Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My own FF Media Supplement results
#1
Group A ---- Group B
1 - 1.09 ---- - 1 - 1.26
2 - 1.02 ---- - 2 - 1.39
3 - 0.90 ---- - 3 - 1.19
4 - 1.00 ---- - 4 - 1.13
5 - 0.89 ---- - 5 - 1.26
6 - 1.08 ---- - 6 - 1.26
7 - 0.93 ---- - 7 - 1.24
8 - 1.09 ---- - 8 - 1.25
9 - 1.07 ---- - 9 - 1.17
10 - 0.99 ---- 10 - 1.23
11 - 0.92 ---- 11 - 1.21
12 - 0.91 ---- 12 - 1.16
13 - 1.10 ---- 13 - 1.15
14 - 0.95 ---- 14 - 1.19
15 - 0.91 ---- 15 - 1.23
16 - 1.01 ---- 16 - 1.24
17 - 1.04 ---- 17 - 1.20
18 - 0.97 ---- 18 - 1.22
19 - 1.11 ---- 19 - 1.23
20 - 1.02 ---- 20 - 1.16
Average = 1 ---- Average = 1.2185

Group A is unsupplemented, Group B is supplemented. I measured a specific number of flies from each numbered container in Group A. The average weight is expressed here as 1.00 (or 100% of the average). Each container in Group A is listed how it compared to the average for that group.

Group B was weighed in the same manner. The weights are expressed as percentage of weight compared to the average weight in Group A. What did I see? EVERY container in Group B was not only higher than the average of Group A, the lightest set in Group B was heavier that the heaviest sample in Group A. This certainly seems to show that the supplement in the media may positively affect the size of the fruitflies in the culture at this stage.

Cultures A4 and B18 have been chosen to seed the new culture set and to feed the young tarantulas.

Stay Tuned!
Reply
#2
I'm a bit confused here. So, the control data (column A) has been normalized to a mean of "1" and the treatment data (column B) is represented as a percentage of the normalized mean (1) in the control (column A)?
Reply
#3
Yes..
Reply
#4
I would note, on second sampling, the A average was 1.029 and B was 1.2275
These are the same culture sets as first time. A went up by nearly 3%, B by less than 1%, but B average size fly was still much larger.

I will be making the first measurements on the second group of cultures soon, but so far, there is good evidence that the more nutritious media makes a bigger fly.
Reply
#5
OK, third sampling on my first set of test cultures....

A was 0.9865 and B was 1.1395. Size in both groups dropped. Perhaps the media is aging and losing nutrition. Also, many of the B cultures are almost out of media. While I have not counted fly production in numbers, the B cultures have visibly more flies. I will do some controlled seeding and hard counts when I get a chance.

My original groups have been discarded.

I also weighed flies in the culture group started from the originals. The first group, AA averaged 1.058, BB 1.2105 across the 10 cultures of each, AA being plain, BB being supplemented. At this point the correlation is undeniable. I will run the tests on these cultures for the same time period as the first, then I am going to stop this part of the test.

I have some tarantula data, not much to report. One of the species has shown slight gains in size with the appearance of a small advantage toward the supplemented flies, the other species has not. However, the second species is a much slower growing one. Really I'd have to say on that front, it has been inconclusive so far.
Reply
#6
So overall, flies were 20% bigger in the supplemented cultures. It was consistent. As for the tarantula weights, the one group averaged 16% larger than its counterpart. The other group (a slow growing arboreal) was 7% heaver than those fed unsupplemented flies. While this is somewhat supportive, some things did come up that make it somewhat inconclusive. However, it certainly seems to indicate there is a correlation (although it is not as strong as the first part). This part of the study will need another experiment based on total weight of fruit fly consumed. Stay Tuned!
Reply
#7
Congratulations...you proved you can culture ff's...so can a 7 yr old.
Then you sit here and try and say you can draw a correlation between "somewhat supportive" and "somewhat inconclusive" results. Of course will you tell anyone what the things are that "came up" and made the result "somewhat inconclusive" No you won't. Do you know what you get when you add "somewhat supportive" and "somewhat inconclusive" together? The sum equals EPIC FAILURE!!!
How did you measure the flies to arrive at 20% bigger? Is that 20% bigger wing size? Or 20% more water weight? How does "20%" bigger, equate to actual ff nutritional level??? For all you know that 20% could be fat, just clogging the arteries of frogs and tarantulas everywhere. Oh imagine the little froggies with little froggie angina. Once again Brian, a lot of talk from your mouth and your ass and yet nothing said. You should really run for public office, you're perfect for that.
Jon
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)