Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

In pursuit of a science of agriculture: the role of statistics in field experiments

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the beginning of the twentieth century statistics has reshaped the experimental cultures of agricultural research taking part in the subtle dialectic between the epistemic and the material that is proper to experimental systems. This transformation has become especially relevant in field trials and the paper will examine the British agricultural institution, Rothamsted Experimental Station, where statistical methods nowadays popular in the planning and analysis of field experiments were developed in the 1920s. At Rothamsted statistics promoted randomisation over systematic arrangements, factorisation over one-question trials, and emphasised the importance of the experimental error in assessing field trials. These changes in methodology transformed also the material culture of agricultural science, and a new body, the Field Plots Committee, was created to manage the field research of the agricultural institution. Although successful, the vision of field experimentation proposed by the Rothamsted statisticians was not unproblematic. Experimental scientists closely linked to the farming community questioned it in favour of a field research that could be more easily understood by farmers. The clash between the two agendas reveals how the role attributed to statistics in field experimentation defined different pursuits of agricultural research, alternately conceived of as a scientists’ science or as a farmers’ science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An assessment of statistics as a tool capable of transforming agricultural research into an exact science is already found in Beckett (1929, p. 268).

  2. The definition of experimental cultures suggested here follows Rheinberger (2004).

  3. These references to Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland can be found in the paper on the principles and practices of yield trials (in relation to variety trials), written by the agronomist Frank Leonard Engledow and the statistician George Udny Yule (Engledow and Yule 1926; quotations p. 112 and p. 146). Yule was employed as a consultant by the Cambridge School of Agriculture.

  4. The creation of the Development Commission (in 1909) and the establishment of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) twenty years later, promoted the interest of scientifically trained people, like A. D. Hall, for British agricultural science (Brassley 1995). A. D. Hall acted as member of the Development Commission and later of the ARC and was an advisor to the Ministry of Agriculture.

  5. When experimental errors are distributed according to the normal curve (Gaussian), a range within one probable error on either side of the mean will include fifty per cent of the data. The probable error is 0.6745 times the standard deviation, mentioned later in the paper.

  6. See F. Yates’ certificate of election to the Royal Society (Ref. EC/1948/25). Yates’ election was proposed by R. A. Fisher and seconded by the botanist E. J. Maskell, a plant physiologist who had collaborated at RES with Fisher in the development of analysis of variance and experimental design. On Yates’ contributions to complex designs for agricultural experiments and tools for statistical analysis, see Finney (1995, pp. 559–560).

  7. Since the 1920s British agricultural science was an enterprise with ambitions for both the homeland and the colonies of the Empire. In 1927 an Imperial Research Conference was held for agricultural scientists. One immediate outcome of the conference was the publication of the Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture. More information on the imperial ambitions of British agricultural research is provided in Charnley (2013).

  8. A more comprehensive overview of the philosophical contributions useful for understanding agricultural experimentation is provided in the introduction to this special issue.

  9. As mentioned below, confounding refers to the decision, in relevant cases, to sacrifice information on minor interactions by confounding them with soil heterogeneity.

  10. During the 1930s models of the half-drill strip method for testing cereals were presented for public interest by the NIAB at Royal Shows (Mercer 1931, p. 143; Watson 1932, pp. 157–158).

  11. The presentation of the experimental results became more difficult with the complex experiments (e.g. the factorial experiments) where combinations of several treatments were examined, but even in that case the RES reports gave some ‘rough rules’ to guide the readers (RES 1934, pp. 98–99).

  12. The correspondence related to this controversy is held in the archives of Rothamsted Research, E. J. Russell Papers, Ref. RUS 2.9. Information on the decisions of the Field Plots Committee is to be found in the minutes of 6th July 1933 and 24th January 1934 (both under the Ref. FX 1.1.2).

  13. Letter from D. J. Watson to B. A. Keen, 28th July 1933.

  14. Letter from H. G. Miller to B. A. Keen, 2nd August 1933.

  15. Letter from B. A. Keen to H. G. Miller, 3rd August 1933.

  16. Letter from B. A. Keen to H. G. Miller, 3rd August 1933; minutes 24th January 1934.

References

  • Anonymous. (1940). Field trials: their layout and statistical analysis by John Wishart [review]. Agricultural Progress, 17(1), 112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaven, E. S. (1909). Pedigree seed corn. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, 70, 119–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaven, E. S. (1922). Trials of new varieties of cereals. The Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture, 29(4), 337–347; 436–444.

