Agricultural biologicals can produce real benefits, but field responses are often variable. A useful trial must separate product effect from normal field variability, measure the right outcomes, and test the claim the product actually makes. This article explains how growers, PCAs, and CCAs can design practical field trials that produce evidence they can trust.
Author: The Organic Agronomist
Agronomic review: Tim Stemwedel, Founder & CCA
Published by: California Organic Fertilizers, Inc.
Executive Summary
Agricultural biologicals are often evaluated in fields where natural variability is already high.
Soil texture changes, irrigation uniformity, fertility history, pest pressure, weather, and crop development can all influence the result. A treatment difference may therefore reflect the product, the field, or both.
A useful field trial should answer a specific question.
For example:
Does the biological increase marketable yield?
Does it improve nutrient uptake?
Does it increase root growth?
Does it improve crop performance under stress?
Does it allow a reduction in fertilizer without reducing yield?
Does it improve consistency enough to justify its cost?
The strongest field trials usually include:
a clearly defined hypothesis,
an appropriate untreated or standard-practice comparison,
replication,
randomization where practical,
consistent management across treatments,
measurements tied directly to the product claim,
and economic evaluation.
It is also important to distinguish between mechanism and agronomic value.
A biological may change root growth, microbial activity, nutrient availability, or plant physiology without producing a meaningful improvement in yield or quality.
Likewise, a product may improve crop performance without every proposed mechanism being confirmed.
The goal of a practical field trial is not simply to determine whether something changed.
It is to determine whether the change was:
real, repeatable, agronomically important, and economically worthwhile.
Start With the Claim You Are Testing
A field trial should begin with a specific claim.
Without that, it is easy to collect a lot of observations without knowing what result would actually count as success.
For example, a product may claim to:
increase nutrient availability,
improve root growth,
improve drought tolerance,
increase yield,
improve quality,
reduce fertilizer requirements,
or improve nutrient-use efficiency.
Each claim requires a different trial design and different measurements.
If the claim is higher yield, the trial must measure marketable yield.
If the claim is improved nutrient uptake, tissue analysis may be more important than visual crop response.
If the claim is reduced fertilizer requirement, the trial needs a treatment that actually reduces fertilizer.
A trial comparing:
standard fertility
versus
standard fertility + biological
cannot prove that the biological replaces fertilizer.
To test a fertilizer-replacement claim, a more useful design might include:
standard fertility
standard fertility + biological
reduced fertility
reduced fertility + biological
That design makes it possible to ask whether the biological helps maintain crop performance when fertilizer is reduced.
The same principle applies to stress claims.
A product marketed for drought resilience should be tested under a meaningful level of water stress, while still including a properly watered comparison whenever practical.
The trial design should match the product claim. If the claim is not directly tested, the trial cannot reliably support it.
Use the Right Control Treatment
A biological treatment only has meaning when it is compared with the right control.
The control should represent what would normally happen without the biological.
In many cases, that means comparing:
standard grower practice
versus
standard grower practice + biological
That is the right comparison when the question is:
Does adding this product improve the existing program?
But other claims require different controls.
If the product is supposed to replace part of the fertilizer program, include a reduced-fertility treatment.
If the product is intended to improve drought resilience, include both adequate-water and water-stress conditions where practical.
If the product is intended to improve nutrient availability, the control should reflect the same nutrient program without the biological.
The key is to avoid changing several things at once.
If one treatment receives a biological, less fertilizer, different irrigation, and different timing, any response becomes difficult to interpret.
A strong trial changes one main factor at a time whenever possible.
That makes the result much easier to attribute to the treatment being tested.
The control is not just the untreated plot. It is the comparison needed to answer the specific question the trial was designed to test.
Replication Matters More Than Most Growers Think
A single treated strip next to a single untreated strip can be useful for demonstration, but it is weak evidence.
Fields are rarely uniform.
Differences in:
soil texture,
organic matter,
irrigation,
drainage,
compaction,
pest pressure,
previous crop history,
and fertility
can create differences in crop performance that have nothing to do with the biological treatment.
Replication helps separate treatment effects from normal field variability.
Instead of one treated area and one control, repeat each treatment several times across the field.
