Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:23:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Marshall <andrewm@eskimo.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg4028$foo@default> Subject: my experiments
Hi folks,
Pardon the delay in responding to this. I have been out trying
(unsuccessfully) to put a deer into the freezer. He didn't want to get in
there so I eventually had to give up. Tried the same thing with some
pheasant, but they also were not interested. I guess it will be hormone
laden beef for me this year.
>
> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 23:58:25 +0000
> From: drake@erols.com
> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: Superthrive (Andrew's experiment)
> Message-ID: <343D6FA1.5F88@erols.com>
>
> Andrew,
> The experiment is not accurate unless all the plants were clones
> of the same age. Otherwise, you did not succeed in that aspect of the
> variable.
>
If I was interested in seeing how a SINGLE CLONE LINE responded to
superthrive, then what you are saying would be true. I was not interested
in that though. My experiments showed how a uniformly aged population of
similar seedlings performed, given that conditions were maintained
identical for all trays of seedlings involved. Seed was arbitrarily
sorted, germinated by standard methods and then arbitrarily sorted into a
bunch to recieve superthrive, some to recieve water. I feel justified in
saying that for ME there is no reason EXCEPT superstition for using the
stuff. I do use it on occasion, especially as a buffer when
transplanting. I tried it on Sarracenia hybrids, Drosera capensis and
others that I forget off hand. The ususal commonly available stuff that
can be experimented on in abundance.
As for any one else, do what ever you want. I don't care whether
or not you use superthrive. I am not trying to denegrate it in any
way, nor endorse it. Just relating personal experiance as was requested.
Regards
Andrew
ps. The constant worry over possible flame retaliation worries me.
Paranoia is a self fulfilling prophecy.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:12 PST