JPB Smart Pots vs Std Nursery Pots FIGHT!

[pga7602]

A question for the scientists here, where did the op say the plants in the before and after photos are arranged in the same order in each photo. Is there a chance that maybe the smart pots may have plant #1 and plant #3 from the first photo ?

ed

BINGO! You win....

I was actually sitting back to see how long before someone figured out the the "smaller" trees were actually in the nursery pots to begin with. Keep staring at the before pic and you will figure out that 1 and 3 are in the smart pots. Good job!

Back on topic.... This is not an experiment.. This is not science... This is sharing of some photos and having fun. Please.. let's not all be so Cereal....

 

[Catalyst05]

It isn't outrageous at all, it is common sense. You just cant say with any definitive confidence that this says the pots make any difference at all.

The two trees started in the nursery pots were bigger than the ones started in the other pots so naturally they are going to be bigger at the end... One of the trees in the smart pots looks a bit sickly. Can you definitely say it was because of the pot or could something else be a factor such as a fungus, an bug infestation? No you cant. The other tree looks fine. So you base your assertion on a 50% result? That is really conclusive....

The thought that this is in any way conclusive is laughable. I am sorry you cant understand that.

I can say with absolute confidence that you can't say that pots didn't have a role. On the flip side, I can say that as a "factor" pots could have played a role (even a significant role) in the difference between the plants.

Again, I was disagreeing with your statement, that starting material was the ONLY factor, and pots could not play ANY role in the difference between the two photos.

I'm not attempting to be conclusive. I don't need to be, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm saying look at the pictures. The poster took the 4 JBP that are comparable and said all 4 plants were treated the same. The two in nursery pots look healthier (I don't care that they're taller, although vigor is a sign of health).

I then set about rationalizing why they might look better. Because poster is in Los Angeles, it's hot. Fabric wicks water. Cloth pots are made of fabric. Smart pots likely stayed drier than the nursery containers because of their material. The conditions that trees grow in factor into their general health, especially in container growing (aka if you don't water, the tree dies). General lesson learned, don't treat smart pots like nursery containers, especially in hot climates. A reasonable interpretation.

I derived value from a "non-scientific" experiment by a poster, and thought my comments would be valuable in provoking thought amongst other forum members who might not have made the same rationalization. And the next step would be someone else disagreeing with me based on their experience and I learn something from that disagreement.

Instead, we get these craptastic responses like "not enough data," "not scientific enough." What are we, robots? Even if he experimented with 100 trees, there would be someone out there that would say, "you only conducted one trial." Forget that. Why not just take it as a given that there is never enough data, and that's why this forum is here. I want everyone's best educated guess as to why those trees are different. There's so much experience with trees in this forum that it would be a painful waste to stop at the "cannot compute Will Robinson! Not enough data!" stage.

 

[Paradox]

Instead, we get these craptastic responses like "not enough data," "not scientific enough." What are we, robots? Even if he experimented with 100 trees, there would be someone out there that would say, "you only conducted one trial." Forget that. Why not just take it as a given that there is never enough data, and that's why this forum is here. I want everyone's best educated guess as to why those trees are different. There's so much experience with trees in this forum that it would be a painful waste to stop at the "cannot compute Will Robinson! Not enough data!" stage.

I am really glad you dont work for the FDA. People would die based upon the conclusions you assume with inadequate information.

We have seen people do similar "experiments" before. You know why no one else is giving their educated guess? BECAUSE THERE ISNT ENOUGH INFORMATION PRESENTED TO BE SURE OF WHAT YOU ARE SEEING.

Id rather not risk the health of my trees on 2 observations, guesses, hopes, dreams, rainbows, fairy tales and what someone wants to see as truth without the evidence to back it up. Some whimiscal, "Look 2 of them are bigger out of 4. Isn't it wonderful and this is the best answer ever." just doesnt cut it. You want people to believe something really works? Consistent and reliable repetition. Not 100 times but certainly more than 2!

 

[Catalyst05]

I am really glad you dont work for the FDA. People would die based upon the conclusions you assume with inadequate information.

We have seen people do similar "experiments" before. You know why no one else is giving their educated guess? BECAUSE THERE ISNT ENOUGH INFORMATION PRESENTED TO BE SURE OF WHAT YOU ARE SEEING.

Id rather not risk the health of my trees on 2 observations, guesses, hopes, dreams, rainbows, fairy tales and what someone wants to see as truth without the evidence to back it up. Some whimiscal, "Look 2 of them are bigger out of 4. Isn't it wonderful and this is the best answer ever." just doesnt cut it. You want people to believe something really works? Consistent and reliable repetition. Not 100 times but certainly more than 2!

You make a good point. But the reality is that we operate with inadequate information 99% of the time.

The difference between my view and yours is that you don't think you have enough information even to make a good guess as to what's going on. Totally reasonable. But my view is that even my guess would help bring out issues for the poster to think about. Let's face it, the poster isn't going to read our posts and run out and gamble his life savings on nursery pots. He posted to share some information and get some discussion. The poster can weigh whatever input was received and make whatever decision the poster wants to make. These are the kinds of collaborative conversations that forums are good for: finding good fodder for factors to assume, control, or test for more experimentation. But your "cannot compute" answer doesn't even begin the conversation.

And a subpoint about the FDA. Did you know health claims on food labeling are legally permissible based upon the standard that it is "supported by evidence?" Notice the standard is not "supported by scientific evidence," not "conclusively proven by the evidence," nor is it "supported by a great deal of evidence." Even the results in those pictures are "evidence." Not that we're talking about mass consumption of "food" or "drugs," to even be relevant.