Quote:
Originally Posted by geissene
If it was a pure control group, the data should be collected at the same time as the experimental group. In order to keep the conditions as consistent as possible.
Regardless, it would be interesting to know what was done to expedite the fruit to mature.
Erik
|
Well, when you're not getting funding from a university or taxpayer-supported grant, private field research tends to be done a little differently; quite often with the results locked inside your head. We tend to go by general observations over many years, which eventually culminates in an accepted theory.
Control groups are great for pencil-necked geeks who never got their pocket protectors out in the field, but no one drives their car on the interstate at 55 MPH with the windows rolled up and the AC turned off, to achieve the laboratory claims.
This is why no one knew the Suzuki Samurai was such a rollover risk, until my uncle (facility manager for Consumer Reports' Auto Test Division) was driving it to work one morning and tried to steer out of a 6" deep snow rut at 12 MPH. He hiked over to the track, got a camera, hiked back and took that now-famous shot of the Samurai laying on its side in the snow. Real world tests blew Suzuki's own carefully monitored research out of the water.
Now, getting back to what originally started this; the methods used by PR Giants for bananas and mine for dawn redwoods may differ slightly, but still rely on observations, not clinical trials. I trust field studies over lab studies any day when it comes to plants, because Mother Nature doesn't care about scales, temperatures or thermometers.
Not trying to be inflammatory. Just my two shiny pennies on the topic...