4 ms·
No, beef and lamb are the most energy consuming sources of meat. (A dairy producing cow is different.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio http
by ane 10y ago
No, beef and lamb are the most energy consuming sources of meat. (A dairy producing cow is different.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio
For cattle, a FCR range from less than 5 to more than 20 kg feed dry matter per kg gain may be encountered.[
Whereas for chickens:
Poultry has a feed conversion ratio of 2 to 1.
- baddox 10y agoAgain, that's simple mass efficiency. We can also talk about other efficiencies, like cost of feed versus cost of meat.
- Houshalter 10y agoI believe you, but I'm very surprised. That has larger animals almost universally less efficient than smaller animals, which is the exact opposite of the expected efficiency due to Kleiber's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law >a cat, having a mass 100 times that of a mouse, will have a metabolism roughly 32 times greater than that of a mouse. And yet this is saying that a mice sized animal should be expected to have the same, or perhaps even better Feed conversion ratio than a cat sized animal. Again, I believe you, but it makes no sense.
- mapt 10y agoThe larger livestock will usually have a much longer lifespan. It has to keep its flesh heated above ambient for that entire lifespan. If Mouse A lives 100x longer and puts on the same weight and achieves the same stature as Mouse B, it's spent ~100x as much energy getting to the same physiological place as Mouse B.