The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly?
Open accessAbstract
Globally, demand for food animal products is rising. At the same time, we face mounting, related pressures including limited natural resources, negative environmental externalities, climate disruption, and population growth. Governments and other stakeholders are seeking strategies to boost food production efficiency and food system resiliency, and aquaculture (farmed seafood) is commonly viewed as having a major role in improving global food security based on longstanding measures of animal production efficiency. The most widely used measurement is called the 'feed conversion ratio' (FCR), which is the weight of feed administered over the lifetime of an animal divided by weight gained. By this measure, fed aquaculture and chickens are similarly efficient at converting feed into animal biomass, and both are more efficient compared to pigs and cattle. FCR does not account for differences in feed content, edible portion of an animal, or nutritional quality of the final product. Given these limitations, we searched the literature for alternative efficiency measures and identified 'nutrient retention', which can be used to compare protein and calories in feed (inputs) and edible portions of animals (outputs). Protein and calorie retention have not been calculated for most aquaculture species. Focusing on commercial production, we collected data on feed composition, feed conversion ratios, edible portions (i.e. yield), and nutritional content of edible flesh for nine aquatic and three terrestrial farmed animal species. We estimate that 19% of protein and 10% of calories in feed for aquatic species are ultimately made available in the human food supply, with significant variation between species. Comparing all terrestrial and aquatic animals in the study, chickens are most efficient using these measures, followed by Atlantic salmon. Despite lower FCRs in aquaculture, protein and calorie retention for aquaculture production is comparable to livestock production. This is, in part, due to farmed fish and shrimp requiring higher levels of protein and calories in feed compared to chickens, pigs, and cattle. Strategies to address global food security should consider these alternative efficiency measures.
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
A safe operating space for humanity
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., et al. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/461472a · Cited by 13,333
Solutions for a cultivated planet
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10452 · Cited by 8,476
Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1116437108 · Cited by 7,692
World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision
Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2012) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.288998 · Cited by 3,093
Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health
Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13959 · Cited by 3,026
Tacon, A. G. J., & Metian, M. (2008) · Aquaculture · doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.08.015 · Cited by 2,104
Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources
Naylor, R. L., Hardy, R. W., Bureau, D. P., Chiu, A., Elliott, M., Farrell, A. P., Forster, I., Gatlin, D. M., Goldburg, R. J., Hua, K., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0905235106 · Cited by 1,514
USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 22
(2018) · Cited by 1,285
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016) · The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture · doi:10.18356/8e4e0ebf-en · Cited by 969
Feeding 9 billion by 2050 – Putting fish back on the menu
Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino, G., Hemre, G.-I., & Williams, M. (2015) · Food Security · doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z · Cited by 920
Cited by
The Future of Aquatic Protein: Implications for Protein Sources in Aquaculture Diets
Hua, K., Cobcroft, J. M., Cole, A., Condon, K., Jerry, D. R., Mangott, A., Praeger, C., Vucko, M. J., Zeng, C., Zenger, K., et al. (2019) · One Earth · doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.018 · Cited by 851
The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land
Hayek, M. N., Harwatt, H., Ripple, W. J., & Mueller, N. D. (2020) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4 · Cited by 237
Desjardins, S. M., Laamanen, C. A., Basiliko, N., & Scott, J. A. (2020) · Environmental Reviews · doi:10.1139/er-2020-0004 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Fry, J. P., Mailloux, N. A., Love, D. C., Milli, M. C., & Cao, L.
- Venue
- Environmental Research Letters
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2018-02-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 024017
- ISSN
- 1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2786719734
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 21.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa273
- The paper
- Fry, J. P., Mailloux, N. A., Love, D. C., Milli, M. C., & Cao, L. (2018). Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly? Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa273
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.