“I wanted to get drones for social media for promotions and marketing. It was pretty useful. It made for some cool videos,” Kenyon told the recent Canadian Agricultural Drone Association conference.

He found the DJI Mini Pro 3, a lightweight, foldable camera drone, so useful he bought a second, larger drone to seed pastures to help pasture rejuvenation.

“I don’t like new equipment, yet I still have two drones,” he told the group from across Canada gathered to learn more about drones and their uses.

While the initial drone was purchased to fly over his pastures and livestock to take pictures and video to show how he manages his grazing systems, he found it helpful to check livestock, fences, waterers and gates.

“I have very rough pastures. Driving out there in vehicles is pretty bumpy. The drones are really handy to check pastures and water systems. I can even tell when a herd needs to move. We rotate every couple days. I can tell the difference in colour where the fence lines are.”

Kenyon uses a heavy electric bungy cord as gates and can even tell from the air if the gates are closed.

“I am pretty happy with my 3. It does most of the things I need.”

In 2023, Kenyon bought a DJI Agras T-10 drone for seeding pastures from the air and has since spread seed on thousands of acres with the small drone for himself and customers.

“I am not very good with technology. I am the guy who asks his kids how to use my phone.”

Adding seed from the air is efficient and can add new seed varieties in the hard-to-reach parts of a pasture, but it is only one part of the grazing system, he told the group.

“I am a terrible salesman. I tell them, ‘If you are not going to change your grazing, don’t bother seeding because you are wasting your money.’ ”

Kenyon uses the footprints of cattle to punch the seed into the pasture to help establish the new seeds while rotating the cattle through the paddocks.

“I practice regenerative agriculture. My way of thinking is growing soil from the plants. The plants are a tool to grow soil; then we get the biology and get a perpetual fertility system,” he said.

“It all works together. You can’t just add seed. You can’t just have cows out there. We need the combination of everything working together. I am trying to build ecosystems. The cow is a keystone species in a grazing environment.”

“The drones, especially these agriculture drones, provide a very rare opportunity for young folks,” said Steve Li, a professor and drone researcher with Auburn University in Alabama.

He said embracing agricultural technology, including drones, is a way young people can stay connected to the farm.

“I see that happening all over the place. It gives young folks a chance to be entrepreneurial and fight back against this social trend of leaving the farm. This is something that is very rare and valuable,” said Li at the conference, where most of the 190 registrants were young.

While the rules around spraying chemicals from drones in Canada are different than in the United States, Li said that when the Canadian rules change to allow drone herbicide spraying, it will be a way young people can start their own agricultural business without a large cash outlay.

“Some kids even finishing high school can start their own business with less than $150,000, be legal and have a quick ROI. Most young operators I know were able to pay off the debt and the equipment and start to make money after one season.”

Brothers Todd, 22, and Brayden, 26, Fraser of Churchbridge, Sask., came to the first annual drone conference to gain a better understanding of the quickly changing drone technology and how they can use it on their farm and for a business venture.

“They are a much more approachable price point versus million dollar planes,” said Brayden.

“If you can do it yourself, you can save money,” added Todd, who believes more pre-set applications and settings will make spray drones easy to use.

Elron Davis, 16, of Grovedale, Alta., has been flying drones since he was eight.

At 13, a YouTube video of spray drones caught his interest, but regulations, licensing and cost gave him pause. Now, he is helping out at the conference’s trade show, trying to absorb as much information as he can about drones and the industry.

“It is aviation and I like aviation a lot and it is connected to farming and I grew up with farming.”

Tyler Hatton of Blenheim, Ont., left an 18-year career as a salesman with John Deere to jump into the new and exciting drone industry.

“This is the next generation’s business opportunity. The cost of entry is very low compared to hard iron or traditional methods of spraying,” said Hatton of Drone Spray Canada.

A traditional sprayer can cost $750,000 or more compared to a $50,000 entry level drone, an investment many young people can afford to start an agricultural business and help remain in their community.

