Quote:
Originally Posted by
Olive Hill 
I understand. No college assignment is going to be perfect, my issue is that you have consistently and repeatedly insinuated that you're actually demonstrating something important here when we both know full well the project is full of holes -- or shoot, maybe you don't, but you present yourself as a man of science so I assume you probably do. You've
studied two variables, you haven't
controlled anything. Variables you would need to
control to have a valid research project would be breed, age, diet, environment, intensity of light, spectrum of light, actual daylight hours vs those the hens were exposed to, etc. There's a reason the research has been conducted in confinement operations -- even aside from the fact that industry equals money -- in confinement variables can be isolated. No one is saying a hen
needs 16 hours of daylight in order to lay, what they're saying is that
free from other variables that impact reproductive productivity 14-16 hours of daylight maximizes production.
I'm not trying to be mean, and I know I probably should have bit my tongue like I have all the other times you've talked about how your research is showing that day length isn't significant, but it is what it is, I guess. It's a neat project and I'm sure it'll earn you a decent grade, but given the design, it doesn't have the capacity to tell us anything about egg production -- even in backyard flocks. Like I said, I'm not trying to be mean though I know I'm probably coming across harshly despite my best efforts not to. I'm just off put by misinformation and I guess my quick fingers got the best of my self control this time. And with that I'll go back to my corner and re-insert my gag because I can hear RB putting me there in my head.
The title of the class is "Statistics for Biologists", the un-written sub-title should mention that we are dealing with inferential statistical analysis of the available data. From the very first day, we were drilled with the idea that good research is un-biased and impersonal. As the prof says, "data are what data are".
It could very well be that my project is full of holes as you say, but as a student of science, I am likely to make mistakes. My objective is to present a case, support or reject my hypothesis and hopefully be thought provoking enough that other "real" scientists will take the idea to the next level. The only thing that I have ever insinuated is that commercial operations do not necessarily reflect the backyard chicken keeper hobbyist. Perhaps they do, but I don't have enough data to support that.
I realize that you are not being "mean" and I haven't taken it that way at all. This project also does not try to explain egg production for several of the reasons that you state. IF there is an underlying theme, it would be that controlled egg production facilities are not necessarily representative of what one might expect from a backyard flock.
So don't bite your tongue on my account. The fact that you question my project merely means that I need to make sure that I had a robust experiment to begin with. And if I didn't, what would I do next to make it better? I have a few weeks to pull this all together and make an argument based on data collected. Perhaps it will be thought provoking, or perhaps it will be total BS. In either case, the data are what the data are. I still have 15 flocks' data to crunch.
the original coop needs a paint job and a once over...((sigh)) they are getting back into shape a little at a time.
Okay, that takes the cake for crazy neighbor behavior. 
I wish money could have nothing to do with these decisions! I am going to call our regular vet in the morning, I know they "don't do chickens" but they do take birds, so maybe asking if they can do a swab wouldn't be out of the question. May as well check, anyway. Failing that, I think I am going to try doing the swab myself and sending it in, followed by treating everyone with antibiotics while I wait for the results. Ugh.
