Description
This solution involves mounting cameras and software on existing sprayers. The cameras monitor weed presence in real time, and nozzles are automatically switched off when the weed density is below a predefined threshold. As a result, only areas with significant weed pressure are sprayed, reducing unnecessary herbicide use.
Explanation
The method has shown a potential herbicide reduction of up to 43%, as demonstrated in Norwegian trials. A key advantage is that it can be retrofitted to existing sprayers, provided they have ISOBUS connectivity, making it a cost-effective and scalable solution.
Advantages
• Can significantly reduce herbicide use by targeting only weed-infested areas.
• Easy to use once the cameras and software are installed. Spraying is conducted as usual, with minimal disruption to standard operations.
• Reduced herbicide application leads to environmental benefits such as improved biodiversity and lower risk of pollution.
Drawbacks
• Herbicide application must be separated from applications of fungicides or plant growth regulators, limiting spray combinations.
• ISOBUS compatibility is required.
• Not compatible with companion cropping, which may limit use in some farming systems.
• No direct environmental drawbacks identified, though limitations related to companion crops could indirectly affect ecological diversity in integrated systems.
Technical Aspects
• Technical readiness:
High. The technology is commercially available and primarily designed for cereal production. However, it is still not widely adopted in practice.
• Ease and efficiency of implementation:
Easy to implement when technical requirements (such as ISOBUS compatibility) are met. While the system can detect individual weeds, its efficiency is context-dependent, influenced by local conditions such as weed flora and density. These factors should be carefully evaluated before making an investment.
• Need for training and education:
The system can generally be operated following the manufacturer’s instructions, with no need for extensive additional training.
• Need for investments:
The system costs starting from around €50,000. The return on investment depends on the actual herbicide savings and possible yield improvements.
Policy Recommendations
Subsidies, demonstration activities, and cooperation between farmers can help accelerate adoption. Shared learning and on-farm trials are especially valuable to confirm herbicide savings and system performance under local conditions.
Economic Analysis
The farm appears to be too small to absorb the cost of this investment, especially given the relatively modest reduction in herbicide use—only 13% on average. As such, the economic viability of the technology is limited for smaller farms under current conditions.
Social Analysis
The traffic light score reflects a relatively positive social impact, highlighting a generally favourable perception of the technology. Farmers interviewed emphasized the potential benefits for the local network, including entrepreneurs and service providers working with precision technology. They also noted that environmentally focused initiatives like this are likely to be viewed positively by consumers. However, high investment costs may limit uptake, particularly among smaller-scale farmers.
Social Analysis Percentage
67.10
Social Analysis Color
green
Environmental Analysis
The environmental impact is also relatively positive. The technology contributes to improved soil health and reduces greenhouse gas emissions through more efficient spraying. The decreased herbicide use also supports enhanced biodiversity, even if the overall gains remain moderate.
Environmental Analysis Percentage
63.46
Environmental Analysis Color
green