  • Beckett, W. H. (1929). Methods of field experimentation. In 1928 Year Book of the Department of Agriculture, Gold Coast, 16 (pp. 266–282).

  • Berry, D. (2014). Genetics, statistics, and regulation at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, 1919–1969. PhD Dissertation, University of Leeds.

  • Bonneuil, C. (2006). Mendelism, plant breeding and experimental cultures: Agriculture and the development of genetics in France. Journal of the History of Biology, 39, 281–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brassley, P. (1995). Agricultural research in Britain, 1850–1914: Failure, success and development. Annals of Science, 52(5), 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brassley, P. (2004). Hall, Sir (Alfred) Daniel (1864–1942). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2014. Accessed June, 2015 from http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/33647.

  • Charnley, B. (2013). Experiments in empire-building: Mendelian genetics as a national, imperial, and global agricultural enterprise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44, 292–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, W. G. (1937). A catalogue of uniformity trial data. Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 40(2), 233–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, W. G., & Cox, G. M. (1950). Experimental designs (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2010). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engledow, F. L., & Yule, U. G. (1926). The principles and practice of yield trials. Empire Cotton Growing Review, 3 (2–3), 112–146 (section I) and 235–267 (section II).

  • Finney, D. J. (1953). An introduction to statistical science in agriculture. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finney, D. J. (1995). Frank Yates, 12th May 1902–17th June 1994. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 41, 555–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. (1926). The arrangement of field experiments. Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture, 33, 503–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. (1931). Principles of plot experimentation in relation to the statistical interpretation of the results. In Rothamsted Experimental Station, The Technique of Field Experiments (Rothamsted Conferences XIII) (pp. 11–13). Harpenden: Rothamsted Experimental Station.

  • Fisher, R. A. (1934). The contributions of Rothamsted to the development of the science of statistics. In Rothamsted Experimental Station, Report 1933 (pp. 43–50). St. Albans: Gibbs and Bamforth.

  • Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher Box, J. (1978). R. A. Fisher: The life of a scientist. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, H. V. (1931). Practical details of experimentation on ordinary commercial farms. In Rothamsted Experimental Station, The Technique of Field Experiments (Rothamsted Conferences XIII) (pp. 49–53). Harpenden: Rothamsted Experimental Station.

  • Garner, H. V. (1962). Field Plots Committee. In: Rothamsted Experimental Station, Report 1961 (pp. 180–183). Harpenden: Rothamsted Experimental Station.

  • Hall, A. D. (1909). The experimental error in field trials. The Journal of the Board of Agriculture, 16, 365–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. D. (1931). Chairman’s opening remarks. In Rothamsted Experimental Station, The Technique of Field Experiments (Rothamsted Conferences XIII) (p. 9). Harpenden: Rothamsted Experimental Station.

  • Hall, N. S. (2002). R. A. Fisher and randomized experimental design. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

  • Hall, N. S. (2007). R. A. Fisher and his advocacy of randomization. Journal of the History of Biology, 40, 295–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henke, C. R. (2000). Making a place for science: The field trial. Social Studies of Science, 30(4), 483–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoblyn, T. N. (1931). The technique of horticultural experiments. In Rothamsted Experimental Station, The Technique of Field Experiments (Rothamsted Conferences XIII) (pp. 42–49). Harpenden: Rothamsted Experimental Station.

  • Jeffreys, H. (1953). Half a century in geophysics. The Advancement of Science, 10(38), 113–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, A. E. (1994). The Rothamsted classical experiments. In R. A. Leigh & A. E. Johnston (Eds.), Long-term Experiments in Agricultural and Ecological Sciences (pp. 9–37). Wallingford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maat, H. (2008). Statistics and field experiments in agriculture. The emerging discipline of inferential statistics. In J. G. S. J. van Maarseveen, P. M. M. Klep, & I. H. Stamhuis (Eds.), The statistical mind in modern society. The Netherlands, 1850–1940. Vol. II: Statistics and scientific work (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maat, H. (2011). The history and future of agricultural experiments. NJAS—Wageningen Journal of the Life Sciences, 57(3–4), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maat, H., & Glover, D. (2012). Alternative configurations of agronomic experimentation. In J. Sumberg & J. Thompson (Eds.), Contested agronomy (pp. 131–145). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacNeill, I. (1993). A conversation with David Finney. Statistical Science, 8(2), 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, W. B. (1931). The agricultural education exhibit at the Royal Show, Manchester, 1930. Agricultural Progress, 8, 142–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, W. B., & Hall, A. D. (1911). The experimental error of field trials (with an Appendix by Student). The Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(2), 107–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffatt, J. R. (1939). Agricultural methods adopted in the Rothamsted classical and modern field experiments. The Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 7(27), 251–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parolini, G. (2013). “Making sense of figures”: Statistics, computing and information technologies in agriculture and biology in Britain, 1920s–1960s. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Bologna.