“The young kids are going to have a way to get into agriculture, make some money, be effective and keep moving forward,” said Hatton.

“Every single person you talk to is excited about the opportunity, where it can go, what the new things they can do, how to do things differently. There has been no negative talk. It has been all positive.”

It’s seeking public opinion on proposed rules that would allow pesticides to be applied by drones if they’re already registered for aerial application.

The United States uses this approach, and Health Canada has been under pressure for years to synchronize regulations.

For instance, last December the House of Commons agriculture committee called for this approach.

The Alberta Federation of Agriculture also asked for a national strategy to fast-track the approval of application of crop protection products with drones.

Canadian spray experts estimate there are already more than one million acres sprayed annually in the country with drones, which regulators have so far ignored.

The growth in popularity of spray drones in Canada is easy to see at farm shows, including Ag In Motion, where this is a significant growth area at the show.

Health Canada is at a point where it must either start enforcing its own rules or change them to allow what is already happening.

Transport Canada has done its part to enable the use of this emerging technology, by creating rules and a certification process for the safe operations of drones.

Achieving approval from Health Canada for a new kind of application is a much more arduous affair, largely because of the broad scope and complexity of this process.

Having such a comprehensive approval process can be a good thing for both public safety and the industry because it helps maintain public trust in the food system.

Before a crop protection product is approved in Canada, its safety must be established, as does the effectiveness of all application instructions on its label.

Spraying with a drone creates a different deposition pattern of applied products compared to a plane or helicopter, meaning these approaches do not have the same result.

There are also multiple kinds of drones, and they can cause different deposition patterns.

Even if a specific drone platform is studied and understood, it doesn’t mean the utility of other drone types would be known.

Considering this variability, it’s not surprising Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency has been slow to publish guidelines on the application of crop protection products with drones, even though it has been studying this approach since 2019.

Health Canada’s pivot, of asking for public opinion on these proposed rules, indicates a recognition that its typical approval approach is unlikely to yield clear and definitive evidence for drone application platforms within the means available to the agency.

The proposed rules also indicate a significant shift within Health Canada, where it seems to be offloading some of the onus of validating the effectiveness of crop protection products when applied with a drone.

This user-beware approach is not without risks.

There are many images available online that indicate the applications of fungicides with a drone can be anything but uniform. In these images, patterns where fungicide have and have not been applied clearly show the drone’s path.

Non-uniform applications of crop protection products with drones will be very costly in some instances, and it will be interesting to see how companies that sell these products respond to product claims.

There are also instances where drones are by far the most cost-effective approach to apply products.

For instance, DJI recently released its T100 agricultural drone that has a 100-kilogram payload. On smaller farms, it’s conceivable one or two of these units could handle all their in-crop application needs.

Patch management, especially in wet conditions, is another area where spray drones have a clear advantage over ground sprayers.

When it comes to the environment, international studies have demonstrated that drone applications have less spray drift compared to using a spray plane.

It’s likely groups that are in opposition to the use of crop protection products, regardless of how they are applied, will participate in Health Canada’s consultation process.

If you’re uncomfortable with their agenda to shape the spray-drone rules in Canada, there is still time to add your voice to the fray.

Health Canada’s consultations close March 25.

Karen Briere, Bruce Dyck, Robin Booker, Paul Yanko and Laura Rance collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency opened consultation on the proposed regulations late last month.

To date, only pesticides registered for use with drones, often called remotely piloted aircraft systems — can legally be applied by drones. Almost none are registered for drone application.

Why it Matters: The proposed regulations would make many existing pesticides available for application by drone. To date, almost no products have been made available for legal application by drone.

The PMRA proposes to allow any pesticides currently registered for aerial application — that is by fixed wing or rotary aircraft — to be applied by drone.

Applicators would need to comply with all the label directions for aerial application,such as spray volume, droplet size and buffer zones.

