On-Farm Network Reports


Important information for interpreting statistics

There are two statistical tests that are used to analyze On-Farm Network data:

  • Paired t-tests
  • Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Coefficient of Variation (CV)

This is the statistical measure of random variation in a trial.  The lower the value, the less variable the data.

Confidence Level

For our trials, we use a 95% confidence level. In statistics, the confidence level indicates how certain we are of the outcome of our statistical analysis.

P-value

While a confidence level tells us how certain we are of the results we get from statistical analysis, the P-value indicates if the results are statistically significant. The P-value is a probability that is calculated through the statistical analysis process. A P-value less than 0.05 indicates a statistically significant result, but a P-value greater than 0.05 indicates the results are not significant.

Interpreting Significance

So, if our statistical analysis indicates a significant yield difference, what does that actually mean? A significant yield response (where the P-value is < 0.05) means that we are 95% sure the yield difference resulted from the treatment. Alternatively, if our statistical analysis indicates there is no significant yield difference (where the P-value is > 0.05), then we are 95% certain that the treatment had no effect on yield.

Why are statistics important? Why does significance matter?

Why can’t we just look at differences in yield between treated and untreated strips to determine the effect of a treatment?

Variability in yield is expected from strip to strip across an on-farm trial due to the variability that occurs across a field. So, when we get yields from each of our trial strips at the end of the season, the question is whether those yield differences are simply a result of variability in the field, or, if the yield difference is a result of the treatment/management practice investigated in the trial. We can answer that question using statistics. If the results are statistically significant, we can say that the yield difference between treatments or management practices tested in the trial was caused by the treatment or management practice. If the result is not significant, then any yield difference is likely a result of variability within the field and not a result of the treatment or management practice.

Interpreting Results – An Example

In a soybean double inoculant trial, we test the effect of double vs. single inoculant on soybean yield. Let’s say, for example, the average yield difference between double and single inoculated soybeans for one trial was 1.5 bu/ac. This yield difference will be indicated as significant or not significant. If the yield difference is statistically significant, we can say we are 95% certain that the 1.5 bu/ac increase in yield is a result of the double inoculant treatment. But, if the 1.5 bu/ac yield difference is not significant, then the double inoculant had no effect on yield compared to single inoculant and the 1.5 bu/ac yield difference simply resulted from natural variability across the trial area.

MPSG does not endorse the use of products tested in the On-Farm Network. Although trials are conducted at multiple sites under varying conditions, your individual results may vary.  

Contents of these research publications can only be reproduced with the permission of MPSG.

Filter Reports

Filter the reports in the database table below by clicking the desired Crop, Year, Trial Type, and/or Major Region.  Within the database table, click on any column header to sort the table.  To view a single site report, select the Trial ID to open the single site research report in a new tab.

In the database table below, trials with significant yield differences are highlighted green in the yield difference column. On each single site report, significance is indicated by a ‘yes/no’ in the overall yield results table.

A trial that does not meet the trial requirements, eg. field history, is not included in the overall average for yield difference.

