> I think you are trying to head this contest back to the
> mythological world of scientific experimentation.
I've seen my share of useless, irrelevant science, but I don't think yield
testing, in general, falls into that category, at least for most farmers.
What part of the experimental design do you disagree with?
> Its net income on real farm situations that pay the
As I mentioned to Ann, we could express the data in various ways.
> I think all this is nothing more than a good pissing
I agree it started that way. But maybe the energy developed can be
channeled into producing some useful information and/or systems of
cooperation and joint study.
> I don't believe its possible to find any person
> without some kind of bias.
Agreed. But it is not hard to find people with the integrity to perform a
well defined, simple trial without distorting it. That is one reason to
employ a simple, objective response such as yield.
> I'd also suggest you put a feeding component
> into this trial.
Desirable, but probably too expensive for most potential collaborators. But
if you want to do it, I'll supply the seed, at least of the hybrid(s). Have
you tried our high-oil corn?
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command