On hydroponics, that is good to know, and as I saidbefore, I am more happy with those results as there won't be a field element. The issue then is what is the difference between hydroponic practices and the control - because that is the key here to takeup as well as cost. So looking forward to the PFS in that regard.
As to the 300%, we'll let farmers decide but too me the more impottant aspects of the Ann was this:
A similar trend was evident in the plant total dry mass per plant with a higher yield with application of OHD liquor at 5 and 35L/ha with 0.6 and 0.8 grams respectively compared to 0.3 from the untreated control.
IMO yield is the appropriate measurement as that is what produces product, but again let farmers decide. As I said looking forward to the PFS.
Now for a guess. In this thread I put up a post on fertilisers and impact on production -Post #:
22649858. The articles basically implied that the use of traditional fertilisers increased production by 50% to 100%. Using the yield data, in the Ann, not number of heads, OHD increased yield in wheat by 100% - 160%, so lets compare to the article I posted. The difference in these two numbers is 50% - 60%, so first point it might mean the control in our wheat experiments may not be the same as farming practices, albeit the studies are international. The OHD result swill be out there if the control i the Ann equated to the studies in the link. But assuming the international articles transpose to Australia, then say that the Ann results would not fully transpose to the field yield output (reduce the difference in yield outcomes by 50% and make that a guess too) I think as a starting base as a hypothesis and total guess estimate for yield benefit the increase using the numbers in the Ann and the articles becomes 25% - 30% between OHD and farming practices so it becomes a question of cost, and yes these are still big guess-estimate number. This is what I would be expecting the PFS to detail by the way - do this type of analysis but mine is a total guess because the missing variable is what is the control in the Ann and how does that relate to what farmers actually do and yield is the correct measure IMO (i.e I'll let farmers decide whether my statements are correct or not)
As I said the question is yield in dry mass as that is what produces you goods but it obviously starts with how much extra benefit does OHD provide farmers over what they already do in broad acre. My take is there is a significant benefit because even a 20% benefit in broad acre for wheat is huge, so boils down to cost of OHD product and what we have been told is it is cost competitive which is another tick. The PFS will provide the basis of this optimism IMO but in terms of the Ann itself well they are my views above and IMO. Lets see what the PFS does and the results of any broad acre trials.
All IMO, just a guess but obvious too me that there is a lot of missing information to do an appropriate analysis and that analysis needs to be done in the PFS. What will settle this is GPP/Monash saying exactly how does the control in the Ann relate to established farming practices because it is the difference in these results that will determine uptake (and obviously how OHD works in the broad acre space for wheat). Need a coffee now - all good.
