You are not logged in.
Here's some quick math about the energetics of forming O2 from CO2. A reaction is favorable if and only if its change of Gibbs Free Energy, or DG0, is negative. DG0 is defined as T*DH0-DS0, where DH0 and DS0 are the changes of enthalpy and entropy, respectively, and T is the temperature in Kelvin.
At presumably standard conditions, the DG0 of:
2C(s,graphite) + O2(g) --> CO2(g)
is -394.6 kJ/mol (http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/d … -inorganic).
We want the reverse reaction, that is to say:
CO2(g) --> O2(g) + 2C(s,graphite)
, whose DG0 at such conditions is 394.6 kJ/mol, which is positive and thus makes the reaction not favorable at such conditions. The DH0 and DS0 are fixed (at 393.3 kJ/mol and -213.8 J/molK, respectively), but the temperature is variable. Converting the DS0 to be -0.2138 kJ/molK for unit purposes, we thus need to satisfy the following inequalities to make the reaction favorable:
393.3T + 0.2138 < 0
393.3T < -0.2138
T < -5.44 * 10^-4 K,
which is not only negative and thus impossible, but even if positive would be pretty close to absolute zero. As such, a direct sublimation is unfeasible, and perhaps CO2 should beget O2 by means of more energetically-favorable intermediate reactions.
Yeah, IIRC, the gist was that as corporations are people under the common law, their campaign contributions are speech, and thus protected under the 1st Amendment. There are still some regulations in place; a regular Political Action Committee (PAC), representing a single candidate or special interest, is still capped at $5,000/candidate and $15,000/year per party, and individuals may only give up to $2,500/candidate and $30,800/year to a party's National Committee. Super PACs, however, have unlimited donation potential, being "limited" in that they have to report all spending to the FEC and cannot be formally associated with any one candidate or special interest, thus somewhat declawing the above (http://people.howstuffworks.com/super-pac1.htm).
But look what's happening in the US today. Corporations and billionaires donating millions to campaigns, and expecting serious considerations in exchange. That's why Canada introduced donation limits. I recommend the US do something similar.
We did, but that was overturned for nonprofits by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC as a violation of the First Amendment.
Here's what the Space Settlement Institute is planning to do. The Institute is more interested in the Moon, though they also extend their basic idea to Mars. Essentially, the Outer Space Treaty prohibits governments from claiming sovereignty over space and celestial objects. However, the Institute claims, such a ban does not apply to private entities (this point is genuinely debatable, see a possible rebuttal here: http://www.astrosociology.com/Library/P … heAir.pdf). The Institute then asserts two points: that the government, via their inaction in the last several decades, is ineffective for space colonization, and private organizations are better-suited for the purpose, and that the most valuable asset currently on the Moon/Mars is the real estate. It then proposes a piece of legislation to incentivize private entities to colonize them: the United States would simply recognize (which, it pointedly notes, is NOT the same as national sovereignty, thus not violating the Outer Space Treaty) land claims up to a certain area by companies that can establish a base in their claim, and make revenue primarily by selling their real estate. In order to promote competition and to prevent a single entity from monopolizing the land, there is an upper limit for claim size, in the case of Mars 3.6 million square miles for the first claim and decreasing by 15% for each subsequent claim. You are right to note that this works if and only if the companies' claims don't conflict. The Institute has this in their proposed legislation:
If, in such a case, the land claims of the two settlements overlap, and the claimants are unable to divide the land between them through negotiation, a U.S. court shall allocate the land between the two settlements as seems fitting, before recognizing the claims.
This is technically in the section concerning when it's not apparent which entity landed first, but if I were them I would simply add a general provision that recognition would be "first come first serve" with respect to a parcel, which is already implicit.
Oddly enough, the Institute has this to say about governing the Moon (and, by extension, Mars) a la Antarctica:
It would be a terrible disaster for the future of mankind if the Moon was ruled by an Antarctic style regime.
The Antarctic regime was designed specifically to prevent development in order to keep Antarctica pristine for research. It was designed precisely to prevent humanity from settling in or exploiting Antarctica. That probably was the best use for Antarctica - but it's exactly the opposite of what we want for the Moon."
I'm sure many of you have heard of the Space Settlement Institute, and their Space Settlement Prize Act: http://www.space-settlement-institute.o … e-act.html. Essentially, what it would do is have the US recognize claims made by a corporation up to a given area of land, in the case of Mars 3.6 million square miles for the first corporation to reach Mars and decreasing by 15% for each subsequent corporation reaching Mars. I sometimes daydream about being a surveyor on one of those claims, being the first ever human exploring given parts of the outback.
There are obviously some differences between that idea and yours, although both are examples of corporate governance:
-One of your key points is that there'd be one single corporation governing all of Mars. Here there are several corporations laying claim on Mars, and in fact in the proposed Act is a provision saying that no corporation (nor collection of corporations effectively under the same control) can have more than one claim, explicitly banning the monopolization of Mars.
-Your primary source of revenue would be in the transport and pre-homestead maintenance of settlers, while here the primary source of revenue is simply selling the land to the homesteaders.
Overall, I think your plan is better, but that is another way to think about corporations and Mars.
That is true that such a finely-tuned photophosphorylative system could be difficult, especially as there are already several photosynthetic dyes in the mix. But perhaps decarboxylation, by increasing CO2, would produce a more optimal Calvin Cycle, as that is optimized for a higher CO2 concentration. Even if it doesn't, perhaps the Calvin Cycle could be optimized by other means.
Ah, I forgot a cell undergoes mitosis, thus growing the colony and depleting the supply faster.
I also originally thought of having the astronauts breathe into the bags to produce CO2 for the chloroplasts, thus creating a cycle and perpetuating the process, a condensed version of what happens on Earth. However, as you pointed out, the colony wouldn't have an immune system, and various bacteria (and thus potentially phages) residing in the mouth could be exhaled, killing off the colony and defeating the purpose.
I also have not been reviewing these concepts since High School Biology, so please pardon my ignorance.
I think this is a pretty good idea in principle; obviously photosynthesis requires light, and chloroplasts are bad at absorbing green light for photosynthesis, hence their green color. We could try to genetically modify the chloroplasts to create a sort of black Chlorophyll, "Melanophyll", if you will. However, in practice, plants and chloroplasts already supplement the Chlorophyll with Carotenes to absorb UV and blue light, so we would likely genetically modify them to produce a similar green-absorbing pigment as well.
You mention genetically modifying the chloroplasts to add certain pathways that they lost via evolution as an organelle, to make them more like Cyanobacteria. I must ask why not simply start with Cyanobacteria and genetically reduce the "extraneous" parts of their operation. They're prokaryotic, and thus don't have organelles of their own and don't need to be radically simplified, but rather have a structure much like Chloroplasts, with Thylakoids in their wall's folds. I do wonder what Cyanobacteria starch would be like, but I think all starch has much in common, and thus the pudding-bread would still be manufacturable.
That is true, and indeed any husbandry would come in a somewhat mature colony. That being said, hopefully this Noah's Ark of sort will be helped by miniature versions of the animals such as Dexter cattle.
Dexter cattle are smaller, yielding only 400 lb (181 kg) of meat (http://www.motherearthnews.com/homestea … jzgoe.aspx) each and only 1-2 gallons of milk a day, or around 300 gallons (1,135.62 L), or 1,170 kg, leading to the colony needing 4 milk cows and 3 beef steers. Though, with such numbers, a herd of 10 can still suffice with breeding specimens factored in, with presumably lower feed. I actually support having Dexters now.
Plot 0035
Cattle is a pretty important animal in the western world. Not only do steers provide beef, prevalent in such meats as filet mignon and the ubiquitous hamburger, cows provide milk, a dietary staple in many cultures, and butter, the most energy-dense food that explorers often eat and which can come in handy during expeditions of the outback from a mature colony.