For example:
Control - Biological - Control - Biological
is stronger than:
One large control block - One large biological block
because repeated comparisons provide more opportunities to see whether the same response occurs under slightly different field conditions.
Where possible, treatments should also be randomized rather than always placed in the same sequence.
Randomization reduces the chance that one treatment consistently lands in the better part of the field.
Replication does not need to make a grower trial complicated.
Even a modest number of repeated strips can greatly improve the value of the information.
The goal is to answer:
Did the treatment respond consistently across the field, or did one favorable area create the appearance of success?
Replication is one of the simplest ways to turn a demonstration into a more credible field trial.
Measure the Outcome That Actually Matters
A biological treatment should be evaluated using measurements that match the claim being tested.
Visual differences can be useful, but they are rarely enough by themselves.
A greener canopy, larger root system, or more vigorous plant may indicate a biological response, but the practical question is whether that response improves crop performance.
Useful measurements may include:
marketable yield,
crop quality,
tissue nutrient concentrations,
nutrient uptake,
root length or root mass,
stand establishment,
plant biomass,
stress symptoms,
water-use efficiency,
disease severity,
or economic return.
The most important measurement depends on the claim.
If the product claims to improve root growth, measure roots.
If it claims to improve nutrient uptake, collect tissue data.
If it claims to reduce fertilizer requirements, compare yield and quality under reduced fertility.
If it claims to improve stress tolerance, measure crop performance under actual stress conditions.
And if the product is ultimately being purchased to improve profitability, the trial should include the economic result.
That means asking:
Did the treatment produce enough additional value to pay for the product and application cost?
A statistically detectable biological response is not automatically an economically meaningful response.
Likewise, a visible crop response is not automatically evidence of higher yield or better quality.
Measure what matters to the claim, and make sure at least one measurement reflects real agronomic or economic value.
Keep Management the Same Across Treatments
Once the treatments are established, the rest of the crop should be managed as consistently as possible.
That includes:
irrigation,
fertilizer timing,
fertilizer source,
pest management,
cultivation,
harvest timing,
and sampling methods.
If treated plots receive better irrigation, different fertilizer timing, or more careful management, the trial can no longer isolate the biological treatment.
The same rule applies to application.
Use the same:
spray volume,
application equipment,
timing,
carrier water,
and tank-mix conditions
across treatments whenever possible.
Record any deviations.
This is especially important with biologicals because viability and performance can be affected by:
water quality,
chlorine,
salts,
pesticides,
temperature,
storage,
and application timing.
A treatment can fail because the product was ineffective.
But it can also fail because the organisms never survived the handling or application process.
That is why trial records matter.
At minimum, document:
product lot,
storage conditions,
application date,
application rate,
tank partners,
water source,
weather,
soil moisture,
and irrigation timing.
If management changes between treatments, the trial is testing more than one thing at once.
Sample Carefully and Avoid Bias
Sampling can make a good field trial misleading if it is not done consistently.
The same sampling method should be used in every treatment.
That means keeping the following consistent:
sampling date,
crop growth stage,
plant part collected,
number of plants sampled,
depth of soil sampling,
distance from the plant,
and laboratory method.
Avoid choosing the “best-looking” plants from one treatment and average plants from another.
That introduces selection bias.
Sampling locations should be predetermined whenever possible.
For example, collect from the same relative position within each replicated strip and avoid unusual areas such as:
field edges,
wheel tracks,
irrigation leaks,
visibly compacted zones,
or isolated pest-damaged areas.
The same principle applies to yield measurements.
Harvest comparable areas from each treatment and use the same harvest criteria.
If marketable yield is the real economic outcome, measure marketable yield rather than total biomass alone.
Photographs can also be useful, but they should be taken:
from the same angle,
at the same distance,
under similar lighting,
and at the same crop stage.
Consistent sampling reduces the chance that the measurement method creates the treatment difference.
Do Not Judge the Trial Too Early
Biological responses may develop at different times during the season.
Some products may influence:
early root growth,
nutrient uptake,
vegetative growth,
flowering,
stress response,
or yield later in the crop cycle.
An early visual response does not necessarily predict the final result.
Likewise, the absence of an early visual difference does not prove that the treatment had no effect.
That is why useful trials often include measurements at more than one stage.
