Drones are here to stay, making giant strides day by day with advances, models, and functions. Fruit growing and the application of phytosanitary products have not been the exception.
It is an attractive tool, as they are advertised as a highly efficient solution, with a lower volume of water used; this for me is already a warning light, because it is necessary to evaluate whether with the applied volume I am achieving the objective, with the necessary amount of Dops.
The number of hectares that could be served must also be considered, given that the flight can be fast, but there is a critical speed that allows the drops reach the target, which in the case of herbicides is the soil.
But in relation to these two points, progress has been made with improvements in the spraying system, moving from traditional nozzles to centrifugal ones, correcting the application volumes from 16 liters, which was the maximum tank capacity a couple of years ago, to 40 liters or even more; at the same time, tests have been carried out by users, where they have improved and determined the appropriate speeds.
But despite this, we cannot ignore the fact that the law is clear: it does not say Drone, but if it is not on the ground it is a means of aerial application and in the case of pesticides we must comply as an obligation with decree 5/2010 of the Ministry of Health, which establishes safety zones for populated or protection sectors, training of operators and registration in the service of the companies that provide said service, of which there is at least one that I know of with this registration.
Decree 3,557 of the Ministry of Agriculture, specifically SAG, states that these must be used according to the technical standards indicated on the label, such as target pest and crop, dosage, and whether it is authorized for aerial application. The state must move forward in adapting these regulations, but until it does so, the use of pesticides aerially, despite the fact that the label is not authorized, is an act that can even be investigated by the courts.
Not all drones have the same features, since the hardware, rotors, nozzles, sensors, antennas, software, licenses, satellites, among others, are different; therefore, at the time of hiring you have to ask about it. The human team is also important, you have to know what you are working with and how it is affected by different factors such as environmental variables, water quality. Drones do not have agitators, so any formulation will behave well in the pond.
Effectiveness evaluations that I know of show biological effectiveness on 80%, which one says is fine, but if I do not control by placing the appropriate amount of AI I will favor that 20% of the population developing resistance, which leaves us with fewer tools available.
Finally, I will tell you about a case in the rice area; a herbicide was applied by drone on a rice field and in the neighboring plot of cherry trees damage was found up to 300 meters from the application area, affecting at least 30 hectares. This case could be a foliar fertilizer, which one sees as less risky, but what if it is detected as foreign or unauthorized residue?
In short, drones are tools that are here to stay and are advancing rapidly, but as users we have the obligation to first comply with what the law says, especially with products classified by the state as pesticides. Second, we have to question ourselves, investigate, test, and support ourselves before undertaking the application of any type of phytosanitary product and not get carried away by what everyone else is doing. We must learn as users, demand from service providers, and put it on the technical and political tables.
