“It’s set up with dual redundancy, so if you lose one motor, you won’t fall out of the sky.”

Donna Dawson
Ag Drone Canada

There’s a drone that’s turning heads at the Western Canadian Crop Production Show in Saskatoon, largely because of a unique feature not many other drones have — a passenger seat.

Donna Dawson of Ag Drone Canada based in Nipawin, Sask., says the reaction to the eVTOL drone has been fun to watch.

Follow all our coverage of the 2026 Crop Production Show here.

“The reactions here have been amazing,” said Dawson.

“Lots of ‘Wows’.”

The eVTOL is rated to haul a 210-lb payload up to 450 metres into the air at a maximum speed of 44 m.p.h. for up to 30 minutes at a time.

It can be flown remotely, like any drone, or from onboard.

“It’s set up with dual redundancy, so if you lose one motor, you won’t fall out of the sky; you’ll still be able to fly it and put it down safely,” Dawson said.

“The flight controls have triple redundancy, and if all that fails, it also has a balistic parachute that’s built into the frame.”

Dawson says the eVTOL is primarily for recreational use, but it also has search and rescue capabilities that may be of interest to emergency responders, with infrared cameras mounted on it. In such a scenario, the drone could be flown from its base station to rescue someone in a hard-to-reach location.

Dawson says eVTOL will have parts manufactured in both Canada and the United States, and it will be assembled in Nipawin.

Cost is expected to be around US$100,000.

No agricultural chemicals have obtained that label yet.

Why it Matters: Sales and interest at farm shows suggests producers are ready to try drone pesticide application, and they’re watching their counterparts in the U.S. use the technology, but no products are approved in Canada for agricultural use.

It’s been a bone of contention between an industry that is chomping at the bit to access the technology and regulators who have said drone application has different considerations than standard aerial application and so needs a distinct label approval, even if those same products can be applied via spray plane.

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency says chemical makers must supply it with a raft of information, such as environmental data, operator exposure, spray drift and efficacy before those approvals can be considered.

Some parties in Canadian agriculture, meanwhile, are frustrated that the PMRA isn’t more open to taking data generated in trusted regulatory jurisdictions, such as the United States, to speed up the process.

Kevin Falk, a field modernization scientist with Corteva, conducted field trials in Manitoba this year, including four trials at EMILI’s Innovation Farms northwest of Winnipeg.

Falk shared a few highlights of those trials at the Agriculture Enlightened conference in late October.

Efficacy versus water volume

One trial evaluated an unspecified herbicide’s efficacy as a desiccant on soybeans at three water volumes: 20, 50 and 100 litres per hectare (one hectare is 2.47 acres).

In this trial, low water volume appeared to perform similarly to high water volumes. However, at lower water volumes, there was a bit more spray drift due to light gusts of wind.

Drift risk has been among the complications flagged by those worried about drone spraying application.

In an interview, Falk said he couldn’t definitively say why there was greater drift at lower water volumes. However, he said it could be because with lower water volumes, the drone is travelling much faster. To do this, the drone tilts forward, which changes the trajectory of the spray.

A fungicide trial on corn also tested different water volumes in the drone. Falk found that low water volumes performed similarly to high water volumes with “perhaps slightly more disease.”

Both trials saw issues with uneven spray, such as lighter spray to the edge of the drone’s pass and more concentrated spray when the drone was accelerating and decelerating. However, Falk said that had a lot to do with the small research plots, which took one or two passes to cover.

“When farmers are doing this, they don’t have to worry about this at all because they’re spraying this whole field,” he said.

In a further trial with fungicide on corn, preliminary results showed reduced efficacy at 20 litres per hectare compared to 50 litres per hectare.

Creating a workable label

That gap in efficacy is a concern for the technology.

“That’s a worry that we have at Corteva, or any pesticide, fungicide producers,” Falk said.

“If I’m selling that fungicide, I’m worried that farmers are going to come back and say, ‘hey, it didn’t work really well.’ ”

Farmers are likely to push the boundaries of what’s on the label, such as lowering water volumes as much as possible to increase application speed.

Drone application works if the products are used correctly, Falk said.

“I think there is a disconnect between what we put on the label and then what is actually done in the field.”