The PMRA has said that when using the aerial application directions, the value of the pesticide application shouldn’t be affected. Based on crop residue data, dietary exposure to pesticides shouldn’t be greater than with aerial application.

Based on global spray drift studies, aerial application buffer zones should be more than adequate.

While the PMRA acknowledged safety studies are too limited for a full risk assessment, “evidence suggests that the risk is unlikely to be higher than with conventional equipment,” the PMRA said.

“This is because some tasks, like mixing and loading, are similar and others —such as application — must be done by different people as required on pesticide lables for conventional aerial spraying.”

Drone operators would also need to be licensed according to Transport Canada requirements, and all workers who handle or apply the pesticides are expected to complete training on the handling or application of pesticides using drones or conventional aerial equipment.

To be recognized nationwide, these programs must follow the Standard for Pesticide Education, Training and Certification in Canada that was developed by the federal-provincial-territorial standing subcommittee on pesticide education, training and certification.

The good and the unclear

“There’s good and ‘question marks’ to this,” said Erica Carrasco, a partner with law firm MLT Aikins who has expertise in technology law, including drone regulation.

She spoke as part of an online panel discussion hosted by EMILI late last month.

Carrasco said it will be important to hear opinions from drone operators and chemical companies.

Do current product labels have clear, feasible and enforceable descriptions that are applicable for drones and conventional aerial application? Will they achieve the intended outcome of the pesticide? Companies may need to look at their labels and revise them.

The personal protective equipment requirements are significant.

If, for example, the drone operator is nowhere near the site or at risk of contact with the pesticide, will PPE requirements be strange, onerous or even not applicable?

The consultation process will be important because the industry has been waiting for these regulations, so it needs to ensure they’ll be usable and not need to be fixed again in a couple of years, Carrasco said.

She also noted that it still remains to be seen what the mandatory training and certification requirements will be.

“Right now, it doesn’t appear that there is that mandatory requirement across the board.”

In its proposal, the PRMA says it’s committed to working with provincial and territorial partners to inform development of training materials.

Lack of data

While the proposed rules would put drones on par with other aerial application, that doesn’t guarantee equality of outcome.

“Treating drones equivalent to conventional aircraft may simplify regulation, but scientifically, you know, it’s very different,” said Kevin Falk, a field modernization scientist for Corteva who has been conducting drone spraying field trials in Manitoba.

He spoke alongside Carrasco and EMILI Innovation Farms manager Leanne Koroscil.

“Spray drones can work, but with some caveats,” Falk said.

Water volume, drone speed, altitude and swath width all affect the the end result.

If drones are allowed to be used without guardrails, inconsistent results might be blamed on the chemical rather than application, he added.

These regulations, if passed, would remove some of the largest barriers to spray drone trials in Canada — namely the cost and difficulty of getting real-world spray drone data, said Falk. To date, generating that data has required special research authorizations.

However, there are hundreds of untried products and many will get tested in the marketplace rather than in a research plot.

“We saw in the U.S. Midwest a whole bunch fell on its face this year,” Falk said.

“There’s striping in corn fields across the Midwest because applicators were spraying in swath lines that were far too wide.”

To prevent negative outcomes, chemical companies might decide to opt out and — as the proposed regulations would allow them to do — prohibit application of certain products by drone.

There should be more questions around this ability to opt out, said Carrasco — “not just a blanket, ‘we won’t allow this.’ ”

It would be good to know why companies want to opt out, such as because of efficacy concerns.

When will these rules be ready?

On the whole, Falk, Koroscil and Carrasco were bullish on the proposed regulations.

Koroscil, a board member for the Canadian Agricultural Drone Association, said that organization’s position is that pesticides available for aerial application should be available for drone application.

“Being able to recognize drones as a legitimate aerial tool is going to be able to provide farmers with a safe and regulated access to additional tools in their belt,” she said.

Those tools will be “backed by manufacturer guidance and peer support but also, at the same time, being able to protect consumers and the public by having clear science based regulation.”

