3 ms·
The numbers don't work out, or am I misunderstanding something? > These microscopic worms... cutting harvests by up to 70%. > The new technique has boosted yie
by shard 5y ago
The numbers don't work out, or am I misunderstanding something?
> These microscopic worms... cutting harvests by up to 70%.
> The new technique has boosted yields fivefold in trials with small-scale farmers in Kenya
Seems like there are factors beyond the worms in Kenya, unless they are really saying that they are getting over 150% yield after the banana tree paper is used?
- londons_explore 5y agoPotatoes are a pretty variable crop, with lots of both seen and unseen things having a large impact on yield. I can totally imagine a lot of noise in any results unless they were really large scale and well designed.
- JamisonM 5y agoThe authors are not doing a particularly good job of framing the losses or the benefits with their wording in the article. They link to a source that indicates that losses can be as high as .. well, exceeding the value of a seed stock used to plant the crop, so I guess that is greater than 100%?https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/27034#tosummaryOfInvasiveness https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/27034#tosummaryOfInvasive... The actual article in question cites 60% losses: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00852-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00852-5 The five-fold statement appears to be sloppy/misleading writing with respect to comparing the improvement over the baseline, not 5x the actual production. The article is not generally dishonest but the specific claims seem to be well into the "geez.. IDK guys.." territory.