  • Parolini, G. (2014). The emergence of modern statistics in agricultural science: analysis of variance, experimental design and the reshaping of research at Rothamsted Experimental Station, 1919–1933. Journal of the History of Biology. doi: 10.1007/s10739-014-9394-z. [Printed in 2015 in vol. 48(2): 301–335].

  • Pearson, E. S. (1939). Student as statistician. Biometrika, 30(3/4), 210–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirie, N. W. (2004). Russell, Sir (Edward) John (1872–1965), rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2015. Accessed June, 2015 from http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/35877.

  • Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger, H.-J. (2004). Experimental systems. The Virtual Laboratory (ISSN 1866–4784). Retrieved from http://vlp.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/essays/data/enc19.

  • Rothamsted Experimental Station (1927). Report 1925–26 with the supplement to the ‘Guide to Experimental Plots’. Harpenden: Printed by D. J. Jeffery.

  • Rothamsted Experimental Station (1930). Report for 1929. Harpenden: Printed by D. J. Jeffery.

  • Rothamsted Experimental Station (1931). The Technique of Field Experiments (Rothamsted Conferences XIII). Harpenden: Rothamsted Experimental Station.

  • Rothamsted Experimental Station (1934). Report for 1933. St. Albans: Gibbs and Bamforth.

  • Russell, E. J. (1926). Field experiments: how they are made and what they are. The Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture, 32, 989–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, E. J. (1966). A history of agricultural science in Great Britain, 1620–1954. London: George Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Street, D. J. (1990). Fisher’s contributions to agricultural statistics. Biometrics, 46(4), 937–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Student, (1931). Yield trials. In H. Hunter (Ed.), Baillière’s encyclopaedia of scientific agriculture. London: Baillière, Tindall and Cox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Student, (1938). Comparison between balanced and random arrangements of field plots. Biometrika, 29(3/4), 363–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swijtink, Z. G. (1982). Randomization in experimental design. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.

  • Watson, J. A. S. (1932). The agricultural education exhibit at the Royal Show, Warwick, 1931. Agricultural Progress, 9, 156–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wishart, J. (1934). Bibliography of agricultural statistics. Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1(1), 94–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wishart, J. (1940). Field trials: Their lay-out and statistical analysis. Cambridge: School of Agriculture: Commonwealth Bureau of Plant Breeding and Genetics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wishart, J., & Hines, H. J. G. (1929). Fertilizer trials on the ordinary farm. The Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture, 36(6), 524–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wishart, J., & Sanders, H. G. (1935). Principles and practice of field experimentation. London: The Empire Cotton Growing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, F. (1937). The design and analysis of factorial experiments (Technical Communication No. 35). Harpenden: Imperial Bureau of Soil Science.

  • Yates, F. (1939). The comparative advantages of systematic and randomized arrangements in the design of agricultural and biological experiments. Biometrika, 30(3/4), 440–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A preliminary draft of this paper was presented at a panel on experiments in twentieth-century agricultural science at the annual conference of the British Society for the History of Science (2014). I would like to thank the audience at this event for the comments received. Helpful suggestions from two anonymous referees and from Staffan Müller-Wille improved further the manuscript. I am grateful to the Lawes Agricultural Trust for the permission to quote from materials held in the archives of Rothamsted Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Berlin and Berliner Zentrum für Wissensgeschichte, Berlin, Germany

    Giuditta Parolini

Authors
  1. Giuditta Parolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuditta Parolini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parolini, G. In pursuit of a science of agriculture: the role of statistics in field experiments. HPLS 37, 261–281 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-015-0075-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-015-0075-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation