Is it just me or is there very little talk about the BASF real results trials??

Discussion in 'Cropping' started by Louis Mc, Sep 15, 2017.

  1. BenB

    BenB Member

    Location:
    Newbury, Berks
    I wasn't able to make it to the conference - haven't had our results back yet...
     
  2. An Gof

    An Gof Member

    Location:
    Cornwall
    CPM magazine has covered this with articles through the season. I expect that they will report on the results in due course.
     
  3. Have they overhyped themselves then? I blame Clive - if I hadnt seem him looking out at me from every publicaton like James Bond I wouldnt have bought the stuff! :LOL:
     
  4. fudge

    fudge Member

    Are the trials to be repeated?
     
  5. Fuzzy

    Fuzzy Member

    Location:
    Bedfordshire
    OK. great and !!! Delaying only adds suspicion to the results !!
     
  6. Properjob

    Properjob Member

    When are we going to hear plenty of this commentary then?
     
  7. Woodlander

    Woodlander Member

    Location:
    Leicestershire
  8. farenheit

    farenheit Member

    Location:
    Midlands
    Oh my days, I'm afraid that article scanned about as well as a Donald Trump speech.

    The take home message:

    The overall results are a draw, reports Ben. “We received harvest data from 40 growers. For 18 of these, the BASF Ad/Lib programme produced a positive result, averaging 0.52t/ha. But 22 growers achieved a better result from the competitor programme, averaging 0.41t/ha difference.”
    BASF performed worse than the competition. I bet if it was 22 to 18 in BASF's favour they wouldn't call it a draw!

    And I really struggle to get my head around it. They say that small plot trials are prone to variation in the field, despite replicated and randomised trial plots specifically being designed to overcome these variations. Then they say:

    When the yield data comes in, there’s a certain amount of cleaning to be done. “We take off headlands and end of runs. Areas that aren’t even shouldn’t be counted. The software picks up data points that are dramatically different, and an offset correction is applied.”
    Which just undoes their whole point? Surely "real field scale results" includes all the crappy headlands and gauze?
     
  9. Fromebridge

    Fromebridge Member

    Location:
    Glos
    Well done BASF for not cherry-picking the 'best' results.
     
    Farmer T, red, An Gof and 2 others like this.
  10. Lincsman

    Lincsman Member

    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    Inconclusive is the result.
     
    Farmer T and Brisel like this.
  11. homefarm

    homefarm Member

    Location:
    N.West
    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?
     
  12. But maybe the variable is not down to the chemical? Given that it only did better 50% of the time id say there was no statistical difference, certainly nothing good enough to wheel out Clive again next spring. But that said its as good as anything else if its cheap enough.

    There was a hell of a lot of advertorial about it.
     

Share This Page