Follow up on VR

[ado089]

Hobby, I make my own maps using
elevation so my only extra cost is a
couple extra samples. My problem is
opposite of Craigs where as my land has
alot of high ground the has very little
potential even in wet years so I aim for
20bu/ac on them and put the extra money
towards the well drained solid
performing land. The low spots vary from
year to year spending on the previous
crop but I generally come off my top
rates due to both flooding and in better
years there is just more provided by the
soil.

[blackpowder]

Any thoughts on the system that uses satelite imagery - biomass?
Having some fields with very poor areas. Solonetzic eg. Would consider only 2 or 3 rates and vary the bander blend only? Pay for itself? maybe just?
Just hate putting $85 on an acre that can use half or less.

[ado089]

I'm not a fan of them. I find they tell
you that there is a problem but give
little insight to what or why and don't
distinguish between areas that can be
fixed or just need to be ignored. Most
guys I know that have had a bad
experience with VR comes from satellite.
My first cheaper or self starter, choice
would be topo with a water model. Veris
or em-38 is well worth the money if
you're serious.

[craig]

On my land we have found satellite and EM 38 give us almost the same zone map.Satellite imagery is dependant on getting the right image on what you would consider normal. ( not to wet and not to dry). We ground truth with our experience over time.