Originally Posted by Pancrazio
Found the paper. No mention of height of measurement whatsoever.
I did assume that it was taken at the base because, it looks to me, this is the only "point of interest" where datas can be confronted no matter what, but i can see your reasons.
Girth at 100 cm has been standard for decades and authors generally expect a certain level of competence from the reader.
My first reply to you was a way of saying there's something amiss.
Clearly your plant was not healthier and would not have the larger girth.
The plants in the study produced healthy bunches and that would not have been possible with a base circumference of 32 cm.
My second reply attempted to point out exactly where your error was.