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.
OK. great and !!! Delaying only adds suspicion to the results !!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.
Oh my days, I'm afraid that article scanned about as well as a Donald Trump speech.http://www.cpm-magazine.co.uk/2017/12/07/farm-research-farm-trials-bring-real-result/
Just landed in my inbox. Not read it yet though!
Well done BASF for not cherry-picking the 'best' results.
They do seem to have lost 10 from the original 50 for some reason which is not really explained.
18-32 could be the real score.
I do agree well done BASF for even trying something like this.
I would love to know what causes these variations.
If the chemicals are approximately equal then there must be another variable which can give 0.5 tonnes/ha
Not that many variables left
Same sprayer, same farm, same field.
Could it be water quality?
Time of day sprayed?
Timing between T1 and T2?