Recent comments in /f/askscience

Researcher_1129 t1_j3yekrg wrote

They kill them because they cannot control the spread of the flu/virus. If you kept the ones that survived they could actually carry the virus. If you got new stock it could get them sick. It also can be mandated by the authorities I recommend doing some research online about how it is mandated.

5

Chemomechanics t1_j3y7rbt wrote

An analogy I've found useful: where is a 1 Hz sinusoidal wave? Well, it's everywhere. Having a precise frequency goes hand in hand with extending from -∞ to ∞. It has no single location.

What's the frequency of a point? Well, it doesn't have one; there's no physical extent for us to examine its periodicity.

In between these two extremes, you could have a localized wave whose position can't be well defined because it's not pointlike. Its frequency also can't be well defined because it's not perfectly periodic. You could estimate these two values, but they'll always contain ambiguity; in fact, as one becomes more certain, the other becomes less certain. This has nothing to do with a measurement limitation. It's a fundamental constraint.

9

JennaSais t1_j3y4vkw wrote

Unfortunately, this Highly Pathenogenic Avian Influenza has a 90%-100% mortality rate among infected poultry. From that kind of loss, the odds of you getting birds that will be breeding quality in sufficient numbers to be able to replicate the resistant traits well would not be worth the risk of it jumping species.

47

H4zardousMoose t1_j3xyimx wrote

I think you are conflating thermal conductivity (how well thermal energy propagates through a material, measured in W/kg*K) and thermal capacity (how much energy a given amount of a material can hold, usually measured in J/kg*K).

Water has high values in both btw. So it takes a lot of energy to heat up and cool down, but it also exchanges energy quickly within itself and to it's surroundings.

Now instinctively I thought that water would have a higher thermal conductivity than ice, because Iglus insulate so well. But snow isn't ice (crazy I know:D) and it turns out ice has about a 4 times higher thermal conductivity than water at 0°C.

Therefore: If you cover the ice in a thin layer of water, this should slow down the melting. But if you put the ice into a decent sized container with water, where the total surface area of the mixture becomes more than 4x larger than the surface area of the ice it should speed up the melting process. This effect should also increase the further along the melting process you are, since the surface area of the ice will decrease (less of it left), where as the surface area of the mixture remains mostly equal (ice has a bit less density I know, but small effect).

So I learnt something: Solids generally conduct heat better than liquids. But the original point, where it depends on the container and it's conductive surface area still mostly remains valid.

1

Eomycota t1_j3xxvgr wrote

It definitly would and they might be doing it, but it is a very long process since it involve multiple breed. They would need to find out how to make children of the children resistant. They never breed the chickens they sell. They mix a+b= c than c+b= d where d is the final breed, but they always restart at c+b, never breed d with d or the result would be different.

I knew a guy which did that with bees for varroas and he lost over 90% of his bees. It took him years to come back, but his hives now deal better agaist the varroa, but he is a crazy one.

12

byfpe t1_j3xvqf5 wrote

I imagine there are research farms for which immunity is a business and they are interested in “breeding” survivors. But for a commercial farm this wouldnt make economical sense.

In any case all these virus are like the human flu, you can catch them year after year because they mutate.

As someone else posted. Also note that many of these farms dont run the whole business cycle from egg to fully grown chicken. Some farms will be breeders, some will buy the small chicken and are just interested in growing it.

55