The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock
Open accessAbstract
Livestock, particularly ruminants, can eat a wider range of biomass than humans. In the drive for greater efficiency, intensive systems of livestock production have evolved to compete with humans for high-energy crops such as cereals. Feeds consumed by livestock were analysed in terms of the quantities used and efficiency of conversion of grassland, human-edible ('edible') crops and crop by-products into milk, meat and eggs, using the United Kingdom as an example of a developed livestock industry. Some 42 million tonnes of forage dry matter were consumed from 2008 to 2009 by the UK ruminant livestock population of which 0.7 was grazed pasture and 0.3 million tonnes was conserved forage. In addition, almost 13 million tonnes of raw material concentrate feeds were used in the UK animal feed industry from 2008 to 2009 of which cereal grains comprised 5.3 and soyabean meal 1.9 million tonnes. The proportion of edible feed in typical UK concentrate formulations ranged from 0.36 for milk production to 0.75 for poultry meat production. Example systems of livestock production were used to calculate feed conversion ratios (FCR - feed input per unit of fresh product). FCR for concentrate feeds was lowest for milk at 0.27 and for the meat systems ranged from 2.3 for poultry meat to 8.8 for cereal beef. Differences in FCR between systems of meat production were smaller when efficiency was calculated on an edible input/output basis, where spring-calving/grass finishing upland suckler beef and lowland lamb production were more efficient than pig and poultry meat production. With the exception of milk and upland suckler beef, FCR for edible feed protein into edible animal protein were >1.0. Edible protein/animal protein FCR of 1.0 may be possible by replacing cereal grain and soyabean meal with cereal by-products in concentrate formulations. It is concluded that by accounting for the proportions of human-edible and inedible feeds used in typical livestock production systems, a more realistic estimate of efficiency can be made for comparisons between systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1185383 · Cited by 11,943
Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition – 1979
(1980) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2013-0-04245-4 · Cited by 1,615
Havenstein, G., Ferket, P., & Qureshi, M. (2003) · Poultry Science · doi:10.1093/ps/82.10.1500 · Cited by 861
Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers
Garnett, T. (2009) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.006 · Cited by 569 · cited 3×
“Garnett (2009) stated that it took approximately four times as much weight of 'cereals' to produce a kilogram of 'animal weight' for 'cattle' as for non-ruminant livestock.”
BackgroundInfluentialHavenstein, G., Ferket, P., & Qureshi, M. (2003) · Poultry Science · doi:10.1093/ps/82.10.1509 · Cited by 556
Pelletier, N., Pirog, R., & Rasmussen, R. (2010) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009 · Cited by 419
Not All Salmon Are Created Equal: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Global Salmon Farming Systems
Pelletier, N., Tyedmers, P., Sonesson, U., Scholz, A., Ziegler, F., Flysjo, A., Kruse, S., Cancino, B., & Silverman, H. (2009) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es9010114 · Cited by 319
International Trade in Meat: The Tip of the Pork Chop
Galloway, J. N., Burke, M., Bradford, G. E., Naylor, R., Falcon, W., Chapagain, A. K., Gaskell, J. C., McCullough, E., Mooney, H. A., Oleson, K. L. L., et al. (2007) · AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment · doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[622:itimtt]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 199
Feed into Milk: A New Applied Feeding System for Dairy Cows
Thomas, C. V. (2023) · 5m Books Ltd · doi:10.52517/9781789182811 · Cited by 134
Contributions of animal agriculture to meeting global human food demand
Bradford, G. E. (1999) · Livestock Production Science · doi:10.1016/s0301-6226(99)00019-6 · Cited by 114
Cited by
Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate
Mottet, A., de Haan, C., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., Opio, C., & Gerber, P. (2017) · Global Food Security · doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001 · Cited by 1,034
Oonincx, D. G. A. B., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051145 · Cited by 925
The aerobic stability of silage: key findings and recent developments
Wilkinson, J. M., & Davies, D. R. (2013) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.2012.00891.x · Cited by 489
Self-citationMicrobiological aspects of processing and storage of edible insects
Klunder, H. C., Wolkers-Rooijackers, J., Korpela, J. M., & Nout, M. J. R. (2012) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.02.013 · Cited by 465
van Broekhoven, S., Oonincx, D. G. A. B., van Huis, A., & van Loon, J. J. A. (2015) · Journal of Insect Physiology · doi:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2014.12.005 · Cited by 451
Metadata
- Authors
- Wilkinson, J. M.
- Venue
- Animal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1014-1022
- ISSN
- 1751-7311 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2158721137
- Cited by
- 435
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 8.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s175173111100005x
- The paper
- Wilkinson, J. M. (2011). Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal. https://doi.org/10.1017/s175173111100005x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.