Abstract Adopting targeted herbicide applications creates a dynamic problem for producers when considering the economic viability of See 16. 6% vs. 5. 1%]. Lower sensitivity settings tended to detect less weed area than higher settings (5. 1% at the lowest setting, 9% at the medium setting, and 15. 8% at the highest setting). On average, producers needed to spend >27 ha −1 on herbicides in a single application with See & Spray Premium and >39 ha −1 with See & Spray Ultimate to economically justify using the technology over a broadcast sprayer. Results indicate that differences in targeted herbicide cost requirements to break even were within 1–2 ha −1 across regions and within a crop and technology. Ways to improve areas sprayed with targeted applications, factors to consider before application, and insights on ensuring producers’ profitability when adopting this technology are highlighted.
Avent et al. (Sat,) studied this question.