This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: Moon Planting

Joe Hemmens wrote:
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote
>
> > Vernon Webster wrote:
> > > he wanted to conduct a large
> > > scale experiment on lunar planting. He asks as many listeners as possible
> > > to plant some seeds on Good Friday ,then to repeat a similar planting on
> > > Easter Monday.
> >
> >         This, of course, is not an 'experiment' but a survey. An
> > experiment would include controls to reduce the number of variables to
> > only those studied. His method vastly increases the variables purposely.
>
> Well he did ask participants to plant their crops a few days earlier
> as well as on Easter Monday and compare the results.
>
> I think that your comment 'vastly increases the variables purposely'
> is untrue bearing in mind what can be achieved from a two minute
> slot on a radio programme.  At least if a good number of people
> respond it will overcome one of the usual criticisms of experiments
> - that of providing an statistically valid sample.

        A statistically valid sample can be had quite easily in any greenhouse
of moderate size. The use of wildly variant observers ruins the sample.
Especially since the people most likely to participate from even the
most staid of audiences are those who say to themselves, "I wonder if
there is anything to this moon business", whereas an objective observer
in a double blind study could only say, "I wonder why they are having me
do this"
>
> > His participants are selected from a group of people already predisposed
> > to find the results he wants. The controlled tests have been done and do
> > not support the assertion that moon planting has any effect that cannot
> > be explained by light values.
>
> No,  I can assure you that listeners to 'Gardener's Question Time'
> are best described as traditionalists and Bob Flowerdew appearing as
> he does (on television) with trademark blue boilersuit and long
> blonde plaited pony-tail is regarded probably as a very knowledgeable
> eccentric.

        Again, those who truly reguard him as an eccentric will likely be a
smaller percentage of his participants. I doubt that even I, as a
confirmed sceptic, would bother to try to prove him wrong, but I can
recall a time in my mispent youth when I would have gone out of my way
to prove him right. In other words, his participants will likely be
those who are unsure and those who are convinced there will be a result,
the folk who would balance the later are those who are quite sure that
there will be NO effect, so why bother? Leaving the convinced adherents
as an unopposed majority. If only a few of these are a trifle heavy
handed in their measurements (we're not talking about professionals
here) it would throw off the expected 50/50 result.

>
> I do not understand your comment on light values.  Surely in order to
> claim that the very low level of light from the moon makes a
> significant improvement to plant growth you would have to compare
> those grown during low moon light levels and high moon light levels.

        The addition of a very small amount of light during the dark cycle of a
plant's day supresses the starch to carbon dioxide complement of
photosynthesis. The excess starch is known to cause flowering in some
plants and other forms of growth in others. A note to those who like to
leave their back porch light on. This can be enough to disrupt a plant's
regular growing cycle.

> Since the theory is concerned with sowing dates and plants that
> produce 'above ground yields and below ground yields' and plants take
> such widely divergent period of time to germinate and therefore
> appear above ground and subject to moonlight,  such as Broad
> Beans (approx 21 days) and Radishes (approx 7 days) giving a half
> moon cycle difference between germination times of those two crops
> and that most crops are subject to moonlight for a number of 28 day moon
 cycles
> (thereby even further reducing the supposed advantage of light advantage
 between
> different moon phases) it seems unlikely that moonlight can alter
> crop growth for a crop grown until maturity.

        Germination rates are a fair test. But as I indicated these tests have
been done under real controls and the results are well known. Which
explains why commercial growers feel free to ignore moon cycles in their
planting. I worked for 5 years at the Lake Helen Sprout Farm where we
grew alfalfa sprouts in 500# lots. I was able to do these tests myself
as well as study the results of other testing. At the time I was a
convinced astrologer and had an interest in finding the positive
results. We had a totally controlled environment, temperature control,
timed and measured water, lights on a timer with photosensors to assure
consistent light intensity, and we kept detailed notes on weight, leaf
formation (pushing off the hull) and shelf life (probably not important
except for vitality comparisons). In addition I would do a natal chart
on every batch, looking for some variation due to planetary influence. I
paid particular attention to the Moon/Sun cycle since there is so much
folk lore on that subject. Suffice it to say that I am no longer an
Astrologer.

>
> >         Not a slam at you BTW, I still think the results will be
> > interesing. It's just that he will not be measuring the effect of the
> > moon, he will be measuring the size of his dedicated audience.
>
> Joe Hemmens

--
             The Image Mill
     Complete Graphics and WEB Service
        Featuring GIF89a Animations
        http://www.TheImageMill.com
Follow-Ups: References:
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index