No products in the cart.
Busting the Tank Size Myth: Drones vs Boom Sprayers on Irish Farms
Introduction
Ask any farmer in Ireland about drones for spraying and one question comes up straight away:
“How can a drone with a 20-litre tank compete with a boom sprayer that holds hundreds of litres?”
At first glance, bigger looks better. But the facts tell a different story. Modern drone sprayers, though smaller in tank size, often outperform boom sprayers in efficiency, coverage, and cost savings. Let’s break down the myth using real data and independent studies.
Myth 1: “A bigger tank means faster spraying.”
The reality:
A boom sprayer may run longer per fill, but it needs far more liquid per hectare.
Drone sprayers use ultra-low volume (ULV) spraying technology, which cuts water and chemical use dramatically.
In one comparative study, drones used just 27 litres per hectare, while conventional boom and knapsack systems used 490 litres per hectare (Plant Archives, 2020).
That’s a 94% water saving—which means far less tank refilling.
Myth 2: “Boom sprayers cover more ground per day.”
The reality:
Coverage isn’t about tank size—it’s about time per hectare. Independent studies comparing sprayers have shown:
Knapsack sprayer: ~8 hr/ha
Boom sprayer: ~2 hr/ha
Drone sprayers (tested in soybean & wheat): ~20 min/ha (~4 ha/h)
(Source: Future Farming, 2023; PLOS One, 2023)
For the latest generation, the DJI Agras T25 is rated by the manufacturer to cover up to 12 ha/h under standard spraying conditions. While that figure comes from DJI specifications (not yet validated in Irish trials), it highlights how far drone technology has advanced beyond older models.
In Irish fields—where tractors lose time on headland turns and wet soils—drones are already proving they can comfortably outpace ground equipment.
Myth 3: “Smaller tanks mean patchy spraying.”
The reality:
Drone sprayers actually deliver better canopy coverage thanks to their downwash effect (airflow from the propellers).
Droplet density: 29.1 drops/cm² with drones vs 9.3 with knapsack.
Leaf underside coverage: 47% with drones vs 23% with knapsack.
(Source: International Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 2023)
This means crops receive more uniform protection, even in dense or tall crops like cereals, maize, or orchards.
Myth 4: “Boom sprayers are more sustainable.”
The reality:
Boom sprayers consume more fuel, water, and chemicals—making them costlier and less sustainable.
Energy use: Tractor sprayer 365 MJ/ha vs drone 147 MJ/ha.
Carbon emissions: Tractor 41 kg CO₂/ha vs drone 14 kg CO₂/ha.
With tighter EU rules on drift and chemical use, drones give farmers a cleaner, greener option.
The Irish Context: Why This Matters
Field size & layout: Irish farms often have smaller, irregularly shaped fields where turning a boom sprayer is time-consuming and inefficient. Drones thrive in these conditions.
Wet soils: Ground conditions are unpredictable in Ireland, especially in spring and autumn. Heavy tractors risk leaving ruts and compaction, while drones have no ground impact.
Access issues: Steep land, soft headlands, or waterlogged areas can block tractor access. Drones can spray these without damage or delays.
Labour efficiency: Many Irish farms rely on limited labour. Drones reduce spraying time drastically, freeing up hours for other essential work.
Final Verdict
When it comes to spraying, tank size is a distraction.
Boom sprayers carry more liquid, but they waste more in water, chemicals, fuel, and time.
Drones carry less per load, but their precision, speed, and efficiency make every litre count.
Independent studies prove drones can cut water use by over 90%, reduce emissions by two-thirds, and spray fields up to 20 times faster than traditional methods. Modern models like the DJI Agras T25 now reach up to 12 ha/hour, showing how far the technology has advanced.
For Irish farms—where fields are smaller, soils are wetter, and regulations are tightening—drones are not just keeping up with boom sprayers; they are surpassing them in almost every metric that matters: efficiency, sustainability, and profitability.
