Share the context
Describe your role, crops, region and the decisions you want to improve. Detailed field files are not needed for an initial enquiry.
The Canadian chapter
Local conditions. Shared learning.
Canadian field trials are planned, with an initial focus on wheat, canola and barley in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. The purpose is to evaluate usefulness against the realities of a growing season.
Planned Canadian beta: 2027–2028. Timing, eligibility and participation remain subject to confirmation.
Test the workflow.
Learn from the field.Conceptual agricultural imagery
Learn from the field.Conceptual agricultural imagery
01What we want to learn
Make usefulness something we can evaluate.
A trial should answer a defined question: did an observation lead to a relevant field check, was the explanation understandable, and did it fit the local crop and conditions?
We want to hear from growers, independent agronomists and agricultural organizations who can help shape those questions. Interest from other regions and crops is welcome, but a suitable opportunity cannot be assumed.
Initial cropsWheat · canola · barley
Initial regionsSK · AB · MB
ApproachObservation + ground checks
ParticipationSubject to agreed scope
02The participation journey
A clear process, before the season begins.
When relevant opportunities become available, participation should move through a defined discussion and agreement process.
Discuss the fit
Review the proposed question, available capabilities and what participation would involve for your operation.
Agree the details
Clarify timing, costs, support, data arrangements, responsibilities and measurement methods before deciding.
Evaluate and learn
Connect observations with field checks and consistent records. Review what was useful and what needs improvement.
03A useful evaluation
Measure the workflow. Document the limits.
What we do not promise
No particular yield increase, input reduction or water saving is promised. Where outcomes are studied, the evaluation should explain the baseline, measurement method and other factors that could influence results.
Commercial terms for pilots, including cost and what happens at the end of a pilot, are not yet confirmed.
Read how to prepare for a farm-software pilotRelevant priorities
Did the signal help identify a field question worth investigating? Compare the proposed priority with the observations recorded on the ground.
Understandable explanations
Could growers identify the evidence behind an explanation and the uncertainty that remained? Record where the explanation needed clarification.
Local relevance
Did the interpretation fit the crop, growing stage and recent conditions? Canadian validation must establish usefulness in its own context.
Consistent follow-up
Were observation dates, field checks and outcomes documented well enough to review the sequence later?
04Example measures
Examples of measures a pilot could agree
These are examples of the kind of KPIs a farm and a provider would agree in writing before a pilot starts, each with a baseline and a way of measuring it. AgriNova AI's pilot terms, including any KPIs, are not yet confirmed.
- When a field problem was first noticed, compared with your usual scouting
- How often a field-score change matched what you found on the ground
- Time spent preparing and making scouting visits
- Whether you could explain a field decision to a partner with the evidence shown
- Water applied on each irrigated block, from meter or delivery records, compared with your usual plan
- Yield on the pilot fields, from calibrated harvest records, compared with a baseline you choose
- How often the people involved opened and used the field view
Participation questions
Before expressing interest.
Next step
How enquiries will open