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 traditiona

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.