Carrasco said she hoped the takeaway was optimism around the proposal — the agriculture sector is much closer to being able to capitalize on drones’ potential.

How close?

Carrasco said it would depend on how many changes are made to the proposed rules.

New regulations go through a process of consultation and drafting, they’re published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, and further comments are taken under consideration before the regulations are updated and finalized, according to a federal explainer.

The final regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, and come into force on the day set out in the regulation.

However, it’s important to get the rules right, Carrasco said.

“I would rather see this done a little more carefully than just rolled out and have a whole bunch of issues that we didn’t think of,” she said. Small things such as wording around PPE “could have larger implications and drawbacks.”

Public consultation closes March 25.

To date, only pesticides registered for use with drones — often called remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) — can legally be applied by drones. Almost none are registered for drone application.

WHY IT MATTERS: The proposed regulations would make many existing pesticides available for application by drone. To date, almost no products have been made available for legal application by drone — though anecdotal evidence suggests drone application is happening on the down low.

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) proposes to allow currently registered products, where the label permits aerial application — that is, by fixed wing or rotary aircraft — to be applied by drone.

Applicators would need to comply with all the label directions for aerial application, including spray volume, application rate, droplet size, treatment interval and spray buffer zones.

When used according to aerial application instructions, the PMRA said, drone application is not expected to impact the value of the pesticide being applied.

Based on data from global studies, spray drift with drone application is similar to ground application. Spray buffer zones established for conventionally-piloted rotary wing aircraft will be adequate. The PMRA also said pesticide residues on food crops are not higher than with conventional applications.

The PMRA said there isn’t enough data for a full risk assessment on safety risks of operators exposure to pesticides; however, it says available evidence suggests it’s “unlikely to be higher than with conventional equipment” — particularly because tasks such as mixing, loading and application must be done by different people, just as with other aerial spraying.

Consultations opened on Feb. 23 and close March 25.

Drone pilots would still require the relevant licenses from Transport Canada.

PMRA passes five-year mark on regulation studies

The PMRA began studying drone regulations in 2019. In September, members of the federal standing committee on agriculture asked the PMRA’s senior director general Frédéric Bissonette what was taking so long.

Bissonette cited scientific issues — for example, that a drone did not behave the same as an airplane — and pledged to have “something in place for next year.”

“Canada seems to be kind of falling behind other jurisdictions in terms of allowing this type of use,” CropLife Canada CEO Pierre Petelle told Glacier FarmMedia in late 2025.

“With these products being used in many other western-type jurisdictions … there should be ways of coming to conclusions much quicker than we have,” he added.

Crop protection companies, meanwhile, have been conducting studies to collect drone-specific data for their products.

Anecdotal evidence suggested farmers were using already drones to apply pesticides on the down low.

The idea was to see how well the drone could seed a multi-variety cover crop, how much biomass could be produced and would it be enough to build soil carbon.

Why it Matters: Canadian researchers want to see if drone seeding cover crops can help minimize tillage and deal with the challenge of how to seed a cover crop without damage or interference to a grain crop.

Drones for aerial seeding is not a new concept, said Oscar Molina, a research scientist in cropping systems for Agriculture Canada. Another Living Labs project in Ontario is also looking at cover crop seeding via drone. The practice is also used in some U.S. states.

Molina was among the speakers at the Manitoba Association of Watersheds conference in Brandon in early December.

Making cover crops work

Cover crops are one practice agriculture and policy makers hope will be a win-win for both farmers and the environment. At the same time, there are local challenges, such as a shorter growing season and a need for more complex herbicide plans.

Drones, though, aren’t limited to ground travel. They can get into a field earlier in the season to seed, giving whatever they broadcast a longer window to grow. That longer growing window comes with more time to grow biomass, Molina said.

Researchers opted for a mix of crops suited to being broadcast via a drone for their recent trial. These were small seed crops such as clovers, ryegrass, turnips and radishes.

