Eye on KELOLAND: Drones in agriculture
'I can do fertilizers,' Derek Ver Helst, owner of Dakota Unmanned Aerial, said about what he can deliver with his drone. 'I can do pesticides, and I can do also cover crops where I do seeding within, interseeding within crops, or I can do seeding within pastures or different kinds of things, just to get more kinds of species out there, diversify pastures, get more productivity out of those pastures and better feed quality for our cattle.'
Ver Helst, who lives in the Brandt, S.D. area, has been spraying Gary Bandemer's land with a drone for a couple years, and Bandemer appreciates the precision.
'What I really like about it is he gets the spots that an airplane or a helicopter can't get,' Bandemer said. 'You get in the corners of the pasture, real steep slopes and stuff, and it just does a better job.'
Documents shed light on pair of shootings & wounded Police officer
Bandemer farms corn and soybeans east of Toronto in eastern South Dakota. Ver Helst's spraying, he explains, is considerably more efficient than if he would spray.
'I'd take my four-wheeler out to spray … it takes you two, three days, where he can come just do it in a day or less,' Bandemer said.
Ver Helst does his work in Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota in addition to South Dakota.
'I've done some pasture spraying for Gary in the past couple years,' Ver Helst said. 'We were targeting bull and Canadian thistles, so taking care of invasive species. So, a lot of my spraying is in pastures looking at thistles and leafy spurge are some of the big ones that I'm after.'
'Optimization means use your resources, and the question is how can I do it better,' South Dakota State University researcher and professor Ali Nafchi said. 'Just little better and better and better, and the compound effect of this little by little by little would be huge.'
Nearby at SDSU, Nafchi says drones allow for just that.
'I know I'm going to spray, but when,' Nafchi said. 'But where. Drones have answers for those questions for me.'
While in the area, a visitor might also meet Brady Hauswedell, who lives south of Toronto. His work with a drone highlights the technology's value in providing a unique view.
'The drone has been a very valuable tool for us in order to measure these differences because sometimes to the naked eye it might not look like a big difference until you're able to put it through a computer program,' Hauswedell said.
It all allows him to evaluate the impact of, for example, a fertilizer.
'With measuring the differences, it's usually the color of, like, how green a plant is or how much leaf surface is in an image,' Hauswedell said. 'That's how it's specifically seeing those differences.'
A drone might at first look a bit out of place in rural America. But, after all, there was a time when even a combine would have looked futuristic. Now, drones are another way farmers can do their essential work.
'One of those tools that they have in their back pocket to continue to provide fiber and food for everyone in the world,' Ver Helst said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
The Limits of Recognition
On a prominent ridge in the center of Toronto stands a big stone castle. Built in the early 20th century, Casa Loma is now a popular venue for weddings and parties. The castle is flanked by some of the city's priciest domestic real estate. It is not, in short, the kind of site that usually goes unpoliced. On May 27, Casa Loma was booked for a fundraiser by the Abraham Global Peace Initiative, a pro-Israel advocacy group. The gathering was to be addressed by Gilad Erdan, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and United States. A crowd of hundreds formed opposite the castle. They temporarily overwhelmed police lines, closing the street to the castle entrance. Protesters accosted and insulted individual attendees. One attendee, a former Canadian senator now in his 90s, told me about being pushed and jostled as police looked on. Eventually, two arrests were made, one for assaulting a police officer and the other for assaulting an attendee. Last year, the city of Toronto averaged more than one anti-Jewish incident a day, accounting for 40 percent of all reported hate crimes in Canada's largest city. Jewish neighborhoods, Jewish hospitals, and Jewish places of worship have been the scenes of demonstrations by masked persons bearing flags and chanting hostile slogans. Gunmen fired shots at a Toronto Jewish girls' school on three nights last year. A synagogue in Montreal was attacked with firebombs in late 2024. On Saturday, an assailant beat a Jewish man in a Montreal park in front of his children. David Frum: There is no right to bully and harass Canadian governments—federal, provincial, municipal—of course want to stop the violence. But their inescapable (if often unsayable) dilemma is that many of those same governments depend on voters who are sympathetic to the motives of the violent. Canadian authorities of all kinds have become frightened of important elements in their own populations. Just this week, the Toronto International Film Festival withdrew its invitation to a Canadian film about the invasion of southern Israel on October 7, 2023. The festival's statement cited legal concerns, including the fear that by incorporating footage that Hamas fighters filmed of their atrocities without ' legal clearance,' the film violated Hamas's copyright. (In polite Canada, it seems that even genocidal terrorists retain their intellectual-property claims.) Another and more plausible motive cited by the festival: fear of 'potential threat of significant disruption.' A small group of anti-Israel protesters invaded the festival's gala opening in 2024. The legal violations have been larger and more flagrant this year. All of this