4 ms·
Literally an order of magnitude. The maximum trophic efficiency between two steps in the food chain is 10% so for a pound of meet you need at least 10 pounds of
by akiselev 7y ago
Literally an order of magnitude. The maximum trophic efficiency between two steps in the food chain is 10% so for a pound of meet you need at least 10 pounds of plant feed. In order to supply the world with meat, we're already growing far more than enough. The problem is the distribution of crop species since humans can't eat just corn and alfa-alfa. Processed meat substitutes might be able to redirect those existing animal feed crops towards feeding us directly and making good use of less fertile land.
- TremendousJudge 7y agoYou don't feed palm oil to pork though
- 867-5309 7y agopork can't eat </french>
- gruez 7y ago>The maximum trophic efficiency between two steps in the food chain is 10% so for a pound of meet you need at least 10 pounds of plant feed. This seems to be contradicted by [1]. It says that beef it typically 6:1 (plant feed: meat) and chicken is typically 1.6. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio
- wahern 7y agoReading that Wikipedia article I wondered whether it was possible to have an FCR (feed conversion ratio) of less than 1. And indeed it is! https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K8MQ.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K8MQ.pdf Of course, the livestock are consuming highly processed, energy rich feed, but so do humans. OTOH, none of this means that the same amount of net calories are available to the human. FCR is not the same thing as trophic efficiency. In particular, as per the above explanation, FCR is often calculated using wet mass of the output but dry mass of the input. All that said, the conversion efficiencies for chicken and farmed fish are still amazing.