Geoff,

It has been my experience that the attention span is inversely proportional to the degree of numbers and formula presented.

In your past post, there are two points that I am addressing in this post.

For those who wish to follow the data on BioAgra's website, here is the link again:

http://www.bioagra.net/documents/2007/agrastim07_files/frame.htm

The first point is the apparent  "almost identical results" of the numbers.

The second point is the apparent typos regarding P-Values in the ANOVA.

Point one:  what you perceive as "almost identical results" are far from identical and are very significant both in the study and in the larger production levels.

Let's look at some numbers as stated in Frame 43 using feed conversion rates and body weight, only addressing the control group and the Agrastim group.

The control group without Agrastim and without antibiotics used 1.8397  1.8397 kg/kg of feed to produce a chicken at day 29 of 1.3905 kg.

The Agristim group without antibiotics used 1.8296 kg/kg feed to produce a chicken at day 29  1.4366 kg.

Using these two groups, not addressing Standard Deviation (SD), the numerical interpretation is that with the addition of Agrastim it takes .0101 kg/kg ratio less feed per bird  to yield a bird that weighs .0461 kg more at day 29.

Addressing the SD of these two groups, the SD for Agrastim group shows a greater certainty that the SD for the control without Agrastim (feed conversion SD control .0728 SD versus .0435 for Agrastim / weight SD .1159 control versus .1009 Agrastim).

In the production environment, as I stated in my previous post using 2006 stats for the poultry industry's top 15 producers, there is 150 million chickens slaughtered per week in the United States.  In addition, it takes on average 6.3636 kg to produce a 2 kg chicken over a period of 48 days (chick to boiler slaughter).

When we deal with these numbers, what you state as nearly identical, takes on a whole new appearance of being incredibly significant and can yeild practical cost savings to the industry.  If we take the 150 million chickens / week slaughtered the .0461 kg weight increase at day 29 (remember that it is 48 days to slaughter so the weight gain will be greater but the study was for 29 days), the poultry industry could realize an increase of bird weight for sale of 6.915 million pounds if the ratio stayed the same.

On average it takes 954.54 million kgs of feed to produce 150 million chickens per week.  Let us look at the cost of that feed, using corn prices alone (the most significant part of chicken feed).  Current futures prices for a bushel of corn is $3.42/bushel.  There is 56 lbs / bushel and 2.2 kg/lb which yields 25.4545 kg / bushel.  This results in a price of $.13435 per kg feed corn.

Since it takes on average 6.3636 kg feed per bird to slaughter we are looking at an average cost per bird at $.13435 / kg feed of $.85495 / chicken weighing 2 kg or 4.4 pounds.  

The cost to the industry just in corn at current futures price per bushel to bring 150 million birds to slaughter per week would then be $128.2425 million. 

Referring back the the feed conversion ration savings using Agrastim of .0101 kg/kg, simply applying the .0101 savings to the cost of corn to feed 150 million birds slaughtered per week would result in an industry savings for the top 15 producers of $1.29525 million dollars / week.

This savings is just in corn.  Agrastim is indicated to support further significant savings but its property of immune system enhancement, decreasing the need for antibiotics and (go to the grocery store and look at packaging labels on chickens.  Producers that do not use antibiotics will state it on the label.)  for those chicken producers that do not use antibiotics, an increased savings through healthier, more plump chickens.

In bringing up the use of antibiotics, we come back to Frame 47 which has been discussed before.

The industry push is to eliminate antibiotics both for the United States market and to export over seas which already prohibit the use of antibiotics.

Now, the second point addressing potential typos in the P-Value under ANOVA.

I asked Dr. Sorgente yesterday that exact question, that I saw that as a typo.  He said the two numbers of .1032 and .1618 are not typos for P-Value referencing Agrastim and antibiotics and Agrastim alone.  What those two low numbers indicate the P-Value i.e. probability of error.  The higher number indicates a higher probability of error (variance in the ANOVA i.e. Analysis of Variance).  Since the P-Values for Agrastim and Antibiotics and Agrastim alone are far lower indicates that the probability of error is low.

I.E. looking a data points charted, for a lower variance / P-Value, the data points would tend to be clustered around one mean value.  The farther the spread of data points on the chart would yield a greater uncertainty/error to the validity of the number, hence a higher P-Value. 

Now that I have put the vast majority of readers to sleep, I come to a conclusion.

The data for just these two studies presented in Frame 43 and Frame 47 does indicate potential/statistically significant savings.  This data is used to show the industry the potential.  And the poultry industry now, company by company, is working on validating these numbers for themselves and to generate a cost benefit analysis.

I am a long shareholder that becomes a stronger long as more quantified data is generated and my confidence of cost benefits will generate significant sales for Agrastim.

We have only discussed the poultry industry.  We have the swine, bovine, fish, etc. industries to look forward to.

Kent