/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11007930
>crickets
same as grasshoppers in this shit

>>11008159
You should also differentiate between "live weight" and "dressed weight." The dressed weight is usualyl just meat and bone after the animal is butchered. The FCR for that weight is normally 4-6 times worse than live weight. So a "10" for beef using live weight might be a "32" FCR for beef using dressed weight. Dressed weight is sometimes referred to as "edible" weight and various other terms.

Since several companies do their own reporting and meta research based off those that sample from different mixes of those reports, there's no one accepted FCR for any animal. This is normal simply because feed type, animal exercise, animal age, breed of animal, and a host of other variables can drastically change the FCR. It is the same level of "science" as you see for people on fad diets. No one can agree on hard numbers since those simply can't exist.

On the other hand, you can average everything and come out with a "this animal is better than that animal" for this type of stuff.

>>11005985
>>11005972
>I'm disappointed I can't find that image with the giant guinea pig bar on it for some odd reason...
This, like the low one for the rabbit is also a, "pasture cost factor," not strictly FCR. The FCR is more around 2.5 and below. It is slightly better than rabbit though. Various feed types let it range above and below this substantially.