Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T11:30:13.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On-farm experiment designs and implications for locating research sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Phil E. Rzewnicki ,
Richard Thompson ,
Gary W. Lesoing ,
Roger W. Elmore ,
Charles A. Francis ,
Anne M. Parkhurst  and
Russell S. Moomaw
Phil E. Rzewnicki
Affiliation:
Associate Extension Agriculturalist and graduate student in the Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68583;
Richard Thompson
Affiliation:
A farmer and consultant, Boone, Iowa, 50036;
Gary W. Lesoing
Affiliation:
Administrative Assistant of University of Nebraska Agricultural Research and Development Center and graduate student in the Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska;
Roger W. Elmore
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Agronomy (Clay Center)
Charles A. Francis
Affiliation:
Professors of Agronomy and all are Extension Crops Specialists, University of Nebraska;
Anne M. Parkhurst
Affiliation:
Professor of Biometry, Biometrics Center, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Russell S. Moomaw
Affiliation:
Professors of Agronomy and all are Extension Crops Specialists, University of Nebraska;
Get access

Abstract

Research plots that are large enough to accommodate regular farm machinery are thought to contain too much field variation to allow reliable interpretation of experimental results. This study was conducted to determine whether experimental error was controlled on a wide variety of agricultural field trials that used plots larger than normally used by researchers. The investigation included trials conducted on an experiment station and trials conducted on actual commercial farms. The planning and management of the experiments ranged from those completely conducted by university researchers to those completely done by farmers.

The level of experimental error in all the trials was well within the limits normally accepted by researchers in agronomy. Plots ranging in length from 125 to 1200 feet and as wide as one or two passes of standard farm machinery gave experimental results that were statistically sound. Statistical requirements for randomization and replication were all met.

The ability to use large plots and farmer participation enhances the testing of new technology on farms. This leads to new opportunities to test crop production factors in a systems setting under actual farm conditions. The statistical reliability of the on-farm designs analyzed in this study should increase cooperation among researchers, extension workers, and farmers in research activities.

Keywords

research plot sizeexperimental erroractual commercial farmsrandomizationreplicationnew technologystatistical reliability

Information

Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , Fall 1988 , pp. 168 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Byerlee, D., Collinson, M. P., Ferriti, R. K., Winkelmann, D. L., Biggs, S., Moscardi, E. R., Martinez, J. C., Harrington, L., and Benjamin, A.. 1980. Planning Technologies Appropriate to Farmers: Concepts and Procedures. CIMMYT, Mexico.Google Scholar
2.Elmore, R. W. 1986. Choose the best hybrid or variety using strip tests. Univ. of Nebraska Agronomy Dept. Profitable Crop Production newsletter. No. 86–15.Google Scholar
3.Francis, C. A. 1986. Dynamic integration of research and extension: igniting the SPARC. Seminar presented to Farming Systems Research and Extension Workshop, Manhatten, Kansas, 10 5–8, 8 p.Google Scholar
4.Francis, C. A., Parkhurst, A. M., and Thompson, R.. 1986. Designs for on-farm research: Statistical rigor and client credibility. p. 111. In Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
5.Gilbert, E. H., Norman, D. W., and Winch, F. E.. 1980. Farming systems research: a critical appraisal. MSU Rural Development Paper No. 6, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
6.Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A.. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd Ed.John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
7.Havlin, J., and Elmore, R.. 1984. Maximizing the use of farm strip plots. Univ. of Nebraska, NebGuide G84–723.Google Scholar
8.Hildebrand, P. E., and Poey, F.. 1985. On-farm Agronomic Trials in Farming Systems Research and Extension. Lynne Reinner Publ., Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
9.Horton, D. E. 1984. Social scientists in agricultural research: Lessons from the Mantaro Valley Project, Peru. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. 67 p. (IDRC-219e).Google Scholar
10.Kirkby, R. A. (Ed.). 1984. Crop improvement in Eastern and Southern Africa: Research objectives and on-farm testing. A regional workshop held in Nairobi, Kenya, 20–22 July 1983. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. 122 p. (IDRC-218e).Google Scholar
11.Lockeretz, W. 1987. Establishing the proper role for on-farm research. Commentary, Amer. Jour. Alter. Agric., 3:132–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Martinez, J. C. and Arauz, J. R.. 1984. Developing appropriate technologies through onfarm research: The lesson from Caisan, Panama. Agricultural Administration, 17:93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Moomaw, R. 1978. Close rows can boost yields. Nebraska Farm, Ranch and Home Quarterly, Fall:11–12.Google Scholar
14.O'Brien, V. I. 1984. Power analysis for univariate linear models: The SAS system makes it easy. p. 847–852. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual SUGI (SAS Users Group International) Conference, Hollywood Beach, Florida. 03 18–21. SAS Institute Inc., Gary, NC.Google Scholar
15.Olson, K. R. and Nizeyimana, E.. 1988. Effects of soil erosion on corn yields of seven Illinois soils. J. Prod. Agric., 1:13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Sanders, J. H. and Lynam, J. K.. 1982. Evaluation of new technology on farms: Methodology and some results from two crop programs at CIAT. Agricultural Systems, 9:97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.SAS Institute, Inc. 1982. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
18.Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H.. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 377–388.Google Scholar
19.Thompson, R. 1986. A farmer's approach to on-farm research design. Mimeo for discussion. Practical Farmers of Iowa, Boone, IA.Google Scholar