- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Greetings,
I was testing 9 different media for fungus each at 4 different concentrations (1, 2, 3, 4) for their effect on radial growth of fungus.
9 x 4 = 36 combinations each with 3 Replications
I want to compare how these 36 combinations effect the growth in comparison with control_1 and control_2.
Control_1 is = Media '10'
Control_2 is = Media '11'
Media | Conc | Rep | Radial growth |
1 | 25 | 1 | 1.05 |
1 | 25 | 2 | 0.85 |
1 | 25 | 3 | 0.8 |
1 | 50 | 1 | 0.95 |
1 | 50 | 2 | 0.85 |
1 | 50 | 3 | 0.9 |
1 | 100 | 1 | 1.05 |
1 | 100 | 2 | 0.85 |
1 | 100 | 3 | 0.85 |
1 | 200 | 1 | 1 |
1 | 200 | 2 | 1 |
1 | 200 | 3 | 1.05 |
2 | 25 | 1 | 0.8 |
2 | 25 | 2 | 0.7 |
2 | 25 | 3 | 0.65 |
2 | 50 | 1 | 0.7 |
2 | 50 | 2 | 0.65 |
2 | 50 | 3 | 0.8 |
2 | 100 | 1 | 0.55 |
2 | 100 | 2 | 0.7 |
2 | 100 | 3 | 0.65 |
2 | 200 | 1 | 0.75 |
2 | 200 | 2 | 0.65 |
2 | 200 | 3 | 0.6 |
3 | 25 | 1 | 1.15 |
3 | 25 | 2 | 0.95 |
3 | 25 | 3 | 1 |
3 | 50 | 1 | 1 |
3 | 50 | 2 | 1.1 |
3 | 50 | 3 | 1.15 |
3 | 100 | 1 | 1.25 |
3 | 100 | 2 | 0.85 |
3 | 100 | 3 | 0.9 |
3 | 200 | 1 | 0.95 |
3 | 200 | 2 | 0.95 |
3 | 200 | 3 | 0.95 |
5 | 25 | 1 | 0.95 |
5 | 25 | 2 | 0.9 |
5 | 25 | 3 | 0.95 |
5 | 50 | 1 | 0.9 |
5 | 50 | 2 | 1 |
5 | 50 | 3 | 0.85 |
5 | 100 | 1 | 0.85 |
5 | 100 | 2 | 0.9 |
5 | 100 | 3 | 0.65 |
5 | 200 | 1 | 0.95 |
5 | 200 | 2 | 0.6 |
5 | 200 | 3 | 0.9 |
6 | 25 | 1 | 0.75 |
6 | 25 | 2 | 0.55 |
6 | 25 | 3 | 0.6 |
6 | 50 | 1 | 0.5 |
6 | 50 | 2 | 0.5 |
6 | 50 | 3 | 0.5 |
6 | 100 | 1 | 0.4 |
6 | 100 | 2 | 0.45 |
6 | 100 | 3 | 0.45 |
6 | 200 | 1 | 0.5 |
6 | 200 | 2 | 0.5 |
6 | 200 | 3 | 0.5 |
7 | 25 | 1 | 0.65 |
7 | 25 | 2 | 0.6 |
7 | 25 | 3 | 0.65 |
7 | 50 | 1 | 0.6 |
7 | 50 | 2 | 0.5 |
7 | 50 | 3 | 0.6 |
7 | 100 | 1 | 0.55 |
7 | 100 | 2 | 0.6 |
7 | 100 | 3 | 0.6 |
7 | 200 | 1 | 0.55 |
7 | 200 | 2 | 0.6 |
7 | 200 | 3 | 0.6 |
8 | 25 | 1 | 0.4 |
8 | 25 | 2 | 0.6 |
8 | 25 | 3 | 0.45 |
8 | 50 | 1 | 0.4 |
8 | 50 | 2 | 0.4 |
8 | 50 | 3 | 0.35 |
8 | 100 | 1 | 0.4 |
8 | 100 | 2 | 0.4 |
8 | 100 | 3 | 0.45 |
8 | 200 | 1 | 0.4 |
8 | 200 | 2 | 0.5 |
8 | 200 | 3 | 0.5 |
9 | 25 | 1 | 0.4 |
9 | 25 | 2 | 0.4 |
9 | 25 | 3 | 0.45 |
9 | 50 | 1 | 0.4 |
9 | 50 | 2 | 0.4 |
9 | 50 | 3 | 0.35 |
9 | 100 | 1 | 0.45 |
9 | 100 | 2 | 0.45 |
9 | 100 | 3 | 0.5 |
9 | 200 | 1 | 0.4 |
9 | 200 | 2 | 0.45 |
9 | 200 | 3 | 0.5 |
10 | 0 | 1 | 0.65 |
10 | 0 | 2 | 0.65 |
10 | 0 | 3 | 0.6 |
11 | 0 | 1 | 0.75 |
11 | 0 | 2 | 0.6 |
11 | 0 | 3 | 0.65 |
I never used contrasts before. Could someone help me with code?
Thank you,
Sai
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
This paper is a good resource for the technical details
https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings11/351-2011.pdf
The challenge will be deciding what you want to compare to what, which is context-specific and thus falls to you, the researcher.
If your intent is to compare each of 36 treatment means to each of two control means, then you could consider mean comparisons controlled for Type I error using the Dunnett method, possibly with additional adjustment due to having two controls rather than one.
Good luck!