Français
Understanding the environmental footprint of Canadian chicken often starts with feed. The life cycle assessment (LCA) updated in 2025 (using 2023 data) confirms that feed accounts for about half of the sector’s total impacts from breeder flock to the processor’s gate, more than barn energy, transport, and processing combined. Every tonne of feed arrives carrying the footprint of the fields that produced it: the fertilizer, fuel, land, and water.
That is also why feed is the sector’s biggest lever. When less feed is needed per kilogram of meat, everything upstream shrinks at once: less cropland, less fertilizