Biological trial planner
Design a field trial that shows whether biological protection can reduce chemical dependency without risking yield.
Trial readiness
78
out of 100
Combines crop–pest fit, regional biology, chemistry transition load, and field structure complexity.
Yield protection confidence
87%
For Tomato on 80 acres in ca central, BioYield models a 67% reduction in conventional spray load versus your stated calendar broad baseline, while targeting Aphid complex. Yield protection confidence is 87% under compliant execution. Trial readiness scores 78/100 based on crop–pest fit (86%), climate fit (86%), and transition complexity.
Crop / pest matcher
RNA and microbial fit for your target guild
Match score
69
Aphid complex
Microbial-first stack for Tomato; RNA slot reserved for registered windows.
Lower selection pressure—good candidate for early bio-first windows.
Chemical reduction estimate
67%
Modeled reduction in conventional spray load versus your stated baseline program, assuming compliant biological execution and documented rescue triggers.
Biological treatment program
BioYield Tomato · Aphid complex field trial
- Week +0microbial
Entomopathogen ramp
Beauveria / Metarhizium compatible tank-mix
Application: High humidity evening pass
Humidity-sensitive conidia—stack with adjuvant protocol. Tuned for tomato row spacing and typical spray capacity.
- Week +1botanical
Botanical knockdown bridge
Neem-derived azadirachtin (rotation slot)
Application: Alternate rows / checkerboard trial design
Short residual bridge while microbial populations build. Tuned for tomato row spacing and typical spray capacity.
- Week +3biostimulant
Biostimulant coupling
Seaweed polysaccharide + amino acid foliar
Application: Low bioload mornings
Supports cuticle integrity and stress tolerance during transition off broad-spectrum chemistry. Tuned for tomato row spacing and typical spray capacity.
Alternate microbial families every 2 applications; keep dsRNA passes ≥14d apart unless label specifies; record irrigation timing for UV/humidity audit.
Trial design
Strip trial with grower-standard vs. biological taper
- Blocks
- 3
- Replicates
- 3
- Plot size (ac)
- 4.4
- Scouting
- Weekly insect counts with threshold-linked rescue triggers
Control group
Grower-standard chemical check only
Document full calendar passes as the chemical baseline
Border-row separation; untreated only on interior plots
Balanced risk: taper one calendar pass per window while holding a documented standard-care control.
Field trial timeline
- W0
Trial setup
Flag plots, baseline scouting, soil moisture logging
- W1
Baseline chemistry audit
Capture current program and application records
- W2
Entomopathogen ramp
High humidity evening pass
- W3
Botanical knockdown bridge
Alternate rows / checkerboard trial design
- W5
Biostimulant coupling
Low bioload mornings
- W12
Mid-season readout
Compare pest pressure, canopy health, and rescue events vs. control
- W16
Harvest / season close
Yield protection readout, chemical pass count, grower brief export
Grower trial brief
Tomato trial on 80 ac — Aphid complex
Show whether biological protection can reduce dependency on calendar broad without sacrificing yield in California Central Valley.
Execution checklist
- Mark plots and record GPS boundaries before first application
- Log every spray pass (product, rate, GPA, weather) for bio and control
- Run scouting on the same day each week with shared trap placement
- Photograph representative pest pressure and canopy injury by plot
Data to capture
- Pest counts or disease incidence by plot
- Number of conventional applications vs. trial arm
- Yield or marketable grade at harvest
- Any rescue chemistry and trigger rationale
Proceed to wider rollout if yield protection confidence stays above 82% and chemical reduction meets 57% of target.
MVP simulator only. dsRNA and certain microbials require jurisdiction-specific registrations—validate with your regulatory lead before field execution.