Three fields in the eastern Interlake and one field in the central Assiniboine watershed districts were chosen for the project. Drones seeded the trial plots at 12.5 pounds per acre and a traditional planter seeded at eight lb. per ha. No fertilizers were added in either case.

Traditional equipment, using the same crop varieties, was used as a comparison.

Drone seeding trial results

The project ran into some weather challenges.

Much of the Interlake ended up short of rain, which are bad conditions to fairly test any kind of crop establishment. Timely rains ended up being the biggest differentiating factor between sites that did well and those that lagged.

One test site performed so well that its drone-seeded biomass was more than three times greater compared to a traditional planter.

Molina noted that “the radishes and the brassicas overall, they actually did much better.”

One grower participating in the project noted that the turnips grew better than the radishes.

Overall, clover species had difficulty establishing. Where test sites experienced drought, weeds tended to out-compete the cover crop.

Soybeans next?

As this year’s project saw cover crops seeded into a harvested wheat crop, Molina suggested that a post-soybean harvest cover crop may be in the cards next time.

“(That) kind of brings a completely different setup,” the researcher noted.

Molina was encouraged by the success of the turnips in the cover crop mix and felt these had the most potential.

One such conundrum is how to seed the cover crop without losing ground on the actual cash crop or adding yet one more task to an already jam-packed shoulder season.

Taking to the skies, though, might be one way to underseed a cover crop without much impact to established grain stands and without further tillage.

Why it Matters: Drones can make seeding cover crops easier and reduce the risks posed by heavy equipment.

Researchers in Ontario are one year into a three-year Living Labs study that looks to extend the cover crop application window for corn and soybeans.

That subject might also yield insights for Western Canada, where the short growing season remains a major wild card for whether investing in a cover crop will pay off.

Initial results noted that broadcasting into fields planted without tillage can be challenging.

Researchers also found that farmers would like legumes in their broadcast cover crop mix, but that can be a problem when the cover crop runs into herbicide sensitivity due to chemistry used that season in the chosen field.

Some of the study sites used a drill, but the project, led by soil management specialist Jake Munroe of the Ontario agriculture ministry, also hoped to answer questions about drone seeding, and how the technology can be applied to cover crops.

Advantages of the drone include less interference with an already growing cash crop.

Running a spreader or sprayer through a maturing crop will lower yield, but waiting to seed until harvest means the cover crop has much less chance of establishing itself or, in the case of winter cereals, surviving the winter.

The trial includes three farmer co-operators and three corn and three soybean trials. One of those trials is at the farm of Brett Green near Embro, northwest of London, Ont.

“The interest in getting the drill out and competing with wheat seeding, or getting the drill back out after it’s clean, after wheat seeding, there’s a bit of a barrier there,” said Munroe.

The project is administered by the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA), and farmer co-operators have some influence over the trials to include experiments relevant to their farm.

Munroe said that included a request to add red clover to the trial in the first year to try to get more nitrogen fixed in the soil from the legume. It didn’t work out due to herbicide interactions, so wasn’t replicated in year two.

Munroe highlighted results from one site that provided a valuable comparison between seeding approaches, where the farmer had also drilled and broadcast a cover crop the day after corn was harvested, as well as seeding with a drone.

All three treatments survived, with the drilled cover crop being the most uniform, and the earlier-seeded drone cover crop more advanced but more variable.

Biomass ratings taken by drone imaging in May 2025 showed the most biomass came from the earlier drone seeding.

Munroe said seeding cover crops into no-till fields, whether by drone or another broadcast method, often leads to poorer growth.

“No-till systems can tend to pose challenges, both with the surface residue interfering with seed-to-soil contac, and potentially with slug feeding,” he said.

There will be more active monitoring of slug feeding in this year’s trials.

Eyes in the sky

Andres Hurtado of Terralynx, an imagery analysis company that uses drones, talked about what he can learn from trials such as the cover crop project using multi-spectral imaging.

Multi-spectral drones record the light from plants, even the infrared lights we can’t see, when a plant is early in a stressful period.