The high of annual per-capita milk consumption is around 350 kg/person (http://chartsbin.com/view/1491), excluding butter. The high of annual per-capita butter consumption is around 4 kg/person (http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php? … o&s4=tb-bt), with each kg of butter deriving from 19.38 L of milk (https://www.ilri.org/InfoServ/Webpub/fu … essing.htm), leading to 193.8 L of milk to make butter for a colony of 100. The density of milk is around 1030 kg/m^3 (1.03 kg/L), leading to 199.614 kg of milk for strictly butter purposes, in addition for the 3,500 kg of the non-butter milk for the colony, leading to a total of 3,699.614 kg of milk, rounded up to 3,700 kg. The average cow produces around 21,000 lb of milk every year (http://www.dairymoos.com/how-much-milk-do-cows-give/), which comes out to 9,534 kg, almost triple the colonists' needs, but a surplus they can perhaps make into cheese, yogurt, or perhaps even export as buttermilk for some financial profit.
Now let's look at beef. The high end of annual per-capita beef consumption is around 100 lb (45.4 kg)/person, leading to 454 kg needed for the whole colony. A single 1,200 lb steer yields a low of 740 lb of beef (335.96 kg), leading to 2 steers needed for the colony, or a total of 3 cattle, though there would likely be slightly more for breeding.
A herd of 45 cattle need around 275 bales of hay per feeding period (http://www.iqbeef.org/TBC/Documents/Cal … _Needs.pdf), which is 150 days, resulting in 670 bales/year for the herd of 45. For the sake of defensive pessimism, let's assume the colony has a herd of 10 cattle total, even if that's already well above their needs. This comes out to 150 bales a year (again, rounding up for defensive pessimism). The bales average 1200 lb (idem) each, or 545 kg, leading to 180,000 lb (or 81,720 kg) of hay a year. Hay is dried alfalfa, and there are around 3.5 tons/acre of alfalfa (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_ … _08_14.pdf), which, given 90 tons for the herd as stated prior, results in 25.7142857 acres needed for cattle alfalfa, or around 1,120,114.3 sq. ft./104,062 m^2, or 2.6 Chicago city blocks, to grow for hay for a herd of 10 cattle.
Well, that solves the seminal storage issue.
It is indeed possible to sort sperm by chromosome, especially as the X chromosome is much larger than the Y chromosome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_sorting). However, it will not be 100% accurate, but methinks ~99% is good enough. Besides, per the original post, one hog is enough to feed a colony of 100 for 14 years. Also, I think practice is that only hogs are slaughtered, and I think the colony would be a little impatient in getting a return on their investment with meat.
The wasting and bone loss shouldn't be too important for the sow, as she's mainly intended for breeding rather than meat. However, it could be an issue in that she would likely need more feed once she arrives.
Those are interesting questions, Tom. Those issues led me to propose bringing only a sow and preserved boar semen. But those have their own set of challenges; what temperature is needed to preserve boar semen, and can semen preserved at that temperature still produce a perfectly healthy litter? And besides, the sow is still a live animal, leading to a going back to your original questions. Robert did mention earlier a possible hibernation technique of replacing some of the blood with saline solution, but that killed some of the animals and left a lot of the others with permanent brain damage, something that could be ethically dubious but if need be doable. As for weight, I'll make a cattle thread soon, and those are really big animals. Again, Robert suggested transporting calves weaned from milk to reduce size, and I think that's a pretty good idea.
Another thing is that all Chickens have salmonella, as it's a necessary part of their digestive systems; and all chicken farming has to account for that. So, if it can deal with that, I think it can deal with a lot of things already.
In the vein of some of my recent posts on this forum, I shall calculate how much materials would be needed to make enough beer for a colony of 100. The Per-Capita consumption of beer in the US is around 28 gallons per adult per year (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus … /29574619/). 31.1% of Americans have not drunk in the past 12 months (http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publ … es/usa.pdf), but for defensive pessimism I shall account only for the 12% of lifetime teetotallers. As such, I'll apply the data to 88 people, leading to an Earth-annual value of 2,464 gallons (9,327.3 L). 8-15 lb of Barley produces 5 gallons of beer (http://www.wikihow.com/Brew-Beer-Using-All-Grain-Method), leading to a total of 19,712-36,960 lb of Barley being used to booze up the colonists. Knowing that there are 48 lb in a bushel of barley (https://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/bushels.html), and using data from the Chickens thread, this leads to a maximum of 12.83333 acres of land for barley devoted to beer production, which can be rounded up to 13 (=566,280 sq. ft., ~52,609.1 m^2, around 1.5 Chicago city blocks).
