Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Arable Farming
Cropping
Is it just me or is there very little talk about the BASF real results trials??
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="farenheit" data-source="post: 4560248" data-attributes="member: 27402"><p>Oh my days, I'm afraid that article scanned about as well as a Donald Trump speech.</p><p></p><p>The take home message:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">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.”</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>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! </p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">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.”</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>Which just undoes their whole point? Surely "real field scale results" includes all the crappy headlands and gauze?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="farenheit, post: 4560248, member: 27402"] Oh my days, I'm afraid that article scanned about as well as a Donald Trump speech. The take home message: [INDENT]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.” [/INDENT] 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: [INDENT]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.” [/INDENT] Which just undoes their whole point? Surely "real field scale results" includes all the crappy headlands and gauze? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Arable Farming
Cropping
Is it just me or is there very little talk about the BASF real results trials??
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top