I’ve been hearing a lot about spray drones; can I spray pesticides by drone on my farm now?

By Ashley Ammeter, Whole Farm Specialist, Manitoba Crop Alliance

This topic has definitely been getting a lot of attention lately!

The short answer is yes, in some cases, agricultural pesticides can now be applied by drone in Canada. However, there are important rules and regulations to follow, drone spraying is not without risk and there are some unique considerations that are important to understand.

What changed?

On June 10, 2026, the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate (PRD) of Health Canada (formerly the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency or PMRA) issued a Letter of No Objection, an interim measure which allowed the application of pesticides by drone in some circumstances, and was intended to apply until a final policy decision could be released.

On June 30, 2026, the PRD of Health Canada finalized their policy, allowing application of pesticides by drone for any product already registered for conventional aerial application. The full details of the new policy are available here.

Licenses and certification

If you’re considering drone spraying, there are several licenses and certifications you need to be aware of.

In Canada, drones weighing more than 250 g (including spray drones) must be registered, and the operator must have a drone pilot certificate from Transport Canada.

In Manitoba, commercial pesticide applicators must have a pesticide applicator license, but farmers applying pesticides on their own farms are exempt from licensing.

Always read and follow the product label

It is important to remember that pesticide labels are legal documents. Regardless of how you’re applying the pesticide, always read the label carefully.

If the product label allows aerial application to the crop you wish to spray, you may be eligible to spray by drone. You must follow all label directions for aerial application, including spray volume, application rate, droplet size, spray buffer zones or any other instructions. The only exception is that statements on nozzle distribution (ex. “Nozzle distribution along the spray boom length MUST NOT exceed 65% of the wing- or rotor-span”) are not applicable to drones.

If the label states “DO NOT apply by air” or “DO NOT apply by Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)”, you may not use a drone to apply that pesticide. If the label requires a closed cab for ground application, you cannot apply that product by drone unless a similar “closed cab” system is used for the pilot.

In addition, the person who mixes and loads the pesticide must be different from the drone pilot. Mixers and loaders must wear the personal protective equipment (PPE) required for mixer/loaders by the pesticide label, and the drone pilot, visual observers, or anyone handling the drone must wear the PPE required for ground application. 

How well does drone spraying work?

This is where things get complicated. Drone spraying can be a useful and effective application method, but achieving consistent efficacy requires an understanding of some of the factors that make drone applications unique.

Sprayers 101, a non-profit website providing information on agricultural spraying, has several excellent articles focused on pesticide application using drones. I highly recommend their resources! Their article Safe and Effective Pesticide Application using Drones provides an excellent overview of factors to consider before jumping into drone spraying.  

One of the biggest challenges is determining a drone’s effective swath width. A drone’s swath width can vary significantly depending on the drone design, the height and speed of travel, spray droplet size, and weather conditions. The result is that the swath width that gives you adequate pesticide coverage and efficacy may differ from the values reported by manufacturers or determined by spray droplet deposition testing. Calibrating your equipment and measuring swath width under your conditions and spray settings is critical to preventing uneven pesticide coverage.  

Drift is another important consideration. Like with other aerial application methods, drone sprayers can be particularly susceptible to drift if conditions are not suitable. In addition, most spray drones use rotary atomizers, which differ from conventional nozzles. Most conventional nozzles follow an international standard, producing known droplet sizes at given flow rates and pressures. Rotary atomizers, however, are not standardized and may produce larger or smaller droplets than an operator expects. Understanding your equipment and application settings is critical to minimizing the risk of drift.

The bottom line

If you’re thinking of using a spray drone, whether you plan to operate it yourself or hire a custom applicator, make sure you understand the regulatory requirements and application best management practices. Like any spray operation, success with drone spraying depends on taking the time to do it right.  

For anyone interested in learning more, Sprayers 101 has many excellent resources. The articles linked below are a great starting point to learn about pesticide application with drones:

Should I be looking at biologicals to offset high fertilizer costs?

First, let’s clarify what we mean when we’re talking about biological products. This is a broad group that includes both naturally occurring substances (such as humic or fulvic acids, seaweed extracts and enzymes) as well as beneficial microbes (such as nitrogen-fixing bacteria, phosphorus-solubilizing microbes, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and mycorrhizal fungi). These products aren’t fertilizers themselves, but often claim to increase nutrient availability, improve nutrient uptake, improve stress tolerance or support plant growth.

Since high fertilizer prices have prompted some renewed interest in these products, I’ll focus mainly on nitrogen-fixing biologicals.

A quick note on regulation (and why it matters)

In Canada, most of these products are regulated under the Fertilizers Act. That means they must be properly labelled and prove that they are safe, but they do not need to prove efficacy before being sold. This makes replicated, independent research particularly important to test whether a product increases yield or can replace fertilizer under Manitoba conditions.

