Re: [compost_tea] : non-aerated teas/ Aerated comparrison tests

From: David Anderson <squtch_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:49:47 -0800
Bob,

I suspect that in this sort of case, you would have to think of it
being more like a barroom bet rather than a controlled test.

You just aren't going to get a whole lot of farmers (or even
homeowner's when it comes to lawns)  that are going to want to run a
scientific test. It will be much more of a "put up or shut up"
situation.

If the ACT is significantly better than the nonaerated tea, then we
will win a majority of these bets, but we will also lose occasionally.

Even the draws or minor losses would not necessarily be a bad thing
because it gets them thinking about it.

Of course, we would also have to consider a win the same way as a
loss, it should not be considered as any sort of "proof", just another
data point.


On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:30:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Norsen
<bnbrew_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ted to make this test valid you need more plots, by more people, under more
> conditions.
> 21 0f each type CT might be a real test.  Can you involve that many beween
> you and others?  In reality it might have to go for 3 seasons to establish
> soil conditions - and include soil tests of course.  Bob 
>
> Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net> wrote:


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Thu Jan 13 2005 - 17:40:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:43 EST