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

From: Robert Norsen <bnbrew_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:15:45 -0800 (PST)

Hi David
A single test sample can make one error too important whichever way it falls. So many variables in this subject it really needs many tests to assure the correct conclusion. Can we measure relative values? That would be good. We need a monsanto size budget. don't know tht we will ever get there. Like the alternative medical field. Without patentable miricle stuff there isn't a way to sell tons of stuff at rip off prices to make a budget that can sway the world. When MEGA farms start using the system maybe a budget will appear.

David Anderson <squtch_at_gmail.com> wrote:
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
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 wrote:




Yahoo! Groups Links















Received on Thu Jan 13 2005 - 17:48:11 EST

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