This kind of thing is why I am a member of NIAB TAG, doing multi year replicated trials. You shouldn't be farming this year based on just last year's results. Who says that the same trial this year wouldn't throw a different result? I doubt it would favour Aviator unless we get a very low disease year and Aviator is reduced in price considerably.
BASF real results - Wheat growers wanted
- Thread starter Clive
- Start date
This kind of thing is why I am a member of NIAB TAG, doing multi year replicated trials. You shouldn't be farming this year based on just last year's results. Who says that the same trial this year wouldn't throw a different result? I doubt it would favour Aviator unless we get a very low disease year and Aviator is reduced in price considerably.
- Location
- Shropshire
Totally agree with this.
It's brilliant from Basf really, they do fake unscientific trials and then get people like Clive to declare that the results of these non trials mean that he is going to base his program on that, rather than either ADHB or NIAB tag replicated multi year scientific trials.
It basically costs them about £300 to get a few farmers to do these non-trials and then a few adverts in the farming press linking to their website.
Clive: what you did last season was interesting and commendable, but it in no way was a plausible scientific trial.
You mean they dont roll their rape stubbles and apply some ferric phosphate? Think of the free cover crop they are missing.
I dont think I will apply for this trial, mainly as we have quite a few trials already and there is a limit to how many I can cope with remembering to turn things on, or off, or add something in, or take something away. But this is by far the best way to find things out rather than using the Yellow Peril for a source of info.
Feldspar
Member
- Location
- Essex, Cambs and Suffolk
Agree with this. One year's result has such a huge error to it that it really doesn't tell you a huge amount. I did a fungicide trial last year on farm; it was interesting, but in no way do I weight it as highly as NIAB TAG type trials data.
Don't know why, @Clive, you don't just join NIAB TAG and save yourself the bother. Are you getting some sort of incentive, financial or otherwise, for promoting this?
When or where did I ever claim it was ?
I went to great pains from the beginning to point out it was no way scientific or replicated etc
But to me it's more relevant than any small plot trial on land I don't farm but I can consider those results as well
I don't trust data from manufacturers as all 3 sdhi manufacturers will I'm sure claim and show results that "prove" they have the best product
I do trust farmers though as they have nothing to sell me when they share experience of one tractor, variety or chemical vs another. It's fundamentally what TFF is all about, farmers sharing information and experience with each other for mutual beinfit
Can you ever have to much information to help you make a decision ?
Last edited:
SilliamWhale
Member
As I was typing I was thinking the same !!
I do of course also look at TAG data etc when making decisions but I still think my trials are more relevant to me
Everything is considered and discussed with my agronomist (who has his own little informal trials on other farms he walks) when I'm making input decisions
As in previous posts no one has ever paid me to do a trial . I have several going on every year and have looked at drills, N rates, fungicides, trace elements, foliur K, biological, seed bed P or N or S, establishment methods, drill dates, seed treatments , row widths etc. ............ so many over the years I've lost count but all have provided me useful data to know what pays on my farm and what doesn't
If nothing else it's interesting !
- Location
- Shropshire
I perhaps drew you into the post as you our very prominent in Basf's advertising.
I'm not really having a go at you, I am having a go at BAsf who appear to be trivialising the whole crop trial industry by asking farmers to do non-scientific trials. What's their next step? Stop putting their products in replicated trials and put them in these Mickey Mouse trials?
Feldspar
Member
- Location
- Essex, Cambs and Suffolk
You can have noise, which is what I think one a single farm trial counts as on its own.
I'm not sure anyone is saying farmer tramline trials are a replacement for more detailed replicated plot work etc
all they are is an additional tool that's there if you want it.............I don't see anyone being forced
we all have different opinions about what data is trustworthy or most relevant to us, for me its a trial done by myself on my soil using my machines and all the un perfect factors that introduces that are unique to my situation
all businesses should invest in their own R&D so why dont many farmers do so ? I love running various trials, as I said in a earlier post if nothing else its interesting (to me anyway !)
certainly seems to be plenty of appetite from farmers to do this - its way oversubscribed already
The amount of meetings Ive been to where the manufacturer rep puts up slide after slide of graphs of replicated plot trials only for people to start saying "well that doesn't mean anything to me, not the same as on my farm". Damned if they do...!