That's just for the barley. A good beer always needs hops. The first year of a hop plant produces around a few ounces of hops (http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2011/05/h … -beer.html), a figure that is vague but which I'll interpret as around 4 ounces, or a quarter of a pound, but at around the third year can produce up to 1-2 pounds (idem). I'll assume a really bitter, hoppy ale such as IPA will use 10 ounces (0.625 lb) per 5-gallon batch (http://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=402077), leading to a total of 308 lb of hops, or 1,232 plants of hops. One could argue that these hops can be imported, but that would get very expensive, into the tens of grands. So how much space would this number of plants take? Hops don't grow in the ground as barley does; they grow in bines, such that they need support in the form of sticks. That this leads to more than 1,200 sticks being needed by the community is considered irrelevant here, and the existence of such sticks is treated as a black box. There are 1,778 strings/acre (http://www.americanhopmuseum.org/hopgrowingseason.htm), and given 2 strings/plant, leads to 889 plants/acre, leading to around 1.4 acres (~60,366.61 sq. ft., 5,608.24 m^2), a comparatively negligible area, which combined with barley is still quite less than the traditional 40 acres of Americana.
Well, that makes water even easier.
You bring up a really good point with regards to water, Louis. Corn needs 350,000 gallons (I assume US Gallons) of water per acre (http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/CoopExt/4 … owmuch.htm), leading to 4,287,500 gal (16,229,953.024 L) needed just for the Corn for Chickens, which seems quite a lot. That being said, the agricultural requirements for humans will be still larger, such that the problem would likely be solved prior to the first chickens, and that the water could be both mined from the plentiful regolith and recovered by putting bags over the ears/leaves and capturing what is transpired.
I shall calculate the cost again, this time assuming that the colonists start their poultry ventures with the fourth conjunction-style mission after it has begun, and has saved all its surplus from human-sustenance agriculture in the interim for use for the chickens. Conjunction missions happen every 640 days, so the fourth would arrive on the 2,560th day, or after slightly more than 7 years, which I'll round down for defensive pessimism to 7 (these are all Earth units, of course, for simplicity's sake). I'll also assume that the colony's population remains at exactly 100 for these 7 years, I assume much to stretching your suspension of disbelief.
Let's say that the colony plants for exactly its need for the first year, such that its surplus is zero. The yearly surplus for corn has traditionally been 1 billion bushels in the US (http://ohiocorn.org/images/Corn-Ethanol-OCMP-2013.pdf), which would be 333.33 bushels/year extrapolated to a population of 100, which is equivalent to 93,750 seeds, or a mass of 38.31 kg (84.375 lb). The shelf life of corn kernels, from what I can find, is indefinite (http://www.eatbydate.com/other/snacks/h … helf-life/), so that extrapolating the surplus for the remaining 6 years saves the colonists 229.84 kg (506.25 lb), or just barely the entirety, of imports.
Using the relevant data of the other plants yields:
-745 lb (338.23 kg) of soybeans,
-No barley, and
-No oats
needing to be imported. Combined with the invariable 0.53 lb of non-growable stuff, this leads to a need of 745.53 (338.48 kg) of imported materials, imported at a cost of $4,569,353.37, leading to a cost of $9,619.69/kg ($4,367.34/lb), a still really high cost that shows that soy is the big killer in Chicken production.
One might duly note that I assumed that that which was grown for Chickens on Mars as opposed to imported from Earth was free, which contributes to the low price. Now let's assume we import all seeds used for the farm immediately prior to their use.
A high of 45,000 seeds/acre is planted for corn (http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/corn/corn-qna.html), a high 100-kernel weight of 40.86 g (leading to a total weight of 18.387 kg/acre) per http://www.grains.org/key-issues/corn-e … nel-weight, and a low of 50 lb/acre used per https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmed … Y-217.html, as well as similar data per http://msucares.com/crops/sorghum/seeding.html, http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-0884/, and http://www.smallgrains.ncsu.edu/_Pubs/PG/Srates.pdf leads to:
-496.125 lb (225.25 kg) of corn kernels,
-752 lb (341.4 kg) of soybeans,
-3.85 lb (1.75 kg) of sorghum seeds,
-75 lb (37.5 kg) of barley seeds, and
-90 lb (45 kg) of oats
Combined with the 0.53 lb needed to be imported, this would come out to 1,417.505 lb (~643.55 kg) of materials to be imported, at a total cost of $8,687,88.14, leading to a cost of $20,442.09/kg ($9,280.71/lb), an insane cost but mostly to demonstrate the high end thereof. When I get time I'll calculate a more realistic cost taking into account the surplus grains from human consumption used for the chicken feed.
Plot 0036
Here's another animal for colonists to use. Chickens give meat, eggs, and depending on cuisine, chickens feet and much more.
In the US in 2002, per http://www.ncifap.org/_images/feed_form … and_wy.ppt (A Powerpoint file), the following were used for Chicken Feed:
-5,864 million bushels of corn,
-230 million bushels of sorghum,
-148 million bushels of oats, and
-88 million bushels of barley
Further, in 2002, the following processed feeds (idem), in 1,000 metric tons (1,000,000 kg), were used:
-30,007 soybean meal,
-2,441 cottonseed meal,
-149 linseed meal,
-155 peanut meal,
-232 sunflower meal,
-1,236 canola meal,
-1,740 tankage and meat meal,
-223 fish meal,
-281 milk products,
-2,525 corn meal,
-6,159 wheat millfeeds,
-625 rice millfields, and
-1,521 miscellaneous feeds
Obviously, this is all for chicken farmers in the US, to feed a population of 300 million. These are the values linearly scaled for chickens enough to feed a colony of 100:
-1,955 bushels of corn,
-77 bushels of sorghum,
-50 bushels of oats, and
-30 bushels of barley
Given the ratios of certain contents of feed provided therein, we can then reconstruct the following as well:
-752 bushels of soy,
and, given that there are 35 pounds in a bushel of corn (https://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/bushels.html), we can reconstruct:
-2.7 lb of animal protein source, accomplished by either poultry cannibalism or other animals if they exist,
-1.8 lb of fat supplement, which can be derived from grown Olive Oil or is already inedible and can be discarded if need be,
-0.2 lb of salt, which would admittedly have to be imported,
-0.2 lb of defluorinated phosphate, which would have to be imported unless a natural source is found,
-0.3 lb of ground limestone, which can be derived from eggshells,
-0.05 lb of vitamin mix, which could be worked out by the colonists and is in any case equal to 0.8 ounces, a negligible quantity
-0.03 lb of trace mineral mix, which I would maintain is, as equal to 0.48 ounces, a negligible quantity comparable to the vitamin mix, but will still calculate as part of that which would need to be imported for defensive pessimism for cost calculations,
-As well as 0.2 lb and 0.03 lb, respectively, of Methionine supplement and Lysine supplement, both proteins, which are both negligible in quantity but in any case would be just as satisfied by the animal protein source.
This leads to, per http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/outreach/a … able10.pdf (with an averaging of 160 bushels/acre for corn and 50 bushels/acre for soy), http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/sorghum.htm (100 bushels/acre for sorghum),http://www.ipni.net/publication/bettercrops.nsf/0/C003D76125B0D665852579800081FDDF/$FILE/Better%20Crops%202000-1%20p14.pdf (60 bushels/acre for barley), and www.ers.usda.gov/...Costs.../coats.xls (Excel File - 50 bushels/acre for oats):
-12.25 acres of corn,
-15.04 acres of soy,
-0.77 acres of sorghum,
-0.5 acres of barley, and
-1 acre of oats
Leading to a total of 29.56 acres needed to support a chicken farm, which is substantially less than a quarter-quarter-section of the US Public Land Survey System and equal to 1,287,633.6 square feet or around 119,625.08 m^2. By comparison, a full Chicago City Block, a furlong by a furlong, is 435,600 square feet, such that a full chicken farm would fit on slightly less than 3 of such blocks.
Then what would the financial cost be? Totalling the values given above that need to be imported yields 0.53 lb of such materials, which would be around 0.24 kg and given RobertDyck's figure of $13,500/kg in the Swine would cost $3,245.45. The per-capita consumption of chicken in the US has roughly been 85 lb/person (42.5 kg/person) per year for the past half-decade, and extrapolated to a colony of 100 gives 850 lb/425 kg per earth year, which gives a cost of $7.64/kg (or around $3.47/lb), a really low price, which would even if inflated due to other agricultural costs would nonetheless be very affordable.