Increased resolution and high-speed computer processing of images mean even more detail than ever, with the ability to see single rows and plants.

Hurtado was among the industry representatives at a recent OSCIA demonstration day, which also featured the ongoing cover crops projects. He talked about a LiDAR drone that creates three-dimensional models of land. This can help create more accurate maps for drainage companies.

Practical applications of Hurtado’s drone image analysis include farmers who have had him create emergence maps and variable rate nitrogen maps.

Drone Spray Canada brought along large DJI drones to the event, including the new T100, which it uses to apply fertilizer and broadcast seeds.

There are no labels approved for pesticide applications in agriculture with a drone in Canada yet, unlike the United States and Brazil, where drone spraying is mostly regulated with existing aerial approvals, said Adrian Rivard of Drone Spray Canada.

A blanket aerial label can be a “double-edged sword,” said Rivard. It can open up the market to drone spraying, but there could be limitations. For example, a helicopter would need a much larger buffer zone than a drone would, but they are regulated similarly.

The drones at the OSCIA demonstration broadcast cereal rye and oats at about 65 pounds per acre on an area of a soybean field that wasn’t part of the OSCIA cover crop trial.

Vegetation determines coverage width. In standing corn, a width of 21 feet is best, but Rivard said they can cover 30 feet on bare ground.

The drones are also being used for fertilizer application, and Rivard said an applicator in the Ottawa area applied 360,000 lb. of urea this year with a DJI T50.

Rivard, a DJI drone dealer, has been experimenting with the new DJI T00; with a 100-kilogram payload, it can cover 50 acres with cereal rye seed in 45 minutes.

“It flies at 45 m.p.h. Previously, the T50 was at 23 (m.p.h.), so twice the payload, twice the speed. It’s a better rocket. It’s kind of fun.”

While it’s not a very common practice, largely due to skepticism of the cold winter temperatures involved, research shows that it can work well in Western Canada.

It can help forages gain an earlier start than weeds, giving the crop a better chance to out-compete weeds and reduce weed pressure throughout the growing season. It can also decrease the risk of spring compaction and crusting, which could reduce emergence and plant counts.

Why it Matters: Dormant seeding forages can give farmers an edge on managing challenging acres on their farm.

Dormant seeding also makes a good fit for farmers looking to manage unproductive acres — such as saline patches, soil crusting areas and problem weed patches like kochia and foxtail — in a way that won’t negatively affect their productive acres.

“By seeding those forages, it can help compete out those weeds and take over the area and fill in those bare patches,” said Jenai Buchanan, Ducks Unlimited Canada’s marginal areas specialist for Manitoba.

“It does take some time for the forages to fully take over. It can take two to three years to fully establish, and touch-up seeding is required. So patience is key.”

Dormant seeding falls into the eligibility of the DUC Marginal Areas Program, which is available across the Prairies in the pothole region, which spans southern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The program started in 2019 and can help cover some of the costs of seeding and establishing a forage stand.

It’s to the benefit of farmers, their land and to DUC because the intent is also to increase biodiversity and habitat of an area. Buchanan said enrolment is simple, and eligibility can be assessed on the DUC website.

The key to dormant seeding is soil temperature. That’s why it’s not done until the end of October or into November, when the soil temperature drops below 5 C. The main goal is to ensure there is no germination or emergence in the fall.

Even if it’s cooler in the air, it can take longer for the soil to cool — just like it takes a while for it to warm up in spring.

Jodie Horvath, a forage specialist for the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association and an extension specialist with DUC in Saskatchewan, recommends waiting until the soil temperature drops further, to 2 C, to ensure there’s less risk of soil warming after a snowfall or if there’s a spurt of warm weather and hot sun.

If the seeds germinate in fall, they’ll winter kill and no longer be viable for spring — meaning a major loss for the field and the wallet. With that risk, a possible option is crop establishment insurance, Horvath added, but the terms can vary from province to province.