What has local research found?

Through our Research on the Farm program, MCA has tested a nitrogen-fixing biological product (Envita®) in several replicated, field-scale strip trials. In the eight corn and two spring wheat trials, we did not find a statistically significant yield increase when the nitrogen-fixing biological product was used.

Through their On-Farm Network, our colleagues with Manitoba Pulse and Soybean Growers (MPSG) have also tested many biological products. In 46 trials evaluating a range of microbial and non-microbial products, no statistically significant yield increases have been observed.

That doesn’t mean these products can never work. It does mean that predictable ROI has been hard to find under Manitoba conditions.

Does small‑plot research tell a different story?

Not really.

University and independent research in Western Canada and the North Central United States to date has largely lined up with what MCA and MPSG have found in on-farm trials. There are occasional positive responses, but they’re sporadic and can be hard to predict. For example:

Why are results so inconsistent? Formulation challenges, competition with the native microbial population and environmental differences all influence whether a product will find success. For those interested in learning more on this topic, Andrew McGuire with Washington State University has an interesting article.

So, should you use biologicals to offset high fertilizer costs?

Biologicals are an active area of research, and some products may eventually find a fit in our cropping systems. But based on local on‑farm and small-plot research to date, they are unfortunately not a silver bullet for high fertilizer prices.

If you do want to try a biological product, think about what problem you’re trying to solve. Is it a nutrient deficiency? Are you hoping to mitigate environmental stress? Are you trying to improve your long-term soil health? Consider the product claims, what the active ingredient is and how the product claims to work. Finally, if you do decide to try a product on your farm, I encourage you to consider conducting a replicated strip trial. Replicated strip trials let you test a product on your own farm, with your own management, and give statistically valid results. If you want to learn more about conducting on-farm trials, reach out to us for more information on the MCA Research on the Farm program.

The bottom line: For now, I recommend approaching biologicals with curiosity, caution and solid, on‑farm testing. To ensure you’re making efficient use of your fertilizers, use the 4Rs of nutrient stewardship (the Right Source @ the Right Rate, Right Time, and Right Place®) to guide your decision making, and check out this helpful factsheet on stretching fertilizer dollars and supplies from Manitoba Agriculture.

MCA-funded research at the 2025 Manitoba Agronomists’ Conference

On Dec. 10 and 11, 2025, Manitoba agronomists met to discuss the latest developments in pest, crop and soil management. This year, the conference theme was “From Gaps to Gains: Unlocking Crop Potential.” Much of the research shared at the Manitoba Agronomists’ Conference was funded in part by Manitoba Crop Alliance (MCA). Below is a summary of the posters shared that feature MCA-funded research!

Crop Management

Growing Together: Learnings from Manitoba Spring Wheat YEN Pilot

Andrew Hector, Madison Kostal, Manitoba Crop Alliance; Anne Kirk, Mark Lysack, Manitoba Agriculture

Digging Deeper: Identifying Long-Coleoptile Wheat for Dry Seeding Success

M.K. Carkner, C.A. McCartney, M.H. Entz, University of Manitoba; S. Kumar, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Effect of Preceding Crop and Residue Management on Corn Establishment in Manitoba

Ramona Mohr, Gordon Finlay, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Diffusion-based Dataset Augmentation for Downstream Crop Segmentation

Alex Senden, Masoomeh Gomroki, Robert Gulden, Christopher Henry, University of Manitoba

SOIL MANAGEMENT

Investigating the Effects of Soil Moisture and Temperature on the Transformation of N Fertilizer in Soil

Carlie Johnston, Xiaopeng Gao, Ramona Mohr, Timi Ojo, University of Manitoba; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

The Influence of Nitrogen Stabilizers and Split Fertilizer Application on Agronomic Performance and Mitigation of N2O Emission from Canadian Western Red Spring (CWRS) Wheat

L.H.N. Sawbhagya, B. Sparling, M. Tenuta, University of Manitoba; M. St. Luce, B. May, H. Kubota, B. Beres, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Pest Management

CWRepViT-Net: An Encoder-Decoder Deep Learning Framework with RepViT Blocks for Crop Weed Semantic Segmentation in Soybean Fields through their Life Journey

Masoomeh Gomroki, Dilshan Benaragma, Christopher Henry, Nasem Badreldin, Rob Gulden, University of Manitoba

Bacterial Leaf Streak Transmission Driven by Seed Infection and Irrigation

Vinuri Weerasinghe, Malini Jayawardana, Shaheen Bibi, W.G. Dilantha Fernando, University of Manitoba

For a full list of poster presentations and speakers from the 2025 conference, visit the Manitoba Agronomists’ Conference website

Thank you to the conference partners, the University of Manitoba Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Manitoba Agriculture, for hosting an excellent conference!

Top