Farmers have a bottom line to worry about, Falk acknowledged, and that has to play into the development of whatever label passes muster with the PMRA.

“That’s something we have to consider, as well, as we develop these labels, as we do this research, that we’re in lockstep with growers and custom applicators that are using this so we’re not creating a label that they can’t follow, or that we’re cutting corners in order to sell more product.”

Safety data

Alongside product efficacy, drone application raises safety and marketing questions. For example, does it meet maximum residue limit regulations? That could potentially have big impacts on Canadian grain farms and their ability to market product.

Similarly, there are questions about chemical exposure to workers and bystanders.

Spray drones’ smaller tanks mean more refilling, potentially increasing exposure risks beyond what farmers normally experience during spray season.

“With spray drones, you’re refilling them every five or 10 minutes, so you’re coming into contact a lot more than you would with a regular ground rig,” Falk said.

Corteva is working on generating data for multiple products.A global Unmanned Aerial Pesticide Application System Task Force, comprising eight agricultural chemical companies, including Corteva, is also generating data on off-site movement, operator exposure, human dietary exposure and spray drift.

To date, five products are approved for application via drone: three larvicide products and Corteva’s Garlon XRT herbicide. None of them are greenlit for agriculture.

Generating enough data to get drone application added to a product label is expensive and time-consuming. However, despite efficacy and regulatory challenges, Falk was largely bullish on drones’ place in agriculture.

“I don’t think it’s ready for prime time yet, but it’s not too far away,” he said.

“As soon as some of these challenges get solved, you’re going to see a lot more of these spray drones.”

Crop adjusters were trained and licensed to use the unmanned aerial vehicles and have been using them for a few years to help understand where the damage was, said Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corp. chief executive officer Jeff Morrow.

“Then we’d have to go in, walk the field and do the assessments,” he said.

“The next step was to take high-resolution imagery with the drone and then use artificial intelligence to help us identify and measure the actual acres that have been damaged by wildlife.”

The corporation announced in late July it was moving to this process after a 2024 pilot program. It applies to standing crop; traditional inspection continues for swathed crop claims for big game damage.

Once a producer files a claim, and before harvest, the adjuster flies the field to take the photographs.

“AI measures the damage in the field, and then SCIC has oversight looking at those maps to make sure everything is captured and the calculation is based on those pictures,” Morrow said.

After harvest, producers report their actual yields as part of the claim calculation.

Producers will receive the first maps, and subsequently initial payments, in mid-November.

He said this process makes it easier on everyone involved. Before, the producer had to be able to provide accurate locations of where the wildlife damage occurred.

“They don’t have to be present for the entire inspection like they used to be, and what this will give us the ability to do is to present back to the producers the map that shows all the damage on the field,” he said.

All areas with damage will be captured and eliminate the chance of missing a spot.

Morrow also said the use of drones and AI provides a standard and consistent way of measuring every field. Wildlife impacts vary from year to year and field to field.

“It takes out subjectivity,” he added.

SCIC is staying abreast of technological changes and where it makes sense to use them, he said, and producers are always early adopters of new technology as well.

Compensation is paid on claims of $150 and more. Both insured and uninsured producers are eligible for wildlife damage claims. For those who don’t participate in crop insurance, yields are based on the annual average yield of insured acres in the area.

Wildlife prices are set in March, and producers will then receive the remaining 25 per cent of their claims.

Consider that less than 50 years ago, open-cab sprayers were still commonly used on the Prairies, and that less than 100 years ago, the self-propelled sprayer was invented.

Today, the use of agricultural aircrafts and aerial spraying is not uncommon throughout North America.

Now, agricultural drones are “taking off” (pun intended).

Whether farmers are looking to use drones for field monitoring, field mapping, livestock management, seeding or even spraying, it is important to know the laws and regulations about their use in agriculture.

The use of drones, also called remotely piloted aircraft systems, is federally regulated in Canada, primarily by Transport Canada based on rules in the Canadian Aviation Regulations and other relevant legislation.

Other legal documents that affect drone use are the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Criminal Code, to name a few.

Based on public consultation, Transport Canada has announced that new and expanded regulations have been passed, some of which will come into effect this Nov. 4.

The Government of Canada’s website is a great place to learn more about the requirements necessary to pilot a drone in Canada.

