"Effect of Testing Temperature on Egg Quality Measurements"
by
K.C. McAvoy et al.

=========================================
Comments by Jason A. Osborne, March, 2002
=========================================

In general, my comments are minimal and have to do with style
of presentation more than anything substantial.  The papers 
seems to be very well-written.

page 3, line 57:
 
I'm uncertain about the use of the word "rate."
Isn't it the case that Haugh units are nonlinear in
quality, rather than "rate of quality?"

page 4, line 72: 

the word "and" might be inserted:
"age of the age AND not the overall quality . . ."

page 4, line 76: 

It might help if r^2 is defined or referred to by name,
like

"No differences in the coefficients of determination, r^2,
were found and the uncorrected measurement . . ."

page 4, lines 81-82:

Again, I'm not sure about "rate of loss is a nonlinear function". 
(If Haugh units were linearly decreasing in quality
units, then the rate of loss, or slope, would be constant.)
You might say something like 

". . . index is that quality decreases nonlinearly with time."

instead of

". . . index is that the rate of loss is a non-linear function."

(If it is clear that I'm misunderstanding things, please
ignore these comments.)

page 6, line 118:

you might say

". . . the same egg to control for egg-to-egg variability."

instead of 

". . . the same egg to eliminate egg-to-egg variation."

page 7, line 136:

"calculate" instead of "calculates"   ?

page 7, line 140:

There could be a space in the equation between "100" and "log."

page 7, line 143:

you might say "adjustments were made" instead of "adjustments were done"


STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION

What you have is fine with the exception of "Means were separated
using the least squares method."  I guess I am not sure what
this sentence means.  I might write the following instead.

(Data from this complete, crossed factorial experiment were 
analyzed using linear models with fixed effects.  The models were 
fit using PROC GLM within SAS.  Coefficients of variation for
quality measurements were computed using PROC MEANS.  Multiple 
comparisons among means were made using Tukey's procedure 
where necessary.)

(I'm not sure which multiple comparison procedure we used
to compare temperature means, but Tukey is the one we should
use.)

page 10, line 213, the CV could be defined.  For example,
instead of 

"The CV is a measure of the precision of a test."

you might say

"The CV for a sample is defined as the ratio of the standard 
deviation to the average.  It is a unitless measure of precision."

page 11, line 244, 

Does there need to be a comma between "measurements" and "the" ?

Table 1, 

- "Strain" is misspelled as "Stain"

- The values in the % TT section of the table is clear when reading
the "Results and Discussion" section, but not when glancing at the
table.  The coefficient of variation label might appear somewhere
in the table, like "CV by % TT" instead of "% TT"

- The a-c footnote to the table is a little unorthodox, I might
right something very similar though:

"a-c Means within a section in a given column followed by the same
letter do not differ significantly (P<=0.05)"