What I don’t get is 6,000 lbs per week was based on a 50% survival rate. We have been led to believe they achieved somewhere near 90% plus. #novisablemortality. Why are they still using the same 6,000 lbs in their cost analysis? If they’ve achieved this groundbreaking survival rate they should have yields much high than the initial estimates. If that presentation showed something like 10,000 lbs plus per week that would have been conformation of the high survival rate.
Something is off here. They are hiding something, good or bad. They either do not want the real numbers out yet because they are waiting for the right time or the numbers are not what we have been lead to believe. I welcome any insight on the matter.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
