Louis Mc
Member
- Location
- Meath, Ireland
Surely there must be some real results at this stage??
Is it just me or is there very little talk about the BASF real results trials??
- Thread starter Louis Mc
- Start date
I doubt they have had all the yield maps back yet. I sent mine in about a week and a half ago and I think they will likely wait until they have all data processed before publication.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Last date to send the grab samples from plots and grain samples is today. I only sent them in earlier this week. So presume that as there are quite a number of farmers participating this year there will be a longer period to check data is correct and process. It is much easier when there is only one farm! Patience.
SilliamWhale
Member
Are you sworn to secrecy?
No I don’t think so. I haven’t been asked to sign anything at all regarding the trial so as far as I’m concerned I’m still a free agent!
To be completely honest I haven’t had chance to look at the yield map other than to see that it had recorded the yield data before sending it off.
Ok, after a quick play around with the map here is my VERY SUBJECTIVE PREDICTION for yield results on my field.
Lowest yields will be from Aviator Xpro.
Next I would say is very close to call between Ascra Xpro + Bravo and Adexar + Bravo but I would guess that Adexar probably has the edge.
I would say Elatus Era + Bravo was highest yielding.
So yield wise I'm going:
4th- Aviator Xpro
3rd- Ascra Xpro + Bravo
2nd Adexar + Bravo
1st Elatus Era + Bravo
Just to put the above into perspective there may well be a danger that I am just trying to convince myself that I made the right choice for the majority of my T2 as I chose to mainly use Elatus Era.
From what I was quoted for on the chemicals when I was weighing up what I would to do for T2 the mixes would have cost me:
Aviator Xpro = £33.40/Ha
Ascra Xpro + Bravo = £47.35
Elatus Era + Bravo = £45.35
Adexar + Bravo = £44.45
At £13.95/Ha between the cheapest and the most expensive programs it looks to me like the more expensive programs will have delivered the well over the extra 110kg/ha yield to more than cover their extra cost. I think the margin results will mirror the yield results.
If Syngenta's claimed increased drought tolerance from using Elatus Era is correct (it was a major factor in me choosing to use it elsewhere) then this years growing season will have suited its strengths on this farm, this year and may go some way to explain my predicted results.
Tin hat and flack jacket on!
Disclaimer: No scientific or statistical analyses has taken place in the production of this post. All the data quoted may be subject to revision and no warranty is given as to its accuracy. Your home may be at risk if you do not keep up repayments.
Lowest yields will be from Aviator Xpro.
Next I would say is very close to call between Ascra Xpro + Bravo and Adexar + Bravo but I would guess that Adexar probably has the edge.
I would say Elatus Era + Bravo was highest yielding.
So yield wise I'm going:
4th- Aviator Xpro
3rd- Ascra Xpro + Bravo
2nd Adexar + Bravo
1st Elatus Era + Bravo
Just to put the above into perspective there may well be a danger that I am just trying to convince myself that I made the right choice for the majority of my T2 as I chose to mainly use Elatus Era.
From what I was quoted for on the chemicals when I was weighing up what I would to do for T2 the mixes would have cost me:
Aviator Xpro = £33.40/Ha
Ascra Xpro + Bravo = £47.35
Elatus Era + Bravo = £45.35
Adexar + Bravo = £44.45
At £13.95/Ha between the cheapest and the most expensive programs it looks to me like the more expensive programs will have delivered the well over the extra 110kg/ha yield to more than cover their extra cost. I think the margin results will mirror the yield results.
If Syngenta's claimed increased drought tolerance from using Elatus Era is correct (it was a major factor in me choosing to use it elsewhere) then this years growing season will have suited its strengths on this farm, this year and may go some way to explain my predicted results.
Tin hat and flack jacket on!
Disclaimer: No scientific or statistical analyses has taken place in the production of this post. All the data quoted may be subject to revision and no warranty is given as to its accuracy. Your home may be at risk if you do not keep up repayments.
Last edited:
- Location
- Essex/Herts Border
Louis Mc
Member
- Location
- Meath, Ireland
Sound advice in any thread
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Was there not a no spray control plot?
Also its needs to more than cover its cost to the tune of 3 times.
Those are not the questions this trial is trying to answer.
It is comparing 4 different T2 fungicide treatments and trying to find out which gave the highest margin.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
A " no spray" may have been the highest margin.
It may have been but it wasn’t what I was asked to do. I wouldn’t have been comfortable leaving 2 full tramlines untreated and probably wouldn’t have been part of the trial if they had asked me to do that. A small spray miss in another field says I’m glad I didn’t miss out the T2 spray.
I’m going to guess that’s fully untreated rather than just leaving the T2 out?
For the trial I was told to treat the field as I would normally except for the T2 timing.
So the trial field had a late T0 of 1.6L/Ha Timpani (Teb + CTL) which I had hope to avoid but I found a few yellow rust foci which I didn’t want to leave to fester.
T1 was 0.9L Epoxi + 1L CTL.
T2 was as requested for the trial.
T3 was 1L Teb.
On what I said about the return on investment. I have only looked at the yield map, not split the individual treatments into blocks. There are 3 treatments of roughly the same cost and one significantly cheaper one. I could see that the cheaper treatment looked to have a lower yield so did a quick calculation to see if the reduced spend would compensate for that in terms of margin. But I think that even just looking at the yield map I can see that the loss of output will be significantly greater that the saving on chemical spending. (Had I used a more robust T1 this may not have been the case or but given the season I very much doubt it.) Proper analysing of the data will quantify that properly, but for that we will have to wait.
yes fully untreated, obviously mad to do that commercially but an interesting small scale trial.
Thinking of full yield mapping. How reliable will that be to show differences between treatments?
not worried about total accuracy as we have weighbridge to do field yields or calibrate yield meter on combine.
Thinking of full yield mapping. How reliable will that be to show differences between treatments?
not worried about total accuracy as we have weighbridge to do field yields or calibrate yield meter on combine.
Have a look at the link below ADAS are looking at new way to analyse yield maps to make on farm tramline scale trials easier and more effective.
http://www.adas.uk/News/agronōmics-new-digital-techniques-for-farm-based-research
cornpicker
Member
We are holding a conference for the 50 participants in the trial at the end of November. We have some results in but are still waiting for many to be submitted by the growers, we have allowed growers to concentrate on their autumn workload but would appreciate anyone who has not yet submitted their results to do so on the first wet day available. We would like to present to each grower a report about their trial at the conference, so we don't really want to steal anyone's thunder by announcing the results now. Be assured there will be plenty of commentary once the conference has been held.
My report had this statement in it:
“This report summarises the disease and yield results obtained from your trial; please do not share these results beyond your farm business and agronomist.”
Take from that what you like, let’s just say I wasn’t surprised by the results.
“This report summarises the disease and yield results obtained from your trial; please do not share these results beyond your farm business and agronomist.”
Take from that what you like, let’s just say I wasn’t surprised by the results.