Tips and tricks

For producers considering dormant seeding, Horvath and Buchanan have a few words of advice.

When it comes to the prep work, there is the field and the seed to consider.

The field must be clean of any weeds or cover crops. A fall burn-off, tilling foxtail or cutting down weeds are a few options to consider, but it all comes down to preference and knowing what’s best for the field.

If a producer is considering a fall herbicide, Horvath had a word of warning, noting it’s important to know what was sprayed and how it could affect the forage crop being sown.

“You’re seeding right back into it, and you don’t want to set yourself up for a failure because of some residual herbicide,” Horvath said.

Use certified seed to ensure good germination, and consider the needs of the area and operation. Buchanan recommends diversity, noting farmers should base their selections — of saline tolerant or flood tolerant forages, for example — on what they’re seeing on their land.

When it comes to kochia, producers can consider custom blends and should employ strong weed control before seeding into it, such as mowing before it sets seed to help set it back and give next year’s forage a better chance.

Seed should also be sown at a heavy rate. It’s important to increase seed count by 30 per cent when dormant seeding to account for possible loss.

This increase isn’t uncommon when seeding into marginal areas, and Buchanan said even with spring seeding they recommend increasing by 15 per cent due to the challenging conditions in which forage seeds compete .

For the actual act of seeding, there are a few options: broadcast, seed drill or drone.

If seeding with a drill, the depth should be no deeper than an inch, similar to when seeding canola, since the seed itself is so small. Any deeper could cause reduced emergence and plant counts. If broadcasting with a seeder or drone, it’s important to harrow or roll afterward for adequate seed to soil contact.

“Broadcasting in the fall is a lot simpler,” Horvath said.

“And the drone is really, really quite efficient at seeding. There’s no issues with blockage or anything that happens with a grass (forage) seed.”

Horvath has been part of a few trials and demonstrations with dormant seeding and marginal area seeding with drones. They’re a great option for seeding, if a producer has them.

Last fall, she seeded 550 acres via drone and had mixed but overall good results this past spring for establishment. A year after seeding, the stand is looking well, she said.

However, it did take time. Patience is crucial, with a stand taking up to three years for resilient establishment.

“I think you have to be really cautious in the spring and when you use it next,” Horvath said.

“Like, don’t seed it in the fall and think you’re going to be having animals out there grazing (in the spring).”

In the first year, the plants are very vulnerable so animals could pull out the entire plant and harm establishment. However, cutting and baling come July is a safe option and also an excellent method of controlling weeds.

If producers want further advice, DUC is available with agronomic support for choosing seed blends, what to include in blends, what methods to employ for strong establishment and what to do once the stand is established.

“It basically takes a traditional sprayer and increases its capacity by 25 or 30 per cent, because we can make it fill so fast. That’s been our big thing. (Demand) is rapidly growing.”

The company has now designed a trailer intended to cater to the emerging trend of handling broad-acre spraying with drones, bringing efficiencies to that operation as well.

Friesen says he believes drone spraying will soon become one of the fastest-growing segments in the ag equipment sector, citing the fact two of today’s large application drones working together can keep up with a standard field sprayer.

“Now, we’re getting into the drone industry as well,” he says. “Our first production trailers are just coming off the line now.

“This trailer will replace what a typical ground sprayer will do in acres per hour. We’ve built the infrastructure to support those drones. We have a whole lineup of drone stuff coming.

“I actually expect this (Dash trailers) to be our largest product line in the years to come.”

PhiBer has seen steadily increasing demand for its Dash trailers, earth-moving products and hay tools in the past few years. As a result, the company has embarked on an ambitious building project, adding a 60,000-square foot production facility to its current manufacturing footprint at Crystal City, Man., about 130 km southwest of Portage la Prairie.

PhiBer will also roughly double its workforce once the new building is completed.

“We’ve been going through extreme growth in the last number of years,” he says. “I think our four-year average is 48 per cent growth year over year.”