Currently, there are three “levels” of operating certificates for drone pilots: basic, advanced and level 1 complex.

To determine whether they need a basic, advanced or level 1 complex license, operators should consult Transport Canada or talk to a lawyer.

Some drones, for example, do not require a license or to register the drone, while other types of drone uses require drone registration, pilot certification, ground school, online exams and other types of requirements.

The size and planned use of a drone impact the type of certification operators will need.

Currently, drones that weigh more than 250 grams must be registered and marked.

There are penalties, such as fines, for drone users who do not comply with the registration and marking requirements.

The new rules taking effect in November will expand the privileges for some drone pilots, expand the options for certification for “lower-risk” operations that go beyond the visual line-of-sight and provide new technical standards for special flight operations, to name a few.

Implementing drone technology on the farm requires proper licensing and training. Be sure to consult the Canadian standards and regulations or to consult a lawyer if you have questions about drone use.

While seed and fertilizer application is generally allowed using drones, application of chemicals is regulated by federal legislation and Health Canada.

Producers and agriculture industry leaders should consult Health Canada when determining what products are allowed for the use in drone applications.

Health Canada has distinguished pesticides approved for application by aircraft from those that can be applied by drone.

Currently, only products with the labeled terms “remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) are allowed for use in drones under the Pest Control Products Act.

Those who use pest control products must follow the regulations set out by the federal government and, for registered products, subject to the regulations; they must follow the directions on the label (recorded in the register).

Currently, the list of registered products approved for RPAS (drone) use include four larvicides and one herbicide. This list is subject to change as products are reviewed or registered.

Safety to humans and potential risks to the environment are among the government’s considerations when products are being evaluated, or re-evaluated, for pesticide registration.

To determine if the product that you want to spray is suitable for RPAS use, consult the Health Canada label search tools. It is important that pesticide users follow governmental rules and regulations about pesticide use. Non-compliance could lead to penalties.

The loosening of the Transport Canada rules on drone use coming into force this year, plus Health Canada’s continued analysis of registered products, may result in expanded on-farm drone technology use. We recommend having a good understanding of the rules and regulations around this technology when considering its use.

Useful information can be found on the following websites:

Drone safety rules and requirements — https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/drone-safety/learn-rules-you-fly-your-drone/flying-your-drone-safely-legally.

Pilot licensing and certifications — https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/drone-safety/drone-pilot-licensing/getting-drone-pilot-certificate.

Health Canada label search tool — https://pr-rp.hc-sc.gc.ca/ls-re/index-eng.php.

Laura Klemmer is counsel at MLT Aikins LLP, and Sarah Hoag is a summer student at MLT Aikins LLP. This article is of a general nature only and is not exhaustive of all possible legal rights or remedies. In addition, laws may change over time and should be interpreted only in the context of particular circumstances such that these materials are not intended to be relied upon or taken as legal advice or opinion. Readers should consult a legal professional for specific advice in any particular situation. If you have a topic or question you would like us to address in future issues, email kkriel@mltaikins.com.

The tenders are either a truck- or trailer-mounted system to act as landing pad, operator’s station and refill platform for large agricultural drones. Many of those tenders made their first appearance not only at the show but also in the Prairie marketplace.

Follow all our Ag in Motion coverage here

The increase in interest in drones from those attending field demonstrations at AIM suggests farmers may be starting to see practical applications of the technology on their farms.

As well, the support tender is becoming seen as a key component in efficient on-farm drone use.

To highlight that fact, a drone tender won an Ag in Motion Innovation Award. It was chosen by judges who saw it as a new product likely to have a significant impact on farming. PhiBer Manufacturing of Crystal City, Man., claimed the award for its Dash drone tender trailer.

“It (drone use) is one of the fastest growing segments of agriculture right now,” PhiBer chief executive officer Derek Friesen said during a sod turning ceremony at the company’s manufacturing plant in June.

“This (Dash tender) trailer will replace what a typical ground sprayer will do in acres per hour. We’ve built the infrastructure to support those drones.”

Along with the PhiBer Dash trailer, there were several other similar systems competing for attention from show goers, including another Manitoba-based company, Farm and Sky Tech Ltd.