For example:
early-season establishment,
midseason tissue analysis,
root or biomass measurements,
stress-period observations,
and final marketable yield.
The timing of evaluation should also match the product claim.
If a biological is intended to improve establishment, early measurements matter.
If it is intended to improve nutrient-use efficiency or yield, later-season measurements may be more important.
If the claim involves stress tolerance, measurements should include the period when the crop actually experiences the stress.
A field trial should follow the crop long enough to determine whether an early biological response becomes a meaningful agronomic response.
One Trial Is Not Enough
A single field trial can tell you whether a biological treatment worked under one set of conditions.
It cannot tell you whether it will work consistently across different:
fields,
soil types,
crops,
seasons,
weather patterns,
fertility programs,
or management systems.
Biological responses are often strongly influenced by environment and context.
A product may perform well in one field and show little response in another because of differences in:
native microbial communities,
soil fertility,
pH,
moisture,
temperature,
crop variety,
or stress level.
That is why repeated trials are so important.
The strongest evidence comes from treatments that produce similar results across:
multiple replications,
multiple fields,
multiple seasons,
or multiple locations.
A single positive result is useful.
A repeated positive result is much more convincing.
The same is true of a negative result.
One failed trial may indicate that the product did not work under those conditions, but it does not necessarily prove that the product can never work.
The goal is to understand where the product works, how consistently it works, and under what conditions the response is most likely to occur.
Consistency across environments is stronger evidence than one unusually successful trial.
Separate Statistical Significance from Practical Significance
A treatment can produce a statistically significant result without producing a meaningful agronomic benefit.
That distinction matters.
Statistical significance helps answer:
Is the observed difference likely to be real rather than random variation?
Practical significance asks:
Is the difference large enough to matter in the field?
For example, a biological treatment might produce a small but statistically detectable increase in:
root mass,
tissue nutrient concentration,
plant height,
or yield.
But if the improvement does not change crop quality, marketable yield, input use, or profitability, the practical value may be limited.
The opposite can also happen.
A treatment may produce an economically meaningful yield increase in a small field trial but fail to reach statistical significance because:
there were too few replications,
field variability was high,
or the sample size was too small.
That does not automatically mean the result is worthless.
It means the result should be interpreted cautiously and repeated.
When reviewing a biological trial, ask both:
Was the response statistically credible?
and
Was the response agronomically and economically important?
The strongest result is one that is:
statistically credible,
agronomically meaningful,
repeatable,
and economically worthwhile.
A small measurable effect is not automatically a useful effect.
Calculate the Economics
A biological treatment has to create enough value to justify its cost.
That means the field trial should include an economic calculation, not just a biological measurement.
At minimum, record:
product cost per acre,
application cost,
any change in fertilizer or other input costs,
yield difference,
quality difference,
and crop value.
Then calculate whether the treatment produced a positive return.
For a yield-based response, a simple calculation is:
Additional crop value - added treatment cost = net return
For example, if a biological costs $28 per acre to purchase and $12 per acre to apply, the total treatment cost is $40 per acre.
If the treatment increases crop value by $120 per acre, the estimated net return is:
$120 - $40 = $80 per acre
If the treatment saves fertilizer, reduces another input, or improves crop quality, those benefits should also be included.
The economic question is especially important when the biological response is small.
A modest yield increase may still be valuable in a high-value crop.
The same increase may not justify the treatment in a lower-value crop.
It is also useful to calculate the break-even response before the trial begins.
That tells the grower exactly how much additional yield, quality, or input savings the biological must produce to pay for itself.
A biological treatment does not have to produce a dramatic crop response to be worthwhile. It has to produce enough measurable value to exceed its cost.
How to Interpret a Negative Result
A negative result is still useful information.
If a biological treatment does not improve crop performance, the first question should not be:
“Does this product never work?”
The better question is:
“Why did it not produce a measurable benefit under these conditions?”
Possible explanations include:
the organisms did not survive storage or application,
the inoculant failed to establish,
the field already had adequate nutrient availability,
the crop was not under the stress the product was intended to address,
the native microbiome competed with the introduced organisms,
the application timing was poorly matched to crop demand,
field variability was too high,
or the product simply did not provide agronomic value in that situation.
A strong trial should help distinguish among these possibilities.
