cost of operating a small turbine aircraft, including flight crew, ground crew, maintenance, storage and insurance. Fuel burn is 75 gallons per hour at $6.25 per gallon (That's today's price at the duster base in Linton, North Dakota, 7L2 airport. Say hi to Mike the chief mechanic for me.) So a direct operating cost of $500/hour right off the bat, whether you are spraying or commuting. And the cost of maintaining a fixed base of operation (i.e. an airport.) Costs which mostly go poof with a drone you can throw in a pickup truck. And of course the cost of operating in a highly regulated industry such as ongoing training and certification, maintaining an anti-drug program and workforce monitoring, etc. And yes, this would clearly be marketed as a service for hire, as many existing agricultural services are. That is not novel in the industry.

bri3d 2y ago

DJI spray drones are quite an old idea, a much better value than Hylio drones, and very popular in China. They're especially favored in smaller-acerage targeted application scenarios like orchards as well as specialty applications like terrace farms where tractors are less efficient, but they work OK on large-scale fields as well. An Agras T50 is $25k. That's not that bad compared to a normal tractor and really, really cheap compared to an Air Tractor, especially when you start considering wet cost. The big issue preventing you from seeing more of these the US is regulatory. Right now, agricultural drones are a huge pain to fly, although the situation has been improving: * The drone needs both an operator and a visual observer. * The drone needs to be within line of sight (this is easier when it's huge, but still a significant limitation). * The operator needs an FAA Part 107 license. Until this year they also needed a second-class medical as part of the overweight waiver process, but now third-class medicals are OK. * The operator needs a Part 137 spray license. * The drone needs to be on a special list to get a 49 USC Section 44807 exception (basically, a carve-out to Part 137 allowing certain drones above 55lb to be used for agriculture). Until recently, this process was horrible and required specific authorization, experimental certificates, and all kinds of waivers, but thankfully it's been cleaned up. Hylio got a waiver to allow up to 3 simultaneous flights and no visual observer. If more of these exemptions are issued (or the overall regulation loosens), I suspect spray drones will actually become quite popular. Even with the current pilot limitations, it's already possible to run an agricultural spray business using DJI drones that easily beats traditional crop dusting in terms of price-per-acre. The main issue is acres available, since the current setup is so inefficient - there just isn't enough supply to really disrupt the crop dusting market when it comes to large megafarms. Once a single operator can observe autonomous flight from tens of drones at once, things will become quite competitive - you can buy a lot of T50s for the price of an Air Tractor. Fixed-wing spray drones are an even better idea than inefficient quadcopters, and I look forward to seeing more of these designs, like the Pyka Pelican, hit the market as well.