Feed conversion ratio

In animal husbandry, feed conversion ratio (FCR), feed

conversion rate, or feed conversion eciency (FCE),
is a measure of an animal's eciency in converting feed
mass into increases of the desired output. For dairy cows,
for example, the output is milk,[1] whereas animals raised
for meat such as beef cows,[2] pigs,[3] chickens,[4] and
sh[5] the output is the mass gained by the animal.
Specically FCR is the mass of the food eaten divided
by the output, all over a specied period.

dierent species may be of little signicance unless the

feeds involved are of similar quality and suitability.

Eciency is customarily expressed as the ratio of useful output to input.[6] Thus, although FCR is commonly
expressed as the ratio of feed mass input to body mass
output, one sometimes sees feed conversion eciency
(FCE) gures, i.e. kg body mass gain per kg feed intake
(or, in the case of dairy animals, kg milk solids per kg
feed intake).

2.2 Pigs

2.1 Cattle
For cattle, a FCR range from less than 5 to more than 20
kg feed dry matter per kg gain may be encountered.[9]

The U.S. pork industry claims to have an FCR of 3.03.2.[10][11]

2.3 Sheep

Being a ratio, FCR is dimensionless, i.e. there are no

Some data for sheep illustrate variations in FCR. A FCR
measurement units associated with FCR.
(kg feed dry matter intake per kg live mass gain) for
lambs is often in the range of about 4 to 5 on highconcentrate rations,[12][13][14] 5 to 6 on some forages of
1 Factors aecting FCR
good quality,[15] and more than 6 on feeds of lesser
quality.[16] On a diet of straw, which has a low metabFCR a function of the animals genetics and age, the qualolizable energy concentration, FCR of lambs may be as
ity of the feed, and the conditions in which the animal is
high as 40.[17] Other things being equal, FCR tends to
kept.[2] As a rule of thumb, the daily FCR is low for young
be higher for older lambs (e.g. 8 months) than younger
animals (when relative growth is large) and increases for
lambs (e.g. 4 months).[14]
older animals (when relative growth tends to level out).
Although FCR is commonly calculated using feed dry
mass, it is sometimes calculated on an as-fed wet mass
basis,[7] (or in the case of grains and oilseeds, sometimes
on a wet mass basis at standard moisture content), with
feed moisture resulting in higher ratios. In cold weather,
metabolizable energy requirements for warmth[8] may result in less net energy of gain obtained from feed. Thus,
when communicating FCR data for a species, it can be
desirable to specify feed moisture content and provide
information regarding breed, age, feed composition, and
environmental conditions under which the ratio applies,
to facilitate data interpretation.

2.4 Poultry
Poultry has a feed conversion ratio of 2 to 1.[18] Chicken
Farmers of Ontario base their Cost of Production on a
FCR of 1.72[19] Tegel Poultry of New Zealand have reported FCR as low as 1.38 on a consistent basis.[20]

2.5 Crickets
Crickets have a low feed conversion ratio of only 1.7.[21]

Cold-blooded organisms expend fewer calories per unit

mass. Fish are a common example of cold-blooded live2.6
stock.

Fish

Farm raised Atlantic salmon have a very good FCR,

about 1.2, according to farmed salmon industry repre2 Conversion ratios for livestock
sentatives. When taking into account the true mass of
material needed to make sh feed, however, the converAnimals that have a low FCR are considered ecient sion ratio increases dramatically to 3:1 according to some
users of feed. However, comparisons of FCR among sources.[22]
1

4 SEE ALSO

Tilapia, typically, 1.6 to 1.8.[18]

2.7

Rabbits

FCR 2.5 to 3.0 on high grain diet and 3.5 to 4.0 on natural
forage diet, without animal-feed grain.[23]

References

[1] Dairy Australia Feed Conversion Eciency

[2] Dan Shike, University of Illinois Beef Cattle Feed Eciency
[3] Pork production
[4] Feed conversion rate for chickens
[5] USAID Technical Bulletin #07: Feed Conversion Ratio
(FCR): How to calculate it and how it is used
[6] See, for example, denition 2a of eciency at
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/
efficiency
[7] Snowder, G. D. and L. D. Van Vleck. 2003. Estimates
of genetic parameters and selection strategies to improve
the economic eciency of postweaning growth in lambs.
J. Anim. Sci. 81: 2704-2713
[8] National Research Council (Subcommittee on Environmental Stress). 1981. Eect of environment on nutrient requirements of domestic animals. National Academy
Press, Washington. 168 pp.
[9] National Research Council. 2000. Nutrient Requirements
of Beef Cattle. National Academy Press. 232 pp.
[10] Quick Facts - The Pork Industry at a Glance
[11] Brown, L., Hindmarsh, R., Mcgregor, R., 2001. Dynamic
Agriculture Book Three (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Sydney.
[12] Knott, S. A., B. J. Leury, L. J. Cummins, F. D. Brien and
F. R. Dunshea. 2003. Relationship between body composition, net feed intake and gross feed conversion eciency
in composite sire line sheep. In: Sourant, W. B. and C.
C. Metges (eds.). Progress in research on energy and protein metabolism. EAAP publ. no. 109. Wageningen
[13] Brand, T. S., S. W. P. Cloete and F. Franck. 1991.
Wheat-straw as roughage component in nishing diets of
growing lambs. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci 21: 184-188.
[14] National Research Council. 2007. Nutrient requirements
of small ruminants. National Academies Press. 362 pp.
[15] Fahmy, M. H., J. M. Boucher, L. M. Pose, R. Grgoire,
G. Butler and J. E. Comeau. 1992. Feed eciency, carcass characteristics, and sensory quality of lambs, with or
without prolic ancestry, fed diets with dierent protein
supplements. J. Anim. Sci. 70: 1365-1374

[16] Malik, R. C., M. A. Razzaque, S. Abbas, N. Al-Khozam

and S. Sahni. 1996. Feedlot growth and eciency of
three-way cross lambs as aected by genotype, age and
diet. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 21: 251-254.
[17] Cronj. P. B. and E. Weites. 1990. Live mass, carcass and
wool growth responses to supplementation of a roughage
diet with sources of protein and energy in South African
Mutton Merino lambs. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 20: 141-168
[18] ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf
[19] http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2013/08/
its-alive.html
[20] http://www.wattagnet.com/154106.html
[21] Collavo, A., Glew, R.H., Huang, Y.S., Chuang, L.T.,
Bosse, R. & Paoletti, M.G. 2005. House cricket smallscale farming. In M.G. Paoletti, ed., Ecological implications of minilivestock: potential of insects, rodents, frogs
and snails. pp. 519544. New Hampshire, Science Publishers.
[22] http://www.mainstreamcanada.ca/
salmon-have-most-efficient-feed-conversion-ratio-fcr-all-farmed-livestock
[23] TNAU Animal Husbandry ::Rabbit

4 See also
Eciency of conversion
Entomophagy

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

5.1

Text

Feed conversion ratio Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed%20conversion%20ratio?oldid=619282828 Contributors: Ike9898, Bobblewik, Megaversal, Dr.frog, Rich Farmbrough, Gene Nygaard, BD2412, Messenger88, Epipelagic, Corvina, SmackBot, Eliyak, MikeWazowski, MaxEnt, Hobowu, BlindEagle, Diotime, Molly-in-md, PixelBot, DumZiBoT, Jytdog, Addbot, Jarble, Yobot, AnomieBOT,
JackieBot, Disagreeableneutrino, Bellemonde, Hegaldi, N0w8st8s, Walks on Water, Landmann85, KLBot2, BG19bot, Northamerica1000,
DrAdrianTW, Badon, Liam987, Schafhirt, 7Sidz, Chelm261 and Anonymous: 11

5.2

Images

File:FoodWeb.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/FoodWeb.jpg License: CC0 Contributors: Own work

Original artist: Thompsma
File:Genomics_GTL_Program_Payoffs.jpg Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Genomics_GTL_
Program_Payoffs.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

5.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0