Re: pearl's list update

"swamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:39:20 -0000, "pearl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >valid:
> >hollow earth
> >inner-earth beings
> >chemtrails
> >9/11 controlled demolition
> >veganism
> >Aids and Ebola man-made
> >astrology
> >'zappers'
> >reflexology
> >crop-circles
> >telepathy (channelling)
> >Rense
>
> I don't know what "zappers" are or "Rense" is, but the rest are
> sufficient to show your beliefs indiscriminate and your skepticism
> level profoundly lacking.

Ipse dixit.

> >lied about:
> >feed:beef ratio
>
> No, he didn't. Your original ratio of 8:1 was about right.

8:1 is about right for grain (excluding silage/hay) : liveweight gain.

(Information from the USDA's Economic Research Service
shows that only one pound of beef is produced for every sixteen
pounds of grain consumed.
http://royal.okanagan.bc.ca/mpidwirn/agriculture/agriculture.html )

The figures I've worked out, using industry data, is total feed
(grain + silage/hay) required for beef gain.

Look;

Live-weight       900        1040        1146      1258          1403 lb

'harvest'                1    .....    2   ....     3      ....     4     ......   5
Fat  %              17.7 ........22.6  ..... 28.1 .......30.3 ..........34.0
Protein   %       14.5 ........13.9 .......12.6  ......12.0 ..........11.6
Water    %        51.3  ...... 48.0....... 43.9 ...... 42.3.......... 40.1
Bone     %        16.4 ....... 15.4 ...... 15.4 ...... 15.3  .........14.3
carcass weight   450          550         650         750           850 lbs.
http://ars.sdstate.edu/BeefExt/BeefReports/2000/influence_of_body_weight_and_mar.htm

protein + water = meat
(1) 65.8% of 450lbs carcass,   (4) 54.3% of 750lbs carcass.
                 =  296.1                                  =  407.25
- a gain of 111.15lbs of meat for + 300lbs of carcass weight-
or 37.0% of feedlot carcass gain.

of which the protein (meat DM) gain is
 (1) 14.5% of 450lb carcass    (4)  12% of 750lb carcass
              = 65.25    lbs meat DM         = 90 lbs meat DM
- a gain of 24.74lbs of meat protein for 300lbs of feedlot carcass
gain; 24.74lbs gain of meat protein for 358lbs liveweight gain.

Got that?

['... An 800-pound, medium-frame steer calf will eat about
16.8 pounds of dry matter a day of a high-concentrate ration.
He will gain about 3.0 pounds a day with daily nutrients in his
feed at the level shown here.

The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound yearling steer is:

                                           Pounds
Corn                14.7
Soybean meal    0.52
Corn silage       10.00
Limestone           0.17
Total                 25.83
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02052.htm ]

Using that figure, we can work out approximately how long the
(1) 900lbs-(4) 1258lbs animal was being fed, the total consumed,
then divide that by the actual DM meat gain of 24.75lbs to work
out actual feed : meat protein gain.

1258-900= 358lbs liveweight gain / 3lbs liveweight gain per day =
119.3 days; times a daily ration of 16.8lbs dry matter per day =
2004.24lbs feed DM; then divide by 24.75 lbs meat DM gain =
80.97 (feed DM : 1 lb meat DM), or 81:1

That is lower than my 90:1 result, because the above figures give
the % of protein content at about 28%, not the 20% I used .....
'When an animal makes 20 grams of meat protein, it adds them to
80 grams of water to make meat.'  from
http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm.

Right?

> Then you,
> along w/ help of other ar/evs, began adding irrelevant factors
> (transportation of livestock and livestock feeds) and omitting
> relevant ones (finishing, silage). By the time you were done bloating
> the ratio, you'd proven that mammalian life can't exist on Earth.
> Since *most* of us have the ability to look around and see
> observational evidence to the contrary, we logically concluded your
> numbers were grossly inaccurate. Your challenge that we parse your
> numbers and double-check your arithmetic was a hollow bluff and
> unnecessary exercize.

Huff and puff all you like, swamp, you can't blow the data away.

> Just so you know, if ruminants required the staggering 85-90:1 feed to
> meat ratio you eventually rocketed to,

DM.

> a cow pie would have more
> potential chemical energy than TNT.

Welcome to the real world.

> Another fantastic possibilty is
> that livestock are running internal temps in the 1000F range, in which
> case 5000 head of cattle are producing enough energy to light Chicago.

No need to exaggerate.  Really.

> You and your number-juggling "disproved" the First Law of
> Thermodynamics. You didn't know you were doing this, but when the
> obvious flaws were pointed out to you, you continued to insist your
> ratios were arrived at accurately. Thus, suspect's accusation is/was
> valid. I don't recall participating in the other discussions, but I'll
> bet his other accusations are valid as well.

No flaws were pointed out.  Suggest you do your own thinking.