Drone releasing a wide mist of spray over a dense tree canopy

The evidence

Less water, less time, less exposure.

In a 2025 field study, researchers sprayed the same wheat farms by drone and by tractor boom, at the same pesticide dose. The drone used 97% less water and 60% less energy per hectare, and cut spraying time by 70%.

See the numbers Meet the Q100P

The study

Drone vs tractor boom, per hectare

Four measures from the study, side by side: water, spraying time, emissions and energy.

Tractor-boom and drone spraying compared, per hectare (Safaeinejad et al., PLOS One, 2025)
Measure	Tractor boom	Drone	Change with the drone
Water per hectare	300 litres	10 litres	97% less
Spraying time per hectare	30 minutes	9 minutes	70% less
Emissions per hectare	41.3 kg of CO₂ equivalent	14.5 kg of CO₂ equivalent	65% less
Energy per hectare	365 megajoules	147 megajoules	60% less

0

people walking through the spray. The pilot stays at the field edge, out of the spray.
~30%^M

less chemical, thanks to fine centrifugal atomisation.
Early morning & late afternoon

flying in the cool, still hours when spraying works best and heat stress on workers is lowest.

These three points are ours, not results from the study. ^M = the manufacturer’s rating.

Source: Safaeinejad et al., PLOS One (2025), field trials on wheat farms in Lorestan, Iran (doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323779 (opens in a new tab)). A single-site study; results in Ghana will vary by crop and field. We’ll publish our own numbers as our flight log grows.

On the farm

What that means on a farm

Those numbers come from one study. Here is what the Q100P itself brings to your fields.

Drone flying low over a green field with spray falling beneath its rear rotors

Consistent coverage, at a pace no crew can match on foot

The manufacturer rates the Q100P at up to ~26 ha/h^M. Real-world coverage depends on your crop, field shape and dose.
Nobody walks through the spray

The pilot stays at the field edge, out of the spray, and keeps the drone in sight.
Steady over uneven ground

Terrain following, rated up to 45°^M, holds a steady height over uneven ground.
Fast charging in the field

A fast charging station keeps batteries cycling and cool all day in the field, and two smart batteries are hot-⁠swapped between flights.
RTK precision

RTK positioning keeps flight lines accurate, and two years of RTK service are included.
One airframe, four jobs

The same drone sprays, spreads granular inputs, carries loads and surveys fields, so it can stay busy through the growing season.

^M = the manufacturer’s rating. Real-world results depend on crop, field shape and dose.

See the Q100P Explore the field kit

About the study

Where the numbers come from

Safaeinejad et al. compared drone and tractor-⁠boom spraying in field trials on wheat farms in Lorestan, Iran, published in PLOS One in 2025. It is one study at one site, so read it as a guide, not a promise.

Same farms, same dose

Both methods sprayed the same herbicide at the same dose per hectare, on the same farms and under the same conditions.
A 16 m tractor boom

The conventional sprayer was a 16 m boom, driven by the tractor’s power take-off.
A small trial

One 1-hectare plot per sprayer and three repetitions, between April and June 2024.
What it leaves out

The time figure is spraying time only: the study counted the same labour for both methods. Battery disposal was not counted.

Reference

Safaeinejad M, Ghasemi-Nejad-Raeini M, Taki M. “Reducing energy and environmental footprint in agriculture: A study on drone spraying vs. conventional methods.” PLOS One 20(6): e0323779 (2025).

Read the paper