91ɫƬ

Feedback

DO COWS like chewing gum and is it good for them? For the answer to this
burning question you can turn to a report by B. W. Wolf and his colleagues at
the University of Illinois, Urbana. Their paper, which appeared last year in the
Journal of Animal Science (vol 77, p 3392), bears the indigestible
title “Effects of a return chewing gum/packaging material mixture on the in situ
disappearance and on feed intake, nutrient digestibility and ruminal
characteristics of growing steers”.

Some might question the significance of this research, but, as the authors
point out, “A returned chewing gum/packaging material mixture can replace at
least 30 per cent of a growing steer’s diet (corn and alfalfa hay) without
affecting diet safety or acceptability. In addition, intakes may be improved,
and steers consuming diets containing returned chewing gum/packaging
material could have higher digestible dry matter and organic matter
Գٲ.”

The authors conclude: “Use of returned chewing gum/packaging material
mixtures in growing feedlot steer diets could maintain production and remove
environmental concerns of incinerating or landfilling this by-product.”

That just about wraps it up, we think. However, reader Edo Lin, who drew our
attention to this paper, has some questions to ask about it. What, he wonders,
is the total availability of returned chewing gum globally? Does “returned”
chewing gum mean chewed chewing gum, or gum that has exceeded its shelf life and
is still in the original packaging? When the authors talk about “acceptability”,
whose acceptability are they referring to? Are they sure young steers wouldn’t
prefer to have their chewing gum unwrapped? And, finally, what exactly are the
environmental concerns of landfilling with returned chewing gum?

Readers with any further questions may wish to forward them to the University
of Illinois.

READING e-mail at New Scientist can damage your peace of mind. A
colleague of Feedback’s reeled back in horror at a message telling her about
research conducted by Simon Baron-Cohen at the University of Cambridge, as
reported in the Institute of Public Relations magazine Profile.

“Baron-Cohen,” the report said, “analysed the medical results of 100
engineering undergraduates and compared them with those of 100 arts
undergraduates. A mild form of autism was detected in the engineering graduates
(or their relatives) in proportions way beyond what could be expected
statistically—in a ratio of six to one versus the arts students.”

Our colleague’s teenage son is currently writing his college applications.
Choice of courses? Mechanical engineering, materials science and engineering,
aerospace engineering . . .

Symptoms of mild autism include a poor theory of mind, a lack of
understanding of other people’s point of view, repetitive behaviours and poor
communications skills. All of these had till then been dismissed by our
colleague as typical teenage behaviour. But it’s not her son she’s worried
about. What really concerns her about the report is that bit in
brackets—”or their relatives”.

HAVE you seen AltaVista’s latest service—a street map for “any address
in the world”?

Anywhere in the world, it turns out, means anywhere with a postal address
ending with a US state name.

Checkout http://tools.altavista.com/s?spage=t/map.htm if you don’t believe us.

FIFTEEN air-traffic controllers face suspensions or reprimands for allegedly
slowing traffic at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on 17 July, the
Federal Aviation Administration has announced. The agency says the 15
controllers at the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) center in Elgin,
Illinois, intentionally slowed traffic. The FAA proposed penalties ranging from
30-day suspensions without pay to letters of reprimand.

Rumours that suspending the controllers will have the effect of slowing
traffic are being hotly denied.

ANOTHER example of corporate-speak, this time from