That being said, the main disadvantage of Chicken is the high risk of Salmonella poisoning if it's not cooked properly, which could knock out the colony for a few weeks. Again, comments, questions, and concerns are welcome and appreciated.
Let's see what the composition of the feed is, for piglet diets for a single hog, by part, to see what must be imported vs what can be grown:
-10.83 lb of ground corn
Self-explanatory, can be grown
-4.6 lb of soy meal
Self-explanatory, can be grown
-0.5 lb of Porcine Plasma Meal
This is intended as a source of animal protein, and can be served by porcine cannibalism, or for the first litter an equivalent animal protein from an animal previously introduced.
-1.0 lb of Fish Meal
Ditto, can be derived from fish grown by the colonists; indeed, IIRC, one of Zubrin's ideal animals was Tilapia.
-0.1 lb of Spray-Dried Blood Meal
This is intended as a blood source, which can be derived from other animals.
-3.2 lb of Dried Whey
Can be obtained from milk if we have animals beforehand.
-0.9 lb of Choice White Grease
This is intended as the fat source, which can be served by vegetable oil from grown vegetables or that of animals.
-0.2 lb of Monocalcium Phosphate
Intended as the diet acidifier, an effect that could be instead reached by the juice of citrus that can be grown.
-0.1 lb of Ground Limestone
Calcium Carbonate can be harvested from, and indeed limestone on Earth is the fossilized version of, snail shells and seashells, as well as most commonly, eggshells.
-0.05 lb of Salt
Would have to be imported, at least prior to terraformation producing saltwater seas
-0.1 lb of Vitamin mix (proprietary in the source)
As it is proprietary and otherwise unknown, this would have to be as-is imported, but the colonists could experiment with home-grown mixes from natural sources.
For Grower-Finisher Diets, the following would have to be imported, from roughly 300 lb of feed:
-3.6 lb of Salt
-2.4 lb of Vitamin Mix
From this a total of 6.15 lb (~2.79 kg) of material would have to be imported, at a cost of $37,693.35 per RobertDyck's figure, to produce a hog yielding 72 kg of meat, leading to a base price of $523.52/kg ($237.68/lb), much cheaper than importing but still a rather hefty price for a bacon sandwich. Hopefully propulsion technology will improve by then.
My carnivore friends liked that, but my vegan friends really didn't.
I do see legitimate ethical issues with knowingly giving livestock permanent brain damage, or at least a significant risk of it. As such, I can see why one would want another solution, but I'm personally fine with it if it's necessary.
Again the idea is to transport livestock in a way they aren't awake. Alert livestock in a spacecraft for 6 months would be trouble.
Indeed. That's why my original post suggested that there'd be only one sow, and preserved boar semen.
Falcon Heavy can throw 13,200kg to TMI. Using ADEPT/parachute/rocket/legs a 78 tonne entry vehicle can land 40 tonnes of payload. Not sure how much is needed for manoeuvring thrusters to stay on course for Mars. Assume 200kg for that. Use a custom lander instead of Red Dragon. That means unpressurized cargo. Red Dragon is a heavy capsule, only required for pressurized cargo. This gives you 6,666kg of cargo. Standard price for Falcon Heavy is $90 million. So not including cost of the lander, that's $13,500 per kilogram. Is any food worth that?
As in the original post, a total of 172.8 lb (~78.5 kg) of materials would have to be imported for feed for the farrowing sow anyway, in addition to feed materials for the sow. That would cost around $1,100,000 total alone, which is why I think we should have domestic husbandry to the extent possible.
How many square metres of greenhouse are required per kilogram of meat? Or how many square feet per pound? It may be more accurate to measure that as greenhouse area per calorie of food, or per gram of protein.
From sow to slaughterhouse, a hog has both the early starter diets and I'm assuming something similar to a gestation diet. This leads to 104,792.23 sq. ft./9,735.52 m^2 of space being needed to make a hog with 144 lb (~72 kg) of meat. This leads to 7,485.16 square feet for every pound of pork, or 135.22 square meters for each kilogram. That is, however, a rough estimate, and not taking into account breeding sows/boars.