That may require looking beyond final yield to supporting measurements such as:
root colonization,
tissue nutrient status,
soil nutrient availability,
crop stress indicators,
or microbial establishment.
For example, if the biological failed to establish, the trial does not provide a strong test of the proposed mechanism.
But if the organism established successfully and crop performance still did not improve, that is stronger evidence that the treatment did not provide useful value under those conditions.
Negative results are especially important when they repeat across multiple trials.
A well-designed negative trial is not a failure. It helps define where a biological product is unlikely to provide value.
Research Spotlight: Why Biological Field Trials Often Produce Variable Results
One of the clearest findings across microbial inoculant research is that average responses can be positive while individual field results remain highly variable.
A 2024 meta-analysis covering 168 studies and 1,656 paired observations found that microbial inoculants improved several aspects of crop leaf growth and physiological performance on average. ScienceDirect
But another 2024 meta-analysis found that the size of the response depended strongly on factors such as:
the plant trait being measured,
the microbial group used,
whether the experiment was conducted under sterile or nonsterile conditions,
and whether the study was short-term or long-term.
Positive effects tended to be larger in short-term and sterilized experiments than in more realistic, nonsterile systems. PubMed
A 2026 review focused specifically on field performance reached the same practical conclusion: microbial inoculants can work, but their effectiveness is highly context-dependent, and better replication, larger multi-environment trials, and stronger statistical design are needed to understand when they work reliably. Nature
The reasons for variation are biological as well as experimental.
Field performance can be influenced by:
soil type,
fertility,
moisture,
temperature,
environmental stress,
the native microbiome,
inoculant establishment,
formulation,
application method,
and crop management. ScienceDirect
Practical importance to growers
This explains why a biological product may perform well in one field and show little response in another without either result necessarily being wrong.
It also explains why a single side-by-side demonstration is weak evidence.
The better question is not simply:
“Did the product work?”
It is:
“Under what conditions did it work, how large was the response, and did that response repeat?”
Variability is not a reason to ignore biologicals. It is a reason to test them with stronger field designs.
Fact vs. Fiction
“If a biological works once, it should work everywhere.”
Evidence rating: False
Biological responses are often strongly affected by soil, crop, weather, fertility, stress, and the native microbiome. A positive result in one field does not guarantee the same result elsewhere.
“A single side-by-side strip is enough to prove a product works.”
Evidence rating: False
A single comparison can be useful for demonstration, but it cannot reliably separate treatment effect from normal field variability.
“Replication improves the credibility of a field trial.”
Evidence rating: Strong Evidence
Repeated treatment comparisons help determine whether the response is consistent rather than caused by one unusually favorable part of the field.
“A biological should be judged only by yield.”
Evidence rating: False
Yield is often important, but the correct measurement depends on the claim. Nutrient uptake, root growth, quality, stress response, input savings, and economics may also matter.
“A visible crop response proves economic value.”
Evidence rating: False
Greener leaves, larger roots, or more vigorous growth can indicate biological activity, but they do not automatically translate into higher yield, better quality, or greater profit.
“A nonsignificant result means the treatment had no value.”
Evidence rating: Not Always
A trial may lack enough replication or may have high field variability. The size, consistency, and economic importance of the response should be considered along with statistical significance.
“If a product claims to replace fertilizer, the trial should include reduced-fertilizer treatments.”
Evidence rating: Strong Evidence
A standard fertility program compared with standard fertility plus a biological cannot demonstrate fertilizer replacement.
“A negative result is useless.”
Evidence rating: False
A well-designed negative trial can identify conditions where the product does not establish, does not perform, or does not provide enough agronomic value.
“The best evidence comes from repeated trials across environments.”
Evidence rating: Strong Evidence
Results that repeat across replications, fields, seasons, or locations provide much stronger evidence than one successful demonstration.
The most trustworthy biological field trial is not the one with the biggest visual difference. It is the one designed well enough to show whether the response is real, repeatable, agronomically meaningful, and economically worthwhile.
A Practical Field-Trial Checklist
Before starting the trial, confirm the basics.
Define the question
What specific claim is being tested?
What result would count as success?
What measurement directly matches that claim?
Choose the right treatments
Include the comparison needed to answer the question.
