FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115  
116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   >>   >|  
fect the score. The presence of empty or poorly filled nuts in a lot of nuts from which samples are taken at random introduces greater variability in the samples than that found in lots with all nuts filled. This is true because the chances of getting an equal number of empty nuts in 25 nut samples are small and the presence of each empty nut decreases the per cent kernel and also the numbers of quarters possible. Variations due to empty nuts could be eliminated by greatly increasing the number of nuts in the sample but this is not practical for the purposes this schedule is intended to serve. The question of whether or not it is possible for different operators to obtain equal scores on duplicate samples is not satisfactorily answered by the data in table 4. As the data stand the scores are far from equal. There is, however, a consistency in the scoring of each operator and it is quite probable that with more uniform treatment of nuts before cracking and more careful sampling better agreement would be achieved. This is borne out in the data given in table 5 in which the variation in scores between the two operators was no greater than that obtained by the same operator. From a study of the data secured it appears that the causes of variation in the scores of duplicate or replicate samples are the result of (1) lack of care in making replicate random samples, (2) differences in treatment of samples before cracking, particularly as regards moisture content, (3) differences in the skill or care of the operator making the tests, (4) presence of empty nuts or shrivelled kernels in the sample which introduces variation not compensated for in a 25 nut sample and further complicates the matter because assigning penalties for shrivelled kernels involves personal judgment. The first three of these can be minimized or eliminated by care and skill. The fourth item is not so easy but procedure can at least be standardized. Increasing the size of the sample is not practical if much testing is to be done. All things considered it would seem that the scores indicate fairly well but not accurately the relative merit of the samples and thus can be relied upon to determine the relative merit of a variety or clone, the suitability of the variety for growing in a given locality and the variability of a variety grown in the same region but under different conditions. To determine the merit of a variety as compared to another both
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115  
116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
samples
 
scores
 
sample
 
variety
 

presence

 

operator

 

variation

 

duplicate

 

practical

 

operators


eliminated

 

differences

 

shrivelled

 

kernels

 

determine

 

relative

 

making

 
replicate
 
treatment
 

cracking


filled

 

number

 
random
 

variability

 

greater

 

introduces

 
fourth
 

minimized

 

personal

 
complicates

compensated

 
matter
 

assigning

 

involves

 
moisture
 

content

 

penalties

 

procedure

 

judgment

 

suitability


growing

 
locality
 
region
 

compared

 

conditions

 

relied

 

testing

 

standardized

 

Increasing

 
things