Filter by crop

Filter by Year

Filter by term

Filter by Trial type

Filter by Significance

Filter by Major Region

Filter by Locations

This is hidden do not delete

Year Region Municipality Crop Trial Type Treatments Yield +/- Unit Trial Report
2024 Northwest Mountain Peas Foliar Fungicide Miravis Neo vs Miravis Neo + Delaro 3.3 bu/ac 2024-PF09
2024 Northwest Dauphin Peas Foliar Fungicide Delaro vs Delaro + Zetigo 1.5 bu/ac 2024-PF08
2024 Southwest Oakland-Wawanesa Peas Foliar Fungicide Revy Pro vs Untreated 1.0 bu/ac 2024-PF07
2024 Northwest Hillsburg-Roblin-Shell River Peas Foliar Fungicide Revy Pro vs Untreated -3.4 bu/ac 2024-PF06
2024 Central Morris Peas Foliar Fungicide Revy Pro vs Untreated 0.1 bu/ac 2024-PF05
2024 Interlake Woodlands Peas Foliar Fungicide Zetigo RPM vs Untreated 1.2 bu/ac 2024-PF04
2024 Southwest Wallace-Woodworth Peas Foliar Fungicide Cotegra vs Untreated 0.1 bu/ac 2024-PF03
2024 Southwest Pipestone Peas Foliar Fungicide Delaro vs Untreated 1.6 bu/ac 2024-PF02
2024 Central Cartwright-Roblin Peas Foliar Fungicide Acapela vs Revy Pro + Acapela -6.3 bu/ac 2024-PF01
2023 Central Grey Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs Untreated 2.8 bu/ac 2023-PF04
2023 Northwest Dauphin Pea Foliar Fungicide RevyPro vs Untreated 9.1 bu/ac 2023-PF01
2023 Northwest Roblin Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs Untreated 0.6 bu/ac 2023-PF02
2023 Central Morris Pea Foliar Fungicide RevyPro vs Dyax vs Untreated bu/ac 2023-PF03
2023 Central Lorne Pea Foliar Fungicide RevyPro vs Delaro vs Untreated bu/ac 2023-PF05
2023 Interlake Rockwood Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs Untreated 2.1 bu/ac 2023-PF07
2023 Northwest Swan Valley West Pea Foliar Fungicide Miravis Neo vs Miravis Neo + Cotegra -1.9 bu/ac 2023-PF09
2023 Northwest Minitonas – Bowsman Pea Foliar Fungicide Delaro vs Delaro + Dyax 0.9 bu/ac 2023-PF10
2023 Central Lorne Pea Foliar Fungicide RevyPro vs Untreated 1.1 bu/ac 2023-PF06
2022 Northwest Mountain Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax / Cotegra 5.4 bu/ac 2022-PF10
2022 Central Roland Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs Untreated 2.8 bu/ac 2022-PF02
2022 Central Lorne Pea Foliar Fungicide Zolera FX / Zolera FX -0.9 bu/ac 2022-PF03
2022 Interlake Woodlands Pea Foliar Fungicide Zolera ODX vs Untreated 2.3 bu/ac 2022-PF04
2022 Southwest North Cypress-Langford Pea Foliar Fungicide Cotegra vs Untreated 3.6 bu/ac 2022-PF05
2022 Northwest Dauphin Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs Untreated 6.0 bu/ac 2022-PF06
2022 Central North Norfolk Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax / Dyax 5.4 bu/ac 2022-PF07
2022 Northwest Swan Valley Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax / Delaro 2.8 bu/ac 2022-PF08
2022 Northwest Minitonas-Bowsman Pea Foliar Fungicide Headline / Cotegra 5.2 bu/ac 2022-PF09
2022 Central Morris Pea Foliar Fungicide Cotegra / Cotegra -4.2 bu/ac 2022-PF11
2022 Northwest Dauphin Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs Untreated -3.3 bu/ac 2022-PF12
2022 Central Louise Pea Foliar Fungicide Delaro / Lance WDG -0.3 bu/ac 2022-PF13
2022 Southwest Grassland Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs Untreated 12.5 bu/ac 2022-PF01
2021 Northwest Swan Valley West Pea Foliar Fungicide Delaro vs Delaro and Zolera 1.0 bu/ac 2021-PF09
2021 Northwest Dauphin Pea Foliar Fungicide Cotegra vs. Untreated -1.3 bu/ac 2021-PF04
2021 Northwest Dauphin Pea Foliar Fungicide Cotegra vs. Untreated -1.0 bu/ac 2021-PF03
2021 Southwest Roland Pea Foliar Fungicide Cotegra vs. Untreated -0.7 bu/ac 2021-PF01
2020 Southwest North Cypress-Langford Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs. Untreated -0.3 bu/ac 2020-PF05
2020 Southwest Woodlands Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs. Untreated 0.0 bu/ac 2020-PF01
2020 Northwest Dauphin Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs. Untreated 1.5 bu/ac 2020-PF02
2020 Interlake Rockwood Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs. Untreated 1.3 bu/ac 2020-PF03
2020 Southwest Grassland Pea Foliar Fungicide Miravis Neo 300 SE vs Untreated 5.5 bu/ac 2020-PF04
2020 Central Westlake-Gladstone Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs. Untreated 1.9 bu/ac 2020-PF06
2020 Northwest Swan Valley West Pea Foliar Fungicide 2 Apps (Cotegra/Delaro) vs Untreated 4.5 bu/ac 2020-PF08
2020 Northwest Minitonas-Bowsman Pea Foliar Fungicide 2 Apps vs 1 App 7.2 bu/ac 2020-PF09
2019 Northwest Swan Valley West Pea Foliar Fungicide Dyax vs. Untreated 2.3 bu/ac 2019-PF07
2019 Northwest Livingston Pea Foliar Fungicide Cotegra vs. Untreated 1.3 bu/ac 2019-PF08
2019 Southwest Two Borders Pea Foliar Fungicide Delaro x2 vs. Delaro x 1 4 bu/ac 2019-PF05
2019 Southwest Elton Pea Foliar Fungicide Headline EC vs Untreated 1.3 bu/ac 2019-PF04
2019 Central Louise Pea Foliar Fungicide Priaxor vs. Untreated 0.48 bu/ac 2019-PF03
2019 Interlake Rockwood Pea Foliar Fungicide Priaxor vs. Untreated 3.2 bu/ac 2019-PF02
2019 Central Rhineland Pea Foliar Fungicide Delaro vs. Untreated 3.2 bu/ac 2019-PF01