forms the backdrop necessary to understand why the Canadian government has joined the British and French governments in their intention to recognize a Palestinian state. The plan began as a French diplomatic initiative. In July, France and Saudi Arabia co-chaired a United Nations conference on the two-state solution. Days before the conference began, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that his nation would recognize a Palestinian state in September. The French initiative was almost immediately seconded by the British government. Canada quickly followed. This week, Australia added its weight to the group. Anti-Jewish violence has been even more pervasive and aggressive in Australia than in Canada, including the torching of a Sydney day-care center in January. (Germany declined to join the French initiative but imposed a limited arms embargo on Israel.) All four governments assert that their plan offers no concessions to Hamas. All four insist that a hypothetical Palestinian state must be disarmed, must exclude Hamas from any role in governance, must renounce terrorism and incitement, and must accept Israel's right to exist. Those conditions often got omitted in media retellings, but they are included in all the communiqués with heavy emphasis. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters on July 30: 'Canada reiterates that Hamas must immediately release all hostages taken in the horrific terrorist attack of October 7, that Hamas must disarm, and that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine.' All those must s make these plans impossible to achieve, from the outset. How do the French, British, Canadian, and Australian governments imagine them being enforced, and by whom? Even now, after all this devastation, Hamas remains the most potent force in Palestinian politics. A May survey by a Palestinian research group, conducted in cooperation with the Netherland Representative Office in Ramallah, reported that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians reject the idea that Hamas's disarmament is a path to ending the war in Gaza, and a plurality said they would vote for a Hamas-led government. Observers might question the findings from Gaza, where Hamas can still intimidate respondents, but those in the West Bank also rejected the conditions of France, Britain, Canada, and Australia. What does recognition mean anyway? Of UN member states, 147 already recognize a state of Palestine, including the economic superpowers China and India; regional giants such as Brazil, Indonesia, and Nigeria; and the European Union member states of Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Sweden. About half of those recognitions date back to 1988, when Yasser Arafat proclaimed Palestinian independence from his exile in Algiers after the Israeli military drove Arafat's organization out of the territory it had occupied in Lebanon. Such diplomatic niceties do not alter realities. States are defined by control of territory and population. In that technical sense, Hamas in Gaza has proved itself to be more like a state than has the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Even the mighty United States learned that lesson the hard way over the 22 years from 1949 to 1971, when Washington pretended that the Nationalist regime headquartered in Taipei constituted the legitimate government of mainland China. Macron, Carney, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are savvy, centrist politicians. All regard themselves as strong friends of Israel. Starmer in particular has fought hard to purge his Labour Party of the anti-Semitic elements to whom the door was opened by his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. If they're investing their prestige in a seemingly futile gesture, they must have good reason. They do. All four men lead political coalitions that are fast turning against Israel. Pressure is building on the leaders to vent their supporters' anger, and embracing the French initiative creates a useful appearance of action. The Canadian example is particularly stark. Prime Minister Carney has pivoted in many ways from the progressive record of his predecessor, Justin Trudeau. He canceled an increase in the capital-gains tax that Trudeau had scheduled. He dropped from the cabinet a housing minister who had championed a major government-led building program. (The program remains, but under leadership less beholden to activists.) Carney has committed to a major expansion of the Canadian energy sector after almost a decade of dissension between energy producers and Ottawa. The new Carney government is also increasing military spending. Many on the Canadian left feel betrayed and frustrated. Recognizing a Palestinian state is a concession that may appease progressives irked by Carney's other moves toward the political center. But appeasement will not work. In the Middle East, the initiative by France, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom has already pushed the region away from stability, not toward it. Cease-fire talks with Hamas 'fell apart' on the day that Macron declared his intent to recognize a Palestinian state, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Hamas then released harrowing photographs of starved Israeli hostages, one shown digging his own grave. Embarrassed pro-recognition leaders had to deliver a new round of condemnations of Hamas at the very moment they were trying to pressure Israel to abandon its fight against Hamas. Nor does the promise of Palestinian recognition seem to be buying the four leaders the domestic quiet they had hoped for. On Sunday, British police arrested more than 500 people for demonstrating in support of a pro-Palestine group proscribed because of its acts of violence against British military installations. Those arrests amounted to the largest one-day total in the U.K. in a decade. Hours before Prime Minister Albanese's statement promising recognition, some 90,000 pro-Palestinian demonstrators blocked traffic on Sydney Harbour Bridge. Their organizers issued four demands—recognition was not one of them. 