Q: "...I can say you are actually completely totally wrong (a rarity for
   you)!  You wrote:
 
>Carbohydrates are simply nothing more than one or more carbon atoms bonded
>to several hydrogen atoms.  See?  Hydrated carbons?  Carbohydrates?  The
>simplest carbohydrate is CH4; that is, 1 carbon bonded to 4 hydrogens.
 
No, that's a hydrocardon, not a carbohydrate. "Hydrate" means "water" and
carbohydrates have the formula H2(HCOH)n. The simplest carbohydrate is
thus H3COH, or methanol..."
 
A: Does this mean I'll have to repeat my 4 semesters of organic chemistry?
   Damn!  I HATED figuring out those unknowns!
 
You are, of course, exactly correct and I am very glad you caught the
mistake (It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to see that my work is
under close observation and my mistakes are caught).  No one is perfect,
least of all me.  Thank you so much for your polite and rapid notification
of the goof.  I really appreciate both.
 
In truth, I recognized the mistake the SECOND I read it on the FML (I am
SURE you heard the scream from Missouri).  I wished I recognized it while
proofing the post, but did not.  I wished there was a button I could have
pushed to fix the thing AFTER it was posted, but, alas, it was too late.  I
was already a maroon.  It was a stupid goof and completely my fault.  As
you know, the FML is limited to 126 lines, but often I try to explain a
concept that is extremely complicated and composing some sort of an
explanation in such a short space can be very difficult.  I originally
tried to explain the chemical nature of a carbohydrate because I wanted
to show WHY they turn into sugars and typed in the formula Cx(H2O)y.  I
explained it, but recognized it was very complex and way too long, so cut
the whole thing and typed in "The simplest carbohydrate is CH4O." Later, I
decided to explain which atoms were in the molecule, BUT, I had ALREADY
made some sort of a goof and had somehow erased the last oxygen atom from
the formula, making it CH4.  I was too goofy to see the editing error and
explained the wrong molecule.  Oopsie.
 
My original choice of wording might have caused some other confusion as I
look back at it (again, a product of poor editing).  When I stated,
"Carbohydrates are simply nothing more than one or more carbon atoms bonded
to several hydrogen atoms," I am technically incorrect and factually
misleading.  That statement could mean anything with carbons and hydrogens,
and when I wrote it, it didn't occur to me such a misunderstanding would be
made.  I am guilty of oversimplification; carbohydrates ALSO have oxygens
attached to many of the hydrogens (forming hydroxyls), which I DIDN'T
explain.  The statement is misleading and could have been worded (or
edited) better, and I apologize for any misunderstandings.
 
I have fashioned a replacement paragraph for those of you who have been
saving the diet information.  You can cut and paste the correction in your
private copy:
 
The important question is, is it good for the ferret?  In the case of
proteins, the body has little interest if a particular amino acid came from
corn or a pig.  An amino acid is an amino acid is an amino acid...period.
If the plant proteins are processed to the point where the intestinal tract
of a ferret see no difference between it and those from meat, then it makes
NO difference.  Carbohydrates are a different story.  Carbohydrates are
simply nothing more than one or more carbon atoms bonded to several
hydrogen atoms and hydroxyl molecules with the formula Cx(H2O)y.  See?
Hydrated carbons?  Carbohydrates?  The simplest carbohydrate is CH4O;
that is, 1 carbon bonded to 3 hydrogens and 1 OH (hydroxyl) molecule.
Both starches and fats are complex carbon chains, but they have different
structures and require different enzymes, even though they ultimately
become nothing more than simple sugars when digested.  The problem for
ferrets is that they are experts at digesting fats, but are really bad at
digesting starches.  They need help, so the pet food people cook the
starches down to make them more digestible.  And that, my friend, is the
problem; I'm not going to sugar-coat it.
 
I think that's right.  I've double checked it a few times.  Sorry for any
confusion I might have caused.
 
Bob C and 16 Mo' Oopsie Doopsies
[Posted in FML issue 3012]