Depending on the configuration, a Dash trailer can carry different sizes of plastic product tanks, which PhiBer currently imports from the U.S. However, the new facility will be home to a very large plastic molding system, which is capable of forming tanks of up to 5,000 gallons for installation on Dash trailers, as well as forming even larger permanent on-site storage tanks.

“There are only two machines in Canada that are big enough to do what we need,” Friesen says. “Right now it’s all being done in the States, and we want to bring it back to Canada. So the largest machine in Canada will be here.”

The new building will also house three automated laser parts-cutting systems to speed up manufacturing.

PhiBer has chosen to market its equipment direct to farmers instead of retailing through a dealer network. That, Friesen says, helps the company keep sticker prices as low as possible, cutting out the middleman.

To handle sales, the company has setup a new AI-assisted website that will allow interested farmers to configure a Dash tender trailer with exactly the right setup to meet their needs.

“One of the unique things is we go direct to customers with our products, aside from the hay tools which are sold through OEM channels,” Friesen says. “We have an online presence. We’ve now launched a digital platform where people can get a quote and build a trailer in the system and place their order, buying parts — it’s all done through e-commerce if they want.

“We’re not trying to replace people but create a tool to connect with people. Guys can create and design an entire trailer system themselves online. They can build their dream system. There are over 3.5 million ways we can configure a Dash trailer. It’s all very customizable.”

Customers can also contact the company directly by phone for assistance in designing a Dash if they prefer.

The Dash trailer system has become PhiBer’s keystone product, and with increasing demand the company has now set up companies in the U.S. and Australia to keep up with international sales. Those foreign sales are key to PhiBer’s expansion.

“We’ve been selling into the U.S. for a number of years, and it remains a big part of our market,” he says. “It’s our No. 1 growth opportunity despite some of the political challenges.”

PhiBer took a big swing at the future market with its Dash Carrier to support four drones, and it resulted in winning the ag tech category in the innovation program at Ag in Motion 2025.

Drones are seeing greater use in agriculture to apply seed, fertilizer and pesticides. Ground sprayer wheels can damage crops and are increasingly expensive, making the cheaper drone attractive.

Follow all our Ag in Motion coverage here

The challenge for drones is competing on efficiency, and technology is rapidly evolving to support that goal, including PhiBer’s drone carrier.

PhiBer is known for its support tenders for sprayers and was able to use that expertise to create a similar support carrier for drones. However, Steve Froese, sales manager for PhiBer, says there are many differences between the drone and ground sprayer carriers.

“Fundamentally, this system is built to land drones on the top where the Dash carrier is simply a large ground sprayer service system,” he said at Ag in Motion, where curious farmers scoured the trailer, which is one of the first to be built specifically for drones.

The bright orange trailer is designed to be a self-contained unit. Hot tanks for mixing sit in the middle of the trailer, in front of a large water tank. On the back of the trailer is a 70 kw generator that helps quickly charge drone batteries.

Froese says 70 kw is likely more than is needed for today’s drones, but as drones get larger and battery technology evolves, it will likely be needed.

The action takes place on the roof of the trailer. The top folds out to provide a landing platform for four drones, charging stations, anchors for the drones for transportation, a hose to fill the drone with whatever liquid is needed and a reel and water hose for cleaning.

At the front of the upper platform is a turret that raises for use and lowers for transportation where operators can sit and control the drone operations.

There are two seats, and Froese says that two operators could be needed if the trailer were being used to its full capacity.

“You will be allowed to land four drones at one time if you want to, but loading and changing batteries, you’re probably going to need a little bit of time between drones,” says Froese.

The carrier is self-levelling, and the setup process can be controlled with the company’s phone app.

The trailer is about 13-feet tall when the landing areas are folded up over the drones and it’s ready for transport.

PhiBer is designing a two-drone service trailer.

Froese says the four-drone trailer is expensive, but for drone operators looking for a way to increase their efficiency, it’s an option. The company has sold six as of mid July.