'What we marched for on Sunday, and what we've been protesting for two years, is not recognition of a non-existent Palestinian state that Israel is in the process of wiping out,' a group leader told CNN. 'What we are demanding is that the Australian government sanction Israel and stop the two-way arms trade with Israel.' On August 6, 60 anti-Israel protesters mobbed the private residence of former Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly, banging pots and projecting messages onto her Montreal dwelling—an action especially provocative because Canadian cabinet ministers are not normally protected by personal security detachments. The present foreign minister, Anita Anand, had to close her constituency office in Oakville, a suburb of Toronto, because of threats to the staff who worked there. From the December 2024 issue: My hope for Palestine The issue for protesters is Israel, not Palestine. During the Syrian civil war, more than 3,000 Palestinian refugees in the country were killed by Syrian government forces, hundreds of them by torture. Nobody blocked the Sydney Harbour Bridge over that. It's Israel's standing as a Western-style state that energizes the movement against it and that is unlikely to change no matter what shifts in protocol Western governments adopt. After all, on October 6, 2023, Gaza was functionally a Palestinian state living alongside Israel. If the pro-Palestinian groups in the West had valued that status, they should have reacted to October 7 with horror, if nothing else for the existential threat that the attacks posed to any Palestinian state-building project. Instead, many in the pro-Palestinian diaspora—and even at the highest levels of Palestinian official life—applauded the terror attacks with jubilant anti-Jewish enthusiasm. The chants of 'from the river to the sea' heard at these events reveal something important about the pro-Palestinian movement in the democratic West. The slogan expresses an all-or-nothing fantasy: either the thrilling overthrow of settler colonialism in all the land of Palestine, or else the glorious martyrdom of the noble resistance. It's not at all clear that ordinary Palestinians actually living in the region feel the same way. The exact numbers fluctuate widely depending on how the question is framed, but at least a significant minority—and possibly a plurality—of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would accept coexistence with Israel if that acceptance brought some kind of state of their own. But their supporters living in the West can disregard such trade-offs. They can exult in the purity of passion and still enjoy a comfortable life in a capitalist democracy. These are the people that Albanese, Carney, Macron, and Starmer are trying so desperately to satisfy. They are unlikely to succeed. The Hamas terror attacks of October 7 provoked a war of fearsome scale. Almost two years later, the region is almost unrecognizable. Tens of thousands have been killed, and much of Gaza laid to ruin. Almost every known leader of Hamas is dead. Hezbollah has been broken as a military force. The Assad regime in Syria has been toppled and replaced. The United States directly struck Iran, and the Iranian nuclear program seems to have been pushed years backward, if not destroyed altogether. In this world upended, the creative minds of Western diplomacy have concluded that the best way forward is to revert to the Oslo peace process of 30 years ago. The Oslo process ended when the Palestinian leadership walked away from President Bill Clinton's best and final offer without making a counteroffer—and gambled everything on the merciless terrorist violence of the Second Intifada. Now here we are again, after another failed Palestinian terror campaign, and there is only one idea energizing Western foreign ministries: That thing that failed before? Let's try it one more time. But this time, the hope is not to bring peace to the Middle East. They hope instead to bring peace to their own streets. The undertaking is a testament either to human perseverance, or to the eternal bureaucratic faith in peace through fog.
Black America Web
17 hours ago
- Black America Web
Tory Lanez's Appeal To Add Alleged New Evidence In Megan Thee Stallion Shooting Case Denied California Court of Appeals
Source: Getty Images / Tory Lanez / Megan Thee Stallion Welp, Tory Lanez just suffered another L in his effort to get out of jail. Canadian Yosemite Sam, aka Tory Lanez, attempts to overturn parts of his convictions and prison sentence for shooting Megan Thee Stallion have crashed and burned after the California Court of Appeals denied them. Everyone's new favorite legal journalist, Meghann Cuniff, reported that the California Court of Appeals rejected a significant portion of Lanez's appeal, seeking to add new evidence, on Tuesday, August 13. Lanez's legal team sought habeas petitions to add alleged new evidence, including his driver's failure to testify and a new statement from Kelsey Harris's security guard. Both were denied. We care about your data. See our privacy policy. While this is a massive blow to Lanez and his efforts to get out of jail, his main appeal will still move forward; he and his legal team will have to prove his case without that so-called new evidence. This is also the latest legal issue Lanez has faced. He was also ordered to pay Megan Thee Stallion's legal fees due to his unruly behavior, where he was disrespectful to lawyers questioning during a deposition. The reactions to these latest developments hit the timeline swiftly, with the Hotties taking the moment to laugh at the rapper/singer, real name Daystar Peterson, current plight. ' Patchy head Tory Lanez appeal DENIED (laughing emoji) that l0ser staying where he belongs…another win for Megan,' one post on X, formerly Twitter, read. Lanez's fans and his dad can't blame Roc Nation for this either. You can see more reactions to Tory Lanez taking another legal loss in the gallery below. Tory Lanez's Appeal To Add Alleged New Evidence In Megan Thee Stallion Shooting Case Denied California Court of Appeals was originally published on
