Re: Hand feel vs instrumentation: Pros and Cons of Both

[Bill Pogue <irrometer@aol.com>]

In a message dated 12/21/98 10:29:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, owner-
sowacs@aqua.ccwr.ac.za writes:

<< I truly believe instrumentation is the way to go, providing it can compete
 economically and agronomically with the soil-feel method. >>
Many of our customers have used our instruments to "validate" their assessment
of their "feel method".  Others have used their "feel" to validate our
"reading".  The practical fact is that when you do both, IF you are really
diligent in doing both, you likely are better off and better aware.
Everything you have noted as to Pros and Cons are all valid and complete.  And
to be honest, most all of our representatives who spent a good bit of time in
the field always had an Oakfield Probe in the trunk of the car.  But, if you
really want to develop a solid, consistent and repeatable method for
scheduling on a given field over time, I think it is important to have a
record of "measurements" which represent a known relationship to the soil
moisture status in that field, in that crop, in those soil types, in that
micro climate,  and in relationship to that irrigation system.   Use the
measuring devices, use the soil probe, use the ET Model, use the datalogger
and computer if you like, really know your irrigation efficiency and how to
maintain it, and use your knowledge to make sense of all of this.  When you
become successful at this you go a long way towards eliminating the variable
of soil water status and its impact on the value of the crop.  And most of
all, do not forget the value of your footprints in the soil and your shadow on
the ground.  
Regards, Bill Pogue, Irrometer Company Inc.