I have to agree with Clive. Whilst replicated small plot trials are vital for the statistical evidence, it could be argued that they have little relevance in a farm situation. A good field-triallist will spray a fungicide in as close to perfect conditions as possible, using a 1.5m boom sprayer with 110/02 flat fans at 200 l/ha, walking speed 1 m/s. Yes it's replicated, but it couldn't be further from how it's going to work in a proper field situation.
ollie989898
Member
It is not distinctly different in essence from replicated trials however. Yes it is field scale and it may or may not be less scientific and the methodology involved might be somewhat constrained to say the least, but the intrinsic flaw is the fact that what is perfectly good in Clive's area with his varieties and surrounding cropping might not suit someone else in a wetter/warmer or conversely area which is far less conductive to disease spread anyway.
National trials, NIAB, ADAS, chem manufacturers, the industry is bombarded by bar graphs about fungicides because it is where the major spend is, and everyone has a toe in the marketplace. To most agronomists and probably most farmers view this all with a pervading sense of 'meh'.
As such, it's up to farmers and agronomists to make the best of it, and make a best case judgement of what to use and how- there are undoubtedly some lucky souls who 'don't get' septoria and so are able to slink along spending 5/8ths of bugger all, and good on them, because in that scenario the claim that using Adexar is automatically going to put money in their pocket if it is used is even more dubious than where the disease is a big issue.
To whit- never underestimate the importance of local knowledge
I would be willing to conduct an impromptu trial on any farm, but I'm not about to go trying to sell a product to the entire country based on what occurred on one unit in the South West- what occurs down here is a far cry from what might occur on a 2000 acre place in the East!
- Location
- Shropshire
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I used to get really angry with manufacturers when I had to sit through slide after slide (or even the modern day equivalent) of trials where in the corner the LSD showed that they were not statistically significant, and therefore irrelevent. Therefore it would be entirely hypocritical in my eyes if I tried to claim these results had relevance.
They don't. It was an interesting thing that Clive did, but it doesn't actually mean anything, and it's wrong that Basf are making it into something it isn't.
I would have slightly more respect for the results if Clive replicated the trial on the same land over the next two years, rotating the areas the different fungicides were applied to. However this would not work as you would be growing second and third wheats, not first wheat like the original scenario.
Im not saying that the scenario isn't interesting, I'm just saying it holds absolutely no scientific merit, and as an agronomist, if you start using results like this over replicated trials, then you are on a slippery slope.
- Location
- Shropshire
Of course it's distinctly different from replicated trials.....it's not replicated!!It is not distinctly different in essence from replicated trials however. Yes it is field scale and it may or may not be less scientific and the methodology involved might be somewhat constrained to say the least, but the intrinsic flaw is the fact that what is perfectly good in Clive's area with his varieties and surrounding cropping might not suit someone else in a wetter/warmer or conversely area which is far less conductive to disease spread anyway.
National trials, NIAB, ADAS, chem manufacturers, the industry is bombarded by bar graphs about fungicides because it is where the major spend is, and everyone has a toe in the marketplace. To most agronomists and probably most farmers view this all with a pervading sense of 'meh'.
As such, it's up to farmers and agronomists to make the best of it, and make a best case judgement of what to use and how- there are undoubtedly some lucky souls who 'don't get' septoria and so are able to slink along spending 5/8ths of bugger all, and good on them, because in that scenario the claim that using Adexar is automatically going to put money in their pocket if it is used is even more dubious than where the disease is a big issue.
To whit- never underestimate the importance of local knowledge
I would be willing to conduct an impromptu trial on any farm, but I'm not about to go trying to sell a product to the entire country based on what occurred on one unit in the South West- what occurs down here is a far cry from what might occur on a 2000 acre place in the East!
However, I do agree that your last paragraph has merit.
Jetemp
Member
- Location
- North Yorkshire
Not sure if you have your 3 tff members to do. I would be willing to run a trial. We have on farm weighbriddge to record samples etc. we're up at the top of North Yorkshire!
James
James
The LSD thing sends me mental, HGCA are the same, new high yielding variety BUT not greater than 1 LSD more than whats on there!
Not got the TTF 3 yet - there has been a lot of applications for the 50 places on the real results site though I'm told
You would be ideal James, register on the BASF site
Jetemp
Member
- Location
- North Yorkshire
Will do clive