“Over the course of the last six months, we came up with this design,” says Barry Walker, co-owner of Farm and Sky Tech Ltd. in Nepawa, Man.

Walker’s company was displaying its prototype design, which is made entirely of galvanized steel and intended to be mounted on a deck trailer. Unlike the PhiBer Dash, which is integrated with a trailer, the Farm and Sky tender is made to sit on an existing deck trailer.

Like the PhiBer, the Farm and Sky tender allows for the sidewalls to lift up hydraulically and provide a wide upper deck capable of handling multiple large drones.

It also offered a partly protected upper platform station for the drone pilots to stand. Walker said the company will likely make a few small changes from the original design it displayed at AIM.

“I don’t know if we’ll ever stop evolving as it exists right now,” he said.

“We know there are some changes coming for that very soon.”

The Farm and Sky tender is modular, built out of eight- to nine-foot sections, so it can be customized to meet the needs of a particular buyer as well as fit on to any size trailer a buyer wants to use.

“This is a unique design,” said Walker.

“You tell me what size of trailer you have and I’ll build it for you.”

Walker said the company was offering to sell the prototype model on display for $35,000.

For someone who wants a more manoeuvreable tender, Elev8 Drone Service from Creston, B.C., displayed its Sky Rig platform, which is designed to be mounted on a one-ton truck.

Company owner of Peter Wall says the Sky Rig gives operators the ability to drive into tighter locations where a trailer tender may not be practical or used when a single drone is all that is required.

“For example, fence line or waterway spraying, or for us orchard spraying. Very often, you can’t get in with a trailer. You can’t turn around or you don’t want to tramp over your field.”

The Sky Rig uses a metal box at the rear to house the drone. It can then be lifted up hydraulically to allow the drone to use an upper deck above the cab as a landing pad. A water tank is located in the truck bed, and a product tank goes up with the drone for easy access.

“You drive out to the location, lift up the box with the hydraulic power pack, you open the lid, get the drone out and you’re ready to fly,” he said.

“We build it all flexible with the farmer in mind. It fits in a short bed, long bed or flat deck. It’s very versatile.”

The Sky Rig retails for $35,000, and a customer could expect delivery in three to four weeks after placing an order, he added.

The House members, including Representatives Elise Stefanik, Ashley Hinson and John Moolenaar, who chairs a select committee on China, wrote letters to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency asking them to detail the administration’s efforts to address risks posed by aerosol-dispensing drones.

The lawmakers asked for a briefing by Sept. 30, citing the large number of drones produced by Chinese drone manufacturer DJI as a security concern.

DJI responded that it has no ties to the Chinese military, saying in an emailed statement “the unfounded accusations against our agricultural drone technology are putting U.S. farmers at risk by potentially depriving them of the tremendous benefits that DJI spray drones offer.”

The company said its agricultural drone technology “supports sustainable agriculture, allowing American farmers and business owners to integrate additional precision farming practices into their operations.”

The Chinese Embassy in Washington said China “firmly supports Chinese companies in carrying out international trade and co-operation in drones for civilian use, and opposes certain countries’ frequent illegal sanctions on Chinese companies and individuals on the grounds of so-called national security.”

The congressional letter noted that the commerce department has imposed export restrictions on aerosol dispensing drones that have potential to be used as weapons delivery platforms.

“The risk of these DJI agricultural spray drones being manipulated to carry out an attack in the United States cannot be ignored,” the letter said.

“Relying on our greatest strategic adversary for technology critical to the success of our agricultural production endangers the resiliency of our food supply.”

Stefanik called on the agriculture department and the cybersecurity agency to “take immediate action to mitigate the risks of Chinese-manufactured drones to our agriculture industry.” She has proposed legislation seeking to bar new DJI drones from operating in the United States.

DJI agriculture drones use advanced sensors that can collect and interpret crop data that is “impossible for the human eye to see”, the lawmakers wrote, arguing that China could use the sensors “to gain access into granular level detail on the stability and condition of the U.S. agriculture sector.”

In 2020, the U.S imposed export restrictions on DJI. Lawmakers have said DJI accounts for more than 50 per cent of all U.S. drone purchases.

There are many potential on-farm applications, such as mapping fields and checking on cattle herds.

