Field validation studies were conducted in seven Mississippi environments at three application timings to confirm postemergence (POST) recommendations generated by the computer herbicide decision aids HERB and SWC. HERB and SWC agreed on herbicide treatments in only 14% of the location–application timing combinations. Weed scientists involved in the study agreed on treatment recommendations approximately 33% of the time. The HERB model agreed with a faculty member on only one herbicide treatment, while the SWC model was slightly more agreeable in this regard. Subsequent weed flushes, varied production practices, and delayed weed emergence accounted for a majority of the underestimated predictions given by HERB. Only 55% of the predicted values presented for estimated weed control ratings were similar to actual weed control ratings. Over 75% of the predictions that differed from actual weed control values were underpredictions. Recommendations from both computer models were effective in reducing yield loss below that of the untreated check, and recommendations from the HERB model generally improved yield more than those from the SWC model in most instances. HERB and SWC predictions of yield losses with no weed control were not significantly different from the actual yield loss from the untreated check in nine of the 12 instances at Starkville, seven of the 12 instances at Brooksville, six of the 12 instances at Newton, and three of the six instances at Hollandale. The HERB model estimated yield loss similar to that of the actual yield loss 83% of the time, while predictions from the SWC model were accurate 76% of the time. HERB overestimated yield loss in six of 21 application timing–experiment combinations and underestimated yield loss only once. Yield loss was overpredicted as high as 78%. SWC overpredicted yield loss in five of 21 instances and also underestimated in five instances. SWC did not overpredict yield loss to the same magnitude as HERB in many instances.