Conducting trial research can often lead to preconceived notions about the expected trial results. In 2023, we started to incorporate drone technology into some of our Practical Farm Research (PFR)^® fungicide trials for both corn and soybeans. These trials were conducted at multiple PFR sites across the Beck’s marketing area and in collaboration with on-farm cooperators in Illinois and Missouri.

As we began our 2024 trials, it was difficult to set aside the expectations based on our 2023 trial data. This data showed that drones could potentially be an effective way to apply fungicides. In fact, the drones outperformed the ground machines by 3.4 Bu./A. in corn and 1.8 Bu./A. in soybeans.

In 2023, most drone applications were contracted out. However, in 2024, we decided to take control of the drone research, doubling down on its potential. Hylio provided us with an AG-230 drone, which enabled us to streamline our trial process. While there were several variations in our 2024 trials, we focused on comparing the ground application vs. drone in both crops from the PFR sites, as well as comparing ground, plane, and drone applications in the on-farm trials. 

GROUND VS. DRONE: CORN For the ground vs. drone trials in corn, the drone yielded statistically the same as the ground machine with an 8.6 Bu./A. gain over the untreated control. When looking at the two-year data, the drone is significantly ahead with a positive ROI of $14.75/A. over the untreated control compared to the $4.84/A. advantage we saw with the ground machine. Five PFR sites participated in this trial.

GROUND VS. DRONE: SOYBEANS In soybeans, neither application was profitable; however, the drone did yield 0.5 Bu./A better than the ground machine. Looking at the two-year data the drone has the highest ROI of $13.78/A., while the ROI for the ground machine is -$1.23/A.

GROUND VS. PLANE VS. DRONE: CORN Let’s dive into the ground vs. plane vs. drone dataset in corn. We conducted this trial at four locations, and each was laid out just like any of our studies. The centers of each treatment are used for data to avoid any drift that may have occurred. See Figure 1 for an example of an on-farm trial layout.

Miravis^® Neo or Veltyma^® were used as the fungicides for these locations. The drone and plane applied at 2 Gal./A., while the ground machine applied at 15-20 Gal./A. The same water was used for all treatments, and the applications were made consecutively on the same day. It is important to note that disease was not present at the time of application. However, various levels of Tar Spot, among other diseases, were noted at each location during late-season scouting.

When looking at the individual trial locations, we can quickly note that fungicide applications at these locations were generally not profitable, and the data was mixed. When analyzing the combined dataset, the plane and drone applications did provide the highest yield gains with 5.7 and 5.3 Bu./A. gain over t he untreated control, and the ground machine had a 4.3 Bu./A. gain.

The break-even point for Miravis Neo is around 6.1 Bu./A., not including application costs. When looking at the two-year dataset, the drone leads this study with a positive $6.13/A. ROI. Remember those preconceived notions I mentioned earlier? I went into this season's trials thinking the drone would significantly outperform the other two methods. It turns out, so far, there isn’t a clear-cut winner.

GROUND VS. PLANE VS. DRONE: SOYBEANS

In the soybean ground vs. plane vs. drone trial, all parameters were nearly identical. When looking at the data, it almost matches the PFR site location data for 2024 with a +0.5 Bu./A. gain for ground, 0.0 Bu./A. for the plane, and -0.5 Bu./A. for t he drone. Statistically, there was very little difference. Still, the three applications were deemed unprofitable.

WHAT DID WE LEARN?

In corn, we can demonstrate that fungicide applications improve harvest standability and plant integrity, though this doesn't always translate to yield preservation. You will have to calculate a dollar amount for harvestability in your operation to determine its value. I believe that when disease is present at the time of application or shortly after, fungicides can be more profitable and provide better yield protection.

Now, regarding the key question: “Can drones effectively be used for fungicide applications?” The short answer is "Yes," but we need at least one more year of trials to confirm t his. Also, for successful drone applications, steps need to be taken to pat tern test the machine. The testing will help set your speed, altitude, swath width, and droplet size, all of which are critical to consistent applications. Once the pattern is tested, it is important to apply the findings to everyday application to ensure the most consistent application.

Most aerial applicators get their equipment tested annually at a fly-in event. If you are interested in pattern testing, contact your local aerial applicator to learn how and when t hey get their equipment tested. I would also recommend asking anyone who plans to spray your crops with a drone if their equipment has been tested.

Stay tuned for the full fungicide studies, as the 2024 PFR Book will be arriving in your mailbox soon and all studies are now available online at BecksHybrids.com/resources/pfrstudies. We look forward to continuing these trials in 2025.