However, the potential for spraying pesticides is drawing the most attention, and drone demonstrations at the recent Ag in Motion farm show were among the most well attended.

One industry insider said most spray drones are likely being used to apply pest control products, desiccants and herbicides.

There’s just one hitch: spraying crop protection products via drone is illegal in Canada.

“It’s not allowed, but is it being done? Absolutely,” the expert said. “And is it the primary interest? Absolutely.”

So that’s where we’re at with drones these days — a Wild West show where companies turn a blind eye and farmers flout the law.

It’s an untenable situation that will surely end in fines and tarnished reputations if something isn’t done soon to bring order to the frontier.

It’s clear that many farmers want to use this technology to make their lives easier and more efficient. It’s galling for them to see their competitors in other parts of the world able to spray with drones.

Asian producers have been doing it since the 1990s, and the practice is also legal in many states south of the border.

There’s a strong temptation for farmers to blame federal regulators for this inconsistency, and to some degree the criticism is justified.

But they should focus more directly on the companies that make the herbicides and fungicides. It’s up to them to apply to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency for label changes on products so they can be applied with drones.

The PMRA requires a great deal of research data to accompany a label change request, covering areas such as product concentration and drift potential. This research is expensive, which likely explains why applications aren’t being made.

Some would like the PMRA to allow one blanket label change application covering all products, but that’s not likely.

Others want an aerial label that would allow any product approved for airplane application to also apply to drones. This may sound reasonable, but a case can also be made for increased caution.

Tom Wolfe, one of the Prairies’ foremost spraying experts, says the machines warrant extra scrutiny.

“They’re nothing like anything we’ve ever seen before in terms of how they spray, how they deposit the spray, how they’re operated,” he told Glacier FarmMedia earlier this year.

Approval will likely come, but based on previous experience in other parts of agriculture, it could take 10 years. This is too long, considering farmers’ growing interest.

The obvious solution is to speed the approval process, and perhaps check-off funded producer groups could help pay for the work that chemical manufacturers must undergo as part of a label change application.

It’s reassuring to know that work is already being done on the file. Agriculture Canada has almost completed a study expected to offer advice on how to hurry the approval process.

As well, the Remotely Piloted Aerial Application System Workshop is holding its seventh annual meeting later this year to continue work on the subject.

As that progresses, there is one thing to keep in mind: if the federal government decides to get serious about enforcement, it will be farmers who pay the price, not the companies that sell pesticides or those that sell drones.

Karen Briere, Bruce Dyck, Barb Glen, Michael Robin, Robin Booker and Laura Rance collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.

Smaller drones designed for surveying, and crop/livestock monitoring are already a tool in many farmers’ toolboxes, but the larger spray drones are also becoming more practical in a Prairie context.

Related: Check out the drones taking part in the drone demonstration

“With the spraying we’re doing on canola and other crops, we’re losing too much money on tracks, and it’s getting costly for airplanes and helicopters,” said Dwayne Bacon, a farmer from Kinistino, Sask. attending the event.

“This will be a new thing for farmers to get into,” he added.

The spray drones on display had the capacity to cover 40 to 50 acres per hour. However, while the technology is there, regulatory approval for the applications of most interest to farmers is lacking.

“The regulations are running behind the technology… which puts farmers in a tough position,” said David Koop, chief operating officer of Green Aero Tech.

Under the current Canadian regulations, spray drones are legally allowed to do such things as applying fertilizer and spreading seed, but no pesticides have regulatory approval from Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

“It’s not allowed, but is it being done? Absolutely. And is it the primary interest? Absolutely,” said Markus Weber, president of Landview Drones. He expected the vast majority of spraying drones were being used for applying pest control products, desiccants and herbicides. “I realize that’s not currently considered legal by PMRA, but that is what most of the people buying spraying drones are doing.”

“There are definitely people being told that it is legal to apply on their own farm by vendors that are eager to sell these drones. That is not the case, the PMRA considers it equally illegal if you’re spraying on your own farm or spraying on someone else’s farm,” said Weber.

“There are people going in with their eyes closed, but there are also people going in with their eyes wide open and they don’t have another option,” said Weber, noting that small farmers often have no other choice for applying fungicide in-crop without a high clearance sprayer.

