alphachi <[log in to unmask]> says:
 
>with some estimated sales of well over 100,000 kits, and some 33,000
>breeders
 
In issue 1986 Bill Killian replies:
>Those numbers do not make sense.  Last figures we've seen published were
>82,918 ferrets sold in 1993.  It is conceivable that they've raised that in
>three years.  But well over is probably an exaggeration.
 
Huh?  From 82,918 to 100,000 is a 21% increase.  Assuming the latest figures
are for 1996 then that is (taking the cube root of 1.206) a 6.4% annual rate
of increase over three years.  I believe that that is a quite reasonable
annual rate of increase and I could believe that the rate of increase could
well be "way over" that, especially with ferrets becoming legal in Michigan
and Massachusetts during this period.  Anyway, the numbers are the right
order of magnitude.
 
>If it takes them 33,000 breeders to breed that many kits they really do need
>to invest in new livestock.  They would be aiming for large litters so they
>would keep breeders and kits of breeders that have large litters so no fewer
>than averaging ten.  They'd be very silly to have as many hobs as jills.
>They also try for two litters (sometimes three) a year.  So if their (we'll
>use you numbers and even make it worse) say 16,500 jills had two litters
>each in a calendar year for 33,000 litters.  And if they replaced all of the
>breeders after they were three as you said so remove 16,500.  If they had 8
>kits per litter - very reasonable as our average is 9 - they would have
>264,000 kits minus the breeder replacements so 247,500.  Now this isn't
>realistic to match the well over 100,000, this is almost a quarter million.
 
If as Alphachi says 33,000 breeders produce "well over" 100,000 kits in a
year then there are an average of more than 3 kits per breeder.  Bill
Killian then complains that they do not produce 10 a year per breeder.
Frankly I don't see the problem in the lower figure (> 3 / year).  I think
it speaks well of MF that they aren't breeding the ferrets as hard as he
suggests.  Anyway, again the numbers are the right order of magnitude.
 
>We tried very very hard not to cheat and gave all benefits of the doubt in
>favor of your numbers.  But they don't make sense.  The math doesn't work.
>Give us numbers that work and we'll then work on the problem.
 
I disagree.  The numbers are the right order of magnitude.
--- Bill Sebok
[Posted in FML issue 1990]