Re: pearl's list update

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:21:14 -0000, "pearl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>"swamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:33:57 -0000, "pearl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
><..>
>
>Still ipse dixit, swamp.

Nope. There isn't a shred of evidence to support:

>hollow earth
>inner-earth beings
>chemtrails
>9/11 controlled demolition
>veganism
>Aids and Ebola man-made
>astrology
>reflexology
>crop-circles
>telepathy (channelling)

I only left out zappers and Rense because I don't know what they are.

>> >> >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.
>>
>> 8:1 is about right for every juvenile, land-based herbivorous mammal.
>> The ratio goes down upon maturity.
>>
>> [snip of bad math and misapplied, undocumented data]
>
>Exactly what I've come to expect from the dishonest antis.

Yes, how churlish of us to stick w/ accurate math and documented data.

>Show where the math is 'bad', swamp, also where the data
>is 'misapplied and undocumented'.

You came up w/ the wildly impossible figures. Fixing your calcs is
*your* job, not mine.

[resnip of bad math and misapplied, undocumented data]

>> >Right?
>>
>> Wrong. Let's work backwards,
>
>Typical.

It's a common way to confirm one's results. In this case, it confirms
that yours are off by a factor (10 X).

>> just to double-check your results. For
>> ease of calculation, let's say the average steer gains 1000#
>
>#?  Guess that stands for lbs?

Yep. We could use the metric system if you'd like. A ratio's a ratio
in any unit.

>> from
>> birth to slaughter and you argue it takes 100# of feed per # to gain
>> the weight.
>
>The figure is 81 : 1 feed (grain + silage/hay) : meat protein (meat DM)
>feedlot gain.

The correct figure is 8:1 when one considers the entire steer, muscle,
fat, bone, organs, and all. The type of feed and the part of the steer
is inconsequential. Why don't you just take the rib eye or pituitary
gland? That way you could derive some really enormous ratios.

>> That means the animal consumes 100,000# of feed during
>> that time. 1 oz. of wheat contains 80 calories. Once again, for ease
>> of calculation let's say 750 calories/#.
>
>You mean 75.

Actually, I was being generous. Wheat contains ~1200 calories per
pound, but most cattle eat much more grass and silage which probably
isn't as calorie dense (I couldn't find figures). 750 calories per
pound of average feed is a reasonable estimate.

>> So, given the ratio you
>> provide, a single steer consumes 75 million calories before slaughter.
>
>Should be 7,500,000.

You're right, it actually *is* about 7,500,000. It was by using *your*
figures that I arrived at 75,000,000, or about 10 Xs what it is in
reality.

>> Since beef is about twice as "calorie dense" as wheat, you have 60
>> million calories/steer to account for.
>
>Try again.

Don't need to. You do. You got so involved mixing in DMs and water
content and proteins and whatever else that you lost sight of the big
picture.

>> Some would go toward movement
>> and maintaining body temp, and some would be excreted in feces, urine,
>> and sweat, but nowhere close to 80% of a ruminant's intake goes there.
>
>Only 37% of the carcass gain is meat, 31% of liveweight gain.
>(See above).  The figures show water content is about 72%

There you go again. It doesn't what part of the steer we're talking
about, and it would be detrimental to your argument if we did. There
are more calories in meat/fat than bone/cartilage. Water content is
not a factor because there are no calories. Your calcs still have 60
million calories to account for. Where did they go?

>> >> 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.
>>
>> I just did, or more accurately, your dishonest manipulation of them.
>
>No you didn't.  By now you've realized your mistake, and you should
>by rights apologize for that remark.

Not at all. The sole purpose of your exercize was to make the ratio as
high as you possibly could. This is known as outcome-based research,
and is unethical, ie dishonest.

>> The physical impossibility of a mathematical result, in itself, isn't
>> damning. It often happens when you're engaged in lengthy calculations.
>> You go back over your math and find the mistake(s). Could be a decimal
>> point out of place, a polarity or transcription error, anything. You,
>> otoh, are clearly more interested in propogating mistakes than finding
>> them.
>
>tsk tsk, swamp.

Back to the drawing board, Pearl.

>> You're hardly one to be admonishing anyone about exaggerating. Using
>> your techniques, here's the math:
>>
>> 75 million calories =
>
>Is WRONG.

Agreed, but that's the number a 100:1 ratio produces. Even at 80:1
you're looking at 60 million unaccounted calories, still an absurdly
high amount.

>> 87.225 kilowatt hours, or enough energy to light
>> 7 typical US households. So, 5000 head would light a town of 35,000.
>> Since we're allowed a 10:1 exaggeration factor, that'd be a town of
>> 350,000. And since we're allowed a 10:1 mathematical error, that'd a
>> town of 3,500,000. That's Chicago, baby.
>
>Try again, using the correct figure this time.

ok, at 8:1, the correct figure, it would be a town of 3500. Of course,
a better usage of this silage, grass, and ration is cattle feed. That
same 5000 head would then feed the town and its neighbors many times
over.

See how it works?

-- swamp