That may include:
standard grower practice,
standard practice + biological,
reduced-input treatment,
reduced-input treatment + biological,
or stressed and nonstressed conditions.
Replicate the treatments
Use repeated strips or blocks rather than relying on one treated and one untreated area.
Randomize treatment placement where practical.
Keep management consistent
Use the same:
irrigation,
fertility,
crop protection,
cultivation,
harvest timing,
application equipment,
and sampling methods
across treatments except for the factor intentionally being tested.
Record application details
Document:
product,
lot number,
storage conditions,
rate,
timing,
carrier water,
tank-mix partners,
weather,
soil moisture,
and irrigation timing.
Measure the right outcomes
Depending on the claim, measure:
marketable yield,
crop quality,
tissue nutrient status,
root growth,
crop vigor,
stress response,
nutrient-use efficiency,
or microbial establishment.
Sample consistently
Use the same:
timing,
crop stage,
sample size,
sampling location,
and laboratory methods.
Calculate the economics
Record:
product cost,
application cost,
input savings,
yield change,
quality change,
and crop value.
Calculate both net return and break-even response.
Interpret the result cautiously
Ask:
Was the response consistent across replications?
Was it large enough to matter?
Was it statistically credible?
Was it economically worthwhile?
Did the biological establish or produce the mechanism being claimed?
Did the same result occur elsewhere?
Repeat before making a major decision
One trial is useful.
Repeated trials across fields, seasons, or locations provide much stronger evidence.
A good field trial does not need to be complicated. It needs to be designed so the answer is difficult to misinterpret.
What We Still Need to Learn
Agricultural biologicals are being tested more widely, but several important questions still need better field-level answers.
More research is needed to determine:
which soil conditions make a response more likely,
how strongly native microbial communities affect establishment,
how long introduced organisms remain active,
which crops respond most consistently,
when biologicals improve nutrient-use efficiency,
when they can support reduced fertilizer inputs,
how stress severity changes product performance,
and how often positive responses repeat across seasons and locations.
Another major need is better connection between mechanism and field value.
Many studies show changes in:
root growth,
microbial activity,
nutrient availability,
plant hormones,
or stress physiology.
Those responses are useful, but they do not automatically tell us whether the treatment improves:
marketable yield,
crop quality,
input efficiency,
or profitability.
Future trials should connect these steps more clearly.
A strong field study would ideally show:
the biological remained viable,
it established or produced the intended mechanism,
the crop responded,
the response was consistent across replications,
the response was agronomically meaningful,
and the economic return justified the treatment.
We also need more multi-location and multi-year work.
A product that performs well in one season may respond differently when:
temperature changes,
irrigation changes,
soil conditions change,
fertility changes,
or crop stress changes.
That variability is not just a research problem.
It is one of the central questions growers need answered.
The next step in biological research is not simply finding more products that can produce a response. It is identifying which products produce reliable, repeatable, economically useful responses under defined field conditions.
Conclusion
Agricultural biologicals should be evaluated with the same discipline used for any other crop input.
That means asking a clear question, using the right control, replicating treatments, keeping management consistent, measuring the outcome that matches the claim, and calculating whether the response is economically worthwhile.
Field variability makes this especially important.
A biological treatment may influence:
root growth,
nutrient uptake,
microbial activity,
stress response,
crop quality,
or yield.
But those effects should not be assumed to be meaningful simply because they are measurable.
The strongest evidence shows that the response is:
real,
repeatable,
agronomically important,
and economically justified.
A well-designed trial can also help explain failure.
If a product does not perform, the trial may reveal whether the problem was:
poor establishment,
the wrong field conditions,
lack of crop stress,
insufficient replication,
weak product performance,
or simply no useful agronomic benefit.
That information is valuable.
The goal is not to prove that biologicals work or do not work.
The goal is to determine which products work, under what conditions, for which crops, and with what level of reliability.
Key Takeaways
Start with the specific claim being tested.
Match the trial design to that claim.
Use the correct control treatment.
Replicate treatments whenever practical.
Randomize treatment placement where possible.
Keep management consistent across treatments.
Measure outcomes that directly relate to the claim.
Do not rely on visual differences alone.
Sample consistently and avoid selection bias.
Follow the trial long enough to capture the relevant crop response.
Repeat trials across fields, seasons, or locations before drawing broad conclusions.
Separate statistical significance from practical significance.
Calculate treatment cost, break-even response, and net return.
Treat negative results as useful information.
The strongest evidence is repeatable, agronomically meaningful, and economically worthwhile.
References
Ribeiro, R. C., Matos, J. P. C., Martins, D. V. S., Canellas, L. P., & Olivares, F. L. (2026). Microbial inoculants and root microbiome: A path to sustainable agroecosystem management. npj Sustainable Agriculture, 4, 51.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44264-026-00164-7Howard, K. M., et al. (2026). A systematic approach to field testing of biological products for horticulture is required to improve food security. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment, 5(1), e70132.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sae2.70132Field application of microbial inoculants improved crop foliar morphology and physiology performance: A global meta-analysis. (2024). Scientia Horticulturae, 326, 112769.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112769Biological and experimental factors that define the effectiveness of microbial inoculation on plant traits: A meta-analysis. (2024). ISME Communications, 4(1), ycae122.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ismeco/ycae122Engineering robustness in microbial biofertilizers: Lab-to-field failure modes, formulation design rules, and technology readiness level validation. (2026). Rhizosphere, 38, 101366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2026.101366Okorie, B. O. (2026). Considerations for microbial inoculation under dryland stress conditions. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 62, 649-670.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-026-02010-xEngineering the rhizosphere: When do microbial inoculants actually work? (2026). Rhizosphere, 38, 101365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2026.101365Meta-analysis reveals the effects of microbial inoculants on the biomass and diversity of soil microbial communities. (2024). Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8, 1270-1284.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02437-1Backer, R., Rokem, J. S., Ilangumaran, G., et al. (2018). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: Context, mechanisms of action, and roadmap to commercialization of biostimulants for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science, 9, 1473.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01473Parnell, J. J., Berka, R., Young, H. A., et al. (2016). From the lab to the farm: An industrial perspective of plant beneficial microorganisms. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 1110.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01110Compant, S., Samad, A., Faist, H., & Sessitsch, A. (2019). A review on the plant microbiome: Ecology, functions, and emerging trends in microbial application. Journal of Advanced Research, 19, 29-37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2019.03.004Trivedi, P., Leach, J. E., Tringe, S. G., Sa, T., & Singh, B. K. (2020). Plant-microbiome interactions: From community assembly to plant health. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 18, 607-621.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0412-1University of Nebraska-Lincoln. On-Farm Research Standard Protocols. Nebraska On-Farm Research Network.
https://on-farm-research.unl.edu/protocols/farm-research-standard-protocols/University of Florida IFAS Extension. Planning and Establishing On-Farm Field Trials.
https://ask.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AG447Utah State University Extension. On-Farm Research Guide.
https://extension.usu.edu/crops/research/on-farm-research-guideUniversity of Minnesota Extension. How to Do Research on Your Farm.
https://extension.umn.edu/courses-and-events/for-professionals/on-farm-research/how-to-do-research-on-your-farmOregon State University Extension. Experimenting on the Farm: Introduction to Experimental Design.
https://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/em-9381-experimenting-farm-introduction-experimental-designPenn State Extension. Conducting On-Farm Research.
https://extension.psu.edu/conducting-on-farm-research
Suggested Citation
The Organic Agronomist. (2026). How to Evaluate Agricultural Biologicals in Field Trials. California Organic Fertilizers, Inc. Agronomic review by Tim Stemwedel, Founder & CCA.
Permission to Use
© 2026 California Organic Fertilizers, Inc. All rights reserved. Readers may download, save, and print this publication for personal, educational, or internal business use. Brief excerpts may be quoted with attribution to The Organic Agronomist and a link to the original article. This publication may not be republished, altered, sold, distributed commercially, or presented as another party’s work without prior written permission from California Organic Fertilizers, Inc.
Need help saving a PDF? Click here for instructions.
To save a copy to your computer:
- Right-click the yellow PDF button above.
- Choose Save link as... from the menu.
- Choose where to save the file, such as Downloads.
- Click Save.
Already opened the PDF? Click the printer icon, select Save as PDF as the printer or destination, then click Save.