“It will be a year full of drama, and I’m looking forward to that drama because I think that’s what it will take in this business to get things to change,” said Weber.

“Many farmers don’t realize that spraying off label with a drone is considered illegal by PMRA, and I hope those aren’t the people that are prosecuted,” said Weber, noting he expected to see some enforcement in 2024 with heavy fines a possibility.

While approval for agricultural chemicals could be years away, there was a glimmer of hope when the PMRA approved the Garlon XRT brush-control herbicide for drone usage in just the past week.

“We look forward to when we’ve gone through the process and are able to do everything,” said Koop, adding “farming’s tough up here, and guys need every single edge they can get.”

Drones can be used in the United States if the product label covers aerial application and all other drone operation rules are followed, but Canadian regulation and legislation still has to catch up to advances in drone technology.

Farmers could face fines up to $10,000 if they use drones to spray pesticides.

The hurdles haven’t discouraged interest in the technology, nor have they stopped some companies from selling drones while advertising them as the spray technology of the future.

Despite those marketing efforts, Manitoba Agriculture pesticide and minor use specialist Pratisara Bajracharya warned that there’s no legal way to apply crop protection products with a drone.

Drones in the skies today have moved past previous iterations of the technology. They’re less expensive and have more uses. They are commonly used on-farm for imaging. Microdrones can be fit with cameras and, although limited to the visual spectrum, can be used to scout crops or monitor livestock.

More advanced imaging data can feed into zoning maps and other precision agriculture applications.

“In more recent years, drones have become quite popular, and they have evolved quite a bit,” Bajracharya said. “In the present day, you can find drones with an improved capacity, so that has allowed pesticide application with drones in the Prairies to be a bit more realistic than in the past.”

Legal permission to take advantage of those advances is another question. Bajracharya suggested it may be awhile before regulations are in place.

Japan, China, South Korea and the U.S. have successfully used drones for pesticide application.

In Canada, the practice has to clear the Pest Control Products Act, which regulates the registration of pesticides nationally, and its administrative body, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency. It must also contend with provincial legislation, and rules are different in each province, Bajracharya noted.

The Pest Control Products Act states that using drones to apply pesticides is regulated and that, until there is more research to prove it is safe and effective and can be added to product labels, they cannot be used for that purpose. There are only two exceptions: mosquito larvicides VectoLex CG and VectoBac 200G are registered for drone use.

Provincially, Manitoba’s Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Act licenses commercial applicators such as aerial applicators, exterminators and ground application crews. The Environment Act has additional permitting requirements in place for pesticide applications, Bajracharya said.

“Wherever a pesticide is applied in a public setting where the public has access to these areas, additional permitting requirements come into play.”

Canada has extensive data requirements for pesticide registration. It involves rigorous crop tolerance, resident, toxicology and environmental studies before an active ingredient is registered and allowed to be sold.

In an email to the Co-operator, Health Canada said the PMRA does not yet have what it needs to complete drone-specific risk assessments on pesticide active ingredients. Until the organization receives this information and assesses it, drones will not be included on a pesticide label.

Drones pose a unique challenge to the typical PMRA cycle of product assessment, registration and re-evaluation, Bajracharya said.

“They didn’t always exist, so they are a new technology that is only being introduced right now.”

The products that people want to apply are already registered, but with a different mode of delivery in mind. Each product will thus require its own dataset specific to drones in order to prove the technology meets Health Canada’s standards.

Even if a product is used for traditional aerial application, drones operate differently, Bajracharya noted. The difference in water volume between traditional aerial spraying and drone spraying, for example, needs further study.

“There is no clear path forward, just because we don’t have the data,” she said.

Producers might be forgiven if they miss that message, given how often the promises of drone spraying come up in conversation and at farm shows.

Markus Weber, president of Alberta-based LandView Drones, said there are new drone vendors in the market that actively advertise their products within Canada for the purpose of spraying pesticides. He believes that’s misleading to customers.

“They’re telling farmers that it’s legal to use on their farm for pest control, that they can apply the products that they could otherwise apply, by drones,” he said. “And a lot of farmers are buying it without knowing that what they’re doing is illegal.”

It’s not just the risk of PMRA enforcement that those producers need to worry about, Weber said. There’s also the risk that the chemical companies that produce the pesticides won’t stand behind their products if they are drone applied.

Weber said he makes sure farmers who buy his company’s drones are aware of the legal landscape before the sale, but he suspects some will choose to use them for pesticides.

The average farmer on his own land is less likely to attract the regulatory agency’s attention, he noted. The bigger risk would be taken by anyone advertising drone spraying services.

“I make sure that people go in with their eyes wide open, but it’s going to be very hard to enforce those rules on-farm. If the same product can be applied by aircraft, by a backpack sprayer or by ground rate, but it can’t be applied by drone, that is going to be a difficult enforcement action,” Weber said.

David Koop is chief operating officer at Green Aero Technology Inc., a company that sells drones throughout Canada for agricultural purposes such as mapping and surveillance. He said many of his customers use drones for above-board tasks such as reseeding canola or field surveillance.

“We are having guys for sure that are finding legal uses for it, but the fact that we don’t have things on paper from the PMRA is absolutely hampering the industry for the adaptation and efficacy of the technology,” he said.

It puts Canadian farmers at a disadvantage to their American counterparts, Koop argued.

“It’s tough for the farmers, because you look south of the border and guys have been using these drones for two to three years now.”

Green Aero Tech’s website claims drones are “the future of spraying” and advertises that its products are capable of spraying up to 40 acres per hour, do a full and partial field spray and can fertilize and seed. The website offers no further information on the legal status of spray operations in Canada.

But Koop says he ensures that customers who buy their drones are fully aware of the rules surrounding the equipment’s use, including those from PMRA and from Transport Canada regarding drone operation. Green Aero Tech also offers training courses for flying drones and using them for mapping.

“We go through all the legal regulations, all the stuff you need to know,” he said.

Andrew Kippen of North Valley Precision Planting, a dealer for Green Aero Tech in southern Manitoba, said there’s keen interest from farmers about drones, and some have been bought.

He’s heard of producers using them for granular spreading or spraying cattle for flies.

“A lot of guys are curious about what we can spray and what we can’t spray, so I’ll get this out right there now: There’s nothing we can spray,” he warned.

Doing so is a risk for the farmer.

Weber hopes a shift is coming, when the needed research is done and drone spraying gets the green light, but he’s not holding his breath.

“There is no official word that anything is changing, nor are there even rumours. I think there is no option but to find a different way once there are hundreds of people doing this.”

Koop is also hopeful, but worries that producers will lose patience with government agencies before the red tape is untangled.

“If you just drag your feet for too long on not regulating, guys are just going to ignore it completely. They’re just going to do what they want,” he said.

“I’ve been saying it for a long time. Since (the) mini came out, I think every farmer and agronomist should have a microdrone,” he told the crowd as he took the stage at Manitoba Ag Days in mid-January.

Johnson is in charge of all education and agricultural programs at the Ontario-based aerospace company, which offers operator training and custom drone services across industries ranging from mining and agriculture to public safety and defence.

He doesn’t dispute the more advanced drone uses in farming — those that are often the purview of custom services — but farmers should not dismiss the smaller cousins of those heavy, large and more regulated machines, he said during his Ag Days talk.

Microdrones will not deliver a payload of herbicide to a crop. Annual crop growers won’t send them to the field fitted with a multispectral camera to get field-level zone mapping to detect underlying disease or soil issues. Nor will livestock producers strap on a thermal camera to detect changes in animal body temperature as a sign of illness.

Chances are, the microdrone will be limited to an ordinary, high-resolution RGB camera, said Johnson, and for a lot of uses, that’s enough.

“It’s an incredible tool. We’ve never been able to get the aerial perspective (before), other than having a helicopter or a plane fly over the fields. You have the ability to get a different perspective for a few hundred dollars.”

A bird’s eye view is enough for a livestock producer to monitor a herd or watch individual animal behaviour. For crops, it’s an extension of the farmer’s own scouting, useful to see pests, disease symptoms or other issues that could stunt crop growth.

“You can see spots on the leaves, cracks in the soil or puddles of water that would explain why everything’s dying,” he said. “Whatever it is, that just saves you a bunch of time and driving through your field and crashing a bunch of plants while you’re doing it.”

Something as simple as taking weekly aerial photos of fields can help track crop progress and identify patches of concern, he noted.

Johnson brought an example of the technology to Ag Days: a DJI Phantom Mini 4 Pro microdrone.

“You can take this thing out and get it ready to launch within two minutes,” he said. “You can fly up to 400 feet and go out and take a look at your field. Take a picture, see there’s an area that you didn’t know wasn’t very healthy, fly down, get it really close up, five feet away, and get a super high-resolution picture.”

Johnson knows a thing or two about drones in agriculture; it’s been a subject of his work since 2015 and he is the architect of many courses on drone use and machine learning technology on the farm. A decade ago, the process of flying a drone of any weight was onerous.

“When drones came out, they caught regulators by surprise, and they didn’t have time to properly create regulations to manage this brand-new type of aircraft,” he said in a later interview.

“So, they just said, ‘if you want to fly a drone, you have to apply for a special flight operation certificate (SFOC) from Transport Canada.’”

That was a ball of red tape that most producers had neither the time nor inclination to untangle. First came a ground school class. After that, operators had to write an SFOC application and submit it to Transport Canada.

“It was long,” Johnson recalled. “My first one was 50 pages of really detailed descriptions of my drone, my understanding of all the safety parameters of the drone and how I’m going to conduct my operations.”

It soon became clear to regulators that changes were needed.

In 2019, regulations were eased for smaller, more basic drones. Under the older rules. anyone piloting a drone between 250 grams and 25 kilograms still had to have a valid drone pilot certificate and only fly drones that were marked and registered. There were basic and advanced levels within that category.

The new rules removed the requirement for a special licence within that weight range, while leaving restrictions for drone use around controlled airspaces like airports.

A lot of bells and whistles can be strapped to a 25-kg drone, including the aforementioned multispectral or LiDAR cameras. Those looking at drones for precision spraying must still deal with heavier regulations. They often weigh around 100 kg and still require an SFOC.

The 2019 regulation changes also created a sub-250-gram category: the microdrone. That weight limit included anything (like a camera) attached to the drone. Should the equipment fall under that weight limit, it does not have to be registered, does not require a certificate to fly and is essentially unregulated.

That said, Transport Canada’s website warns that microdrone operators are expected to behave responsibly and exercise caution while their drone is in the air.

“While there are no prescriptive elements of the regulations, there is an expectation that the pilot of a microdrone use good judgment, identify potential hazards and take all necessary steps to avoid any risks associated with flying your drone,” the department states.

Those safe practices, according to Transport Canada, include the following:

• Maintain the drone in direct line of sight.
• Do not fly your drone above 400 feet in the air.
• Keep a safe lateral distance between your drone and any bystanders.
• Stay far away from aerodromes, airport, heliport and waterdromes.
• Avoid flying near critical infrastructure such as utilities, communication towers or bridges.
• Stay clear of aircraft at all times.
• Do a pre-flight inspection of your drone.
• Keep the drone close enough to maintain the connection with the remote controller.
• Avoid special aviation or advertised events.

Drones in general have become less expensive and more advanced, Johnson noted.

“For $1,000, you can get an incredible piece of technology that seven or eight years ago would have cost you $10,000 to get an equivalent quality of data.”

He specifically pointed to technology from DJI. He does not work for that company but is impressed by it, he added. It has the lion’s share of the commercial drone sales market despite new competitors.

A Jan. 18 article on 2024’s best incoming drones, published by PC Magazine, gave top spot in seven of its nine categories to DJI. Autel Robotics took the other two spots.

“The first one that came out four or five years ago was decent; we used it for training and stuff like that, but it didn’t have a great camera,” Johnson said, adding that DJI’s second-generation microdrone was marginally better and the third generation had significant improvements.

“They had a way better operating interface; the drone was more responsive, more powerful, had a better sensor on it, and could fly longer,” Johnson said.

The company’s fourth effort also had improvements, “but it’s not as big of a difference between the three and the four as between the two and the three. So you can get by, I think, with the three and still have a really good system,” he said.

A quick internet search lists prices for the latest DJI drone between $1,400 and $1,600. Doing the same for the third-generation model dropped retail prices to between $600 and $800.