Initially, I bought it to variable rate apply PGRs for cotton, with the option of using it for other crops like corn and wheat as well. Had been buying two to three sets of aerial imagery per year to generate variable rate PGR prescriptions and felt that we could use GreenSeeker and get the images anytime we wanted, without messing with planes and worrying about cloud cover.

It was pretty easy to install. We got help from the manufacturer’s representative on the first one, and the next two we did ourselves. We modified a couple brackets to help with the fit on our boom.

Support has been very good. Anytime we had a problem, we had good support and fast callbacks.

I was able to train my operators. It is relatively simple. It is much easier than loading a Rx on a card and getting it to a driver in the field and then uploading it to a monitor, etc. With GreenSeeker, we turn it on, take a few readings and go. I have three to four different drivers and they like it better than aerial-based prescriptions, because they don’t have to wait for me to get the Rx delivered to the field.

Yes, it did exactly what we wanted. We have not yet used it to its full potential and will do more with it in the future. We are still learning new ways to use it on different crops.

For cotton, we have become more efficient in our use of PGRs. We can identify areas that are not performing as expected and compare those areas to our yield data, and try and address what is wrong. The biggest thing is the ease of use — it way more efficient (than aerial imagery). There is no waiting. When you want to go spray, you just go spray. We have compared aerial imagery with GreenSeeker imagery and they are very similar.

Yes, it has saved us money on chemical inputs and has cut application time down because with GreenSeeker variable rate we stretch loads out further. In cotton, getting the right amount of defoliant on rank (high-vigor) areas allows us to harvest more efficiently because the leaves are off and the bolls are more open as compared to what we would have with a flat-rate program.

It turned out that we could track our crop progress throughout the year much better with GreenSeeker than aerial imagery because of more images and better timing. We took GreenSeeker images every time we made a pass with insecticides. We also were able to identify drainage problems and stressed areas early so we could scout them for solutions. We got way more images each season, so we knew when the best time to apply PGR was. We have also used the first-pass defoliant GreenSeeker data to build the second pass Rx (2-pass approach)

If you’re presently buying imagery for cotton production, then GreenSeeker is a no-brainer. It is more efficient, there are no in-field holdups (waiting for prescriptions to arrive) and you have better timing of application overall. Compared to aerial imagery, you will be well pleased.

Looking forward to expanding GreenSeeker knowledge into new areas of use and into new crops. There is potential for soybean images, and scouting low-vigor areas for diseases like rust and insect pressure.