Winner winner chicken dinner: your plate and how it helps the planet
- Elena Roberts
- Apr 1
- 3 min read
Fried, satay, stir fry, curry, burger, roast, grilled: chicken. The meat loved world wide is so popular for a reason - it’s efficient. These birds don’t take up much space and will peck away at anything - usually your leftovers, and the cherry on top is they produce vitamin and nutrient dense eggs. This level of productivity has a name. It’s defined as a feed conversion ratio - FCR - the input of food required for total output of edible produce. The equation is similar for each of the various animal products, but obviously there are some technical variations when calculating the FCR for meat versus eggs versus dairy products, as these all undertake different mass forms. Dairy products follow the feed required divided by gallon or litre produced, and eggs follow feed divided by per dozen of eggs produced, whereas meats follow feed divided by total edible output in kilograms.
On a small scale, the FCR can be an aid to show the welfare of the livestock. Often a higher than average FCR indicates that the animal is in pain, therefore action can be taken to improve livelihood and health. Secondly, scientists have carried out research as to which food source is best for the animal, as to attain a lower, more efficient FCR.
If you would like to find out more about the research done regarding what food sources are best for livestock the research done by S.C. Somasiri, P.R. Kenyon, P.D. Kemp, P.C.H. Morel, S.T. Morris, defined as ‘Growth performance and carcass characteristics of lambs grazing forage mixes inclusive of plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.) and chicory (Cichorium intybus L.)’ is linked here.
On a large scale we can use the FCR to see what animal product is the most sustainable choice. The FCR typically follows the pattern of dairy and eggs having lower food conversion ratios, with larger animals such as beef having higher FCRs as cows are large animals that require an abundance of food and grazing land.
So the FCR is a measurement of efficiency, it leaves us with two questions? How can we reduce the FCR to increase productivity and lower cost? Secondly, how can we use FCRs to enable more sustainable practices?
To answer the first question, from industry level to local farmers, the FCR of livestock can be monitored, we can analyse how different food sources create an improvement in lowering FCR, we can also monitor disease and welfare of these animals. Just like humans, the healthier and happier these animals are, the more productive they are. This is why vaccinations are crucial in the agricultural industry.
In response to the latter question, we, the consumer can choose meats and produce with lower FCRs. This would come as a compromise, as it is often argued that a vegetarian or even vegan diet is what creates the least environmental damage. However, the practise of eating meat is ingrained into so many cultures on a global scale, to some, giving up meat is like giving up water. Therefore, choosing the more sustainable option is a compromise. Further, if we went back to traditional practices, where every part of the animal would be eaten or turned into a product, it would not only create a lower, more productive FCR, but it would also reduce food waste. Another idea is just like how we see food stars and traffic light ratings to measure how healthy a product is, we could also create an environmental rating system. FCR, land usage, welfare and other aspects could provide insights into the calculations of sustainable food choice rating. The only flaw with this is it would require investment, and a whole lot more administrative work for farmers. Although, consumers may be encouraged to buy products that have attained a commendable ranking as they care for the animal welfare and climate impact of what’s in their shopping basket.
How would you improve FCRs? And would you change your consumer behaviour based on an environmental ranking system?
Comments