Hello mydarling, (Did you choose that name for this purpose :lol:)
This sounds like an interesting question to investigate, and I am happy that you are curious enough to investigate it. Your test however was definitely not conclusive. The big problem was the lack of separation of variables.
(Repeated in Bold font for emphasis)
The scientific method requires that you test only 1 variable at a time.
I suggest you repeat the experiment, but this time, with the exception of the dunking medium, the test runs should be identical in EVERY way.
- Substrates should be the same thickness (1" difference can matter).
- They should be fanned the same amount (Moister content and FAE definitely matter).
- The length of the dunk should likewise be identical (not #1 11hrs and #2 10hrs).
- Make sure they get the same lighting and the same temperature. (You didn't mention these parameters in your original test.)
- You need to be working from identical genetics as well. This necessarily means you use a clone of the same age to inoculate both your substrates. (You also didn't mention if you were using an isolate or multispore in your original test.)
- You should measure performance by dry weight not perceived size. (If one produces larger shrooms but it was only larger due to higher water content, then there was no benefit.)
In addition to testing the per flush performance, you could also test to see if the compost tea dunks between flushes lets the substrate continue to perform well on later flushes (4,5,6,7 maybe).
If you are still motivated to answer this question definitely document it here from the beginning so we can watch the progress. I am sure people will be very interested in your results (I know I am looking forward to it).
If you have any questions or want advice on something don't hesitate to ask me. :thumbup:
Blessings,
Oakchild
8-)
hey oakchild,
thanks for the thoughtful response! much appreciated!
i am quite familiar with the scientific method, being a molecular biologist by education and having worked in research labs for a long time. i was just in fact discussing with my trusty parter in crime (:reb:) that it's hard to know for sure which factor lead to the better flush. that being said, this was not a perfect experiment by any means, which is why i mentioned the confounding variables (fae, thickness). i just thought the results were noteworthy and encouraging, as the first flushes produced much more similar fruits.
thickness differed because i fucked up the first tub by pasteurizing too little substrate. wanted the next tub to have more substrate to work with. i was not at the time thinking of using the tubs for experimentation with dunking, so i didn't realize this would be a variable later.
fae could not be controlled as i had to leave for thanksgiving and the tub was left unattended for 4 days. stoopid thanksgiving :horse: both tubs were exposed to equal amounts of "air circulation" from the fan in the room, but the actual act of taking lid off and fanning was different.
lighting and temperature were indeed the same for both tubs.
source was different spores. the jars were inoculated with spore solution from syringes made with the same print, but of course each jar got different spores from the print and a thus different mix of genes.
when i have the time, spaces, and resources to repeat this experiment, i will definitely be more thorough in keeping conditions the same.
ps. no, i didn't chose the name mydarling for that purpose, but it is funny now.... :p hehehe. can call me md if ya like, that's what most people do. :)
thread...
