Hypothesis are based on logic. Conclusions are based on EVIDENCE.
TLWR made an excellent point about following your reasoning to its LOGICAL conclusions. Indeed kids do pick up nasty stuff from dogs, indeed kids get sick from said nasty stuff. If you looked only at that observation, the hypothesis might be that it would be ideal to keep them separate. That's why, you, when faced with this reasoning, correctly went to the EVIDENCE. I realize you are not a native speaker, but the distinction between these two words is important. The evidence indicated that there are benefits to keeping dogs and children together. Of course, a parent with an immuno-compromised (read: gets sick very easily) kid might decide that its not worth the risk to their particular child. That's cost benefit analysis and I'm trying hard to avoid getting into that.
You did an excellent job coming up with some references. Thank you.
I'll start with the bio-security information from the west virginia university extension service.This article makes some excellent points about quarantine procedures for animals that have been potentially exposed to pathogens. Such procedures make sense as far as I know. It would have been nice to see something that specifically talks about domestic ducks. So I found one for us:
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/2902/2902-1099/2902-1099.pdf it specifically recommends not having ducks and chickens on the same
property and advises at a minimum to keep them separated. I assume this sort of literature is the source of your advice. Based on the evidence I think its fair to say that for maximum profitability you should pick one bird or the other. If you keep them in separate pens that is still not enough. You would need to change shoes when going between one pen or the other, wash your hands and clothes when going between pens, etc.
Here comes the part where all that logic comes into play: If you are not able to do this, then from a biological standpoint it doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether they are physically separated or not, what matters is the flow of pathogens.
Furthermore: if your flocks aren't diseased in the first place, none of the above applies.
Other people have already addressed the nutrition issue and you have chosen to ignore them. I will only try to add that you are making the assumption that the ducks will receive no additional supplemental nutrition. Let me break that down for you in less "impressive" language. If the ducks get nothing extra to eat then there may be problems with only chicken food. If they are given extra nutrients, they will be fine.
i must also congratulate on the political impressive speech that had nothing to do with science but had nice words and phrases to impress. science is not just impressive words. its common logic
I'm flattered that you found my writing impressive. I did indeed stray at times from a discussion of science to a discussion of logic, but, as you say, these two are related. I understand you are a non-native speaker, but you studied in Wales so I think that's a poor excuse; and, furthermore, if you want to understand scientific literature then you need to understand that my words were not chosen to be "impressive" they were chosen to be precise.
So, am I saying you are wrong? Not exactly. I'm saying that you are failing to consider the situation fully. I'm also saying that I find your attitude at times to be unbecoming of a serious scientific mind. I think that you started out with good intentions and then eventually resorted to bullying to try to get your point across. Normally I don't bother with bullies, but I think you're sensible enough to learn from this discussion.