The Hill
21 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's tariffs are forcing Canada to address its money laundering problem
On July 31, the Trump administration announced that it would raise tariffs on Canadian imports to 35 percent, citing Canada's failure to meaningfully address the growing use of its territory by fentanyl traffickers. Canada's response has been fractured. Federal officials called for renewed dialogue, while Ontario Premier Doug Ford demanded retaliatory tariffs. If that sounds like an overreaction from the U.S., it's not. It's a reaction to a real and mounting problem: Cartels are using Canada — not in theory, but in practice. Fentanyl super-labs have been discovered in British Columbia. Precursor chemicals from China are entering Canadian ports before making their way into domestic markets or rerouted across the U.S. border. The numbers are still small compared to the southern border. Fentanyl seizures along the northern corridor comprise less than 1 percent of total U.S. interdictions, but they're rising. And while the raw volume was low, the potency was not. According to White House estimates, the fentanyl seized from Canada in the past year was sufficient to kill more than 9 million Americans. The question isn't whether Canada is the dominant trafficking route. It's whether it's increasingly being utilized. And it is. The reason is structural. Canada has long been exploited by criminal networks due to regulatory blind spots, fragmented enforcement and opaque corporate formation laws. Canada is notorious for money-laundering through real estate. Trade-based money laundering schemes are commonly exploited. And bribery and corruption have long been identified as a substantial money-laundering risk. Canada, for too long, has treated organized crime as a localized public safety issue, not a transnational finance and border security risk. The Trump administration's tariff spike isn't just a trade war headline. It's part of a broader strategy of nation-level accountability. Venezuela's Cartel de los Soles, a state-embedded trafficking network directly linked to the Maduro regime, was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity under expanded fentanyl authorities just days before the action against Canada. Mexico has not been spared, either. In February, the U.S. imposed 25 percent fentanyl-linked tariffs on Mexican imports, citing the government's failure to curb cartel flows. In July, those tariffs were scheduled to increase to 30 percent. Although Mexico negotiated a temporary reprieve, committing additional National Guard resources to its northern border in February, the escalation framework remains in place. The goal is not symbolic but structural. Pressure the sovereign, disrupt the enabler. Canada now finds itself in that same pressure chamber. Unlike Venezuela, it is a U.S. ally and a U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement partner. But those relationships don't exempt governments from consequences. Canada's fentanyl enforcement effort has been reactive, fragmented and, until very recently, deeply under-resourced. That posture changed the moment the 35 percent tariff went live. To its credit, Ottawa has shown that it is willing to act with urgency. The newly announced border security initiative includes enhanced lab detection infrastructure, dual-nation strike teams and an aggressive crackdown on shell entities used to obscure cross-border fund flows. These moves are overdue. In 2024, Canada's two largest banks, Royal Bank of Canada and TD Bank, were at the center of major anti-money laundering failures. Royal Bank of Canada's U.S. subsidiary, City National Bank, was fined $65 million for violating the Bank Secrecy Act, while TD admitted in U.S. federal court to allowing over $650 million in suspected fentanyl proceeds to flow through its accounts. TD paid a $3 billion penalty and agreed to oversight by a government-appointed monitor. Regulators called the sector's anti-money laundering risk ' under-appreciated,' exposing deep structural gaps that persisted until the failures became too large to ignore. None of this is partisan. None of this is rhetorical. It is structural enforcement built around financial leverage, and it reflects a doctrine that has quietly reshaped the American approach to trafficking: Drug routes are no longer just a law enforcement issue. They are a sovereign accountability issue. The tools of response — tariffs, sanctions, financial denial mechanisms — reflect that shift. Canada's economy isn't the target. Its vulnerabilities are. But if they remain unaddressed, the economic impact will be severe. Trade penalties will expand. Correspondent banks will de-risk. Investment flows will hesitate. And trust — financial, diplomatic and regulatory — will erode. The Canadian government has a narrow window to solidify enforcement credibility. That means closing anti-money laundering loopholes, coordinating proactively with U.S. agencies, and enacting a serious national strategy against transnational organized crime. Not just speeches. Not just appointees. Results. Because fentanyl isn't waiting. Neither are the traffickers. And neither, apparently, is the Trump administration.
