It depends on what kind of shark.
Logic says that in this case, a sharkload has the potential to be much bigger HOWEVER a majority of sharks weight nowhere near this amount ranging from 800kg down to just a kilogram or two.
If then we combine the weight of all sharks vs all fudge, it comes down to a simple question - how many sharks are there. Given that it is estimated that people kill 100 million sharks each year, there must be billions overall which would weigh a LOT.
In saying that, as fudge is manufactured, if we knew the total weight of sharks then those who are Fudgetonne lobbyists would likely just manufacture more fudge to offset any difference which then comes down to how much sugar, milk and butter is there in the world.
Given the difficulty of the "Dairy Sugarcane Matrix", this would be almost impossible to determine especially if you add in goat and sheep milk and products such as Stevia as a sweetener.
Due to the human controlled nature of fudge, I would suggest that while a Sharkload is probably the bigger of the two, for sheer potential, Fudgetonne is king.
"...sure beats doin' stuff."
Well thats cleared that up nicely!
"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009
It depends on what kind of shark.
A Tonne of fudge is literally that - a tonne.
If you included all species of sharks alive today, Whale Sharks have been recorded at 34 tonne, Basking Sharks at 4 tonne and the Great White at 3.4 tonne.
Logic says that in this case, a sharkload has the potential to be much bigger HOWEVER a majority of sharks weight nowhere near this amount ranging from 800kg down to just a kilogram or two.
If then we combine the weight of all sharks vs all fudge, it comes down to a simple question - how many sharks are there. Given that it is estimated that people kill 100 million sharks each year, there must be billions overall which would weigh a LOT.
In saying that, as fudge is manufactured, if we knew the total weight of sharks then those who are Fudgetonne lobbyists would likely just manufacture more fudge to offset any difference which then comes down to how much sugar, milk and butter is there in the world.
Given the difficulty of the "Dairy Sugarcane Matrix", this would be almost impossible to determine especially if you add in goat and sheep milk and products such as Stevia as a sweetener.
Due to the human controlled nature of fudge, I would suggest that while a Sharkload is probably the bigger of the two, for sheer potential, Fudgetonne is king.
A Fudgetonne is, by definition, 1000 kg. Assuming a fudge density of 1 kg/L, a Fudgetonne has a volume of 1000 L, or 1 cubic metre. Larger species of shark, such as those you mentioned, could comfortably bear loads bigger than this.
I think a fudgetonne isn't a ton of fudge, it's a type of tonne. Like metric tonne vs imperial ton. And it's bigger than both those.
For me, fudgetonne is a measure of weight and sharkload is a measure of volume. I would say a fudgetonne is the weight of a sharkload of water. Like a kg is a litre of water.
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
Sauce?
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
Personally I use sharkload to refer to extremely large quantities of very small objects, while I use fudgeton to refer to relatively smaller quantities of larger objects. For example, 1000 golf balls is a sharkload of golf balls, but 100 footballs is a fudgeton of footballs, even if the same volume is occupied by both collections.
My quantities tend to be the opposite, frequently fudgeall
Oi Oi Edgecumbe... lets have a clean sheet