I see your list of "feed" includes some unusual things humans wouldn't consider palatable. "White grease" is equivalent to what you find in a greasy burger. Monocalcium phosphate is mineral calcium found in vitamin supplements. Ground limestone is another calcium supplement, although the human digestive system requires vitamin D in the food at the same time in order to digest it. Chromium picolinate is a chromium mineral supplement, ironically used by humans to treat type 2 diabetes or promote weight loss. I have to assume anything fed to livestock will promote weight gain. According to PubMed: "CHOLINE CHLORIDE is a basic constituent of lecithin that is found in many plants and animal organs. It is important as a precursor of acetylcholine, as a methyl donor in various metabolic processes, and in lipid metabolism." Humans would find more palatable alternatives to these.
This is just what I found as part of the feed from the pdf on diets. I don't have much experience in the field myself. As you may see, I excluded it from the second post as I was focused more on the greenhouse space required, assuming that all the supplements would be imported. That being said, that is very interesting information.
Ultimately, this is just the first in a series of livestock I plan to work on, and I plan on making threads for other animals.
I'll now revise my original post and include figures for a farrowing sow and her litter.
I said in the post that a hog can feed a colony of 100 for 14 years. I noticed then that that was a large number, but only now I realize that it would more likely support a growing colony population. Assuming, that there's a continuous stream of opposition-class missions happening every 640 days, and that every such period roughly 10 new colonists join the colony, and further assuming that nobody dies or leaves the colony in the interim, one can calculate a more reasonable "shelf life" for cured pork for the colony. Such calculation, however, is irrelevant, as there'll be around 3 hogs for the colony every 8 months (again, as in last time, all times are in Earth times unless otherwise stated), at least 1 of which will be for the slaughter and feast, thus rendering such a budgeting scenario unlikely.
Now we shall discuss the sow and her initial litter. According to the source of diets in the original post, a special farrowing diet is only necessary if the sow is constipated, something that can be also solved with laxatives in the normal diet. As such, no diet change is assumed to be needed for the sow. However, her litter is another matter.
In the original post, I assume there'd be 6 piglets in the litter. Each of these will have an Early-Wean diet for the first 21 days of their lives, they'd be fed roughly 2-3 pounds of it. Therefore, using Table 1 in the source, for every 12-18 pounds of feed, there'd be:
-4.83 to 7.25 lb ground corn, and
-1.8 to 2.7 lb soy meal
Each pig would then transition into a series of 3 successive Starter Diets. 5 to 6 lb of the Starter 1 diet is fed per pig, which, with the same table, leads to:
-12.27 to 14.62 lb ground corn, and
-5.4 to 6.5 lb soy meal
Assuming the same consumption data for Starter Diets 2 and 3 in the absence of the contrary yields:
-16.62 to 19.94 lb ground corn, and
-7.2 to 8.6 lb soy meal
and
- 19.29 to 23.15 lb ground corn, and
- 8.3 to 9.9 lb soy meal,
respectively.
Adding up the high ends of all the litter diets leads to a total of 64.96 pounds of ground corn and 27.7 pounds of soy meal. Using the same yield statistics as the original post, this leads to 0.015 acres for corn (=655.16 sq. ft. or 60.87 m^2) and 0.012 acres for soybeans (=507.83 sq. ft. or 47.18 m^2) for the litter. Combining that with the area needed for the mother gives 96,966.32 sq. ft./9,008.47 m^2 for corn, and 7,825.91 sq. ft./727.05 m^2 for soybeans, or a total of 104,792.23 sq. ft./9,735.52 m^2, roughly the area of 12 US family lots, for the pigs alone.
In the next post I shall calculate the diets for the maturing piglets and the "final equilibrium" of a mature herd of pigs. Any comments, questions, or concerns, or any improvement on my mathematics is greatly appreciated.
Nice touch but we are along ways away from doing any sort of husbandry on mars ... If it doesn't come in a can or fully process we are not even eating it.
I'll say that this is indeed true for the first-wave and likely up to even the fifth-wave (I'll admit that my "second- and third-wave colonists" in the original post was a bit figurative), but this is what would be in use for a colony that is gearing towards self-sufficiency, once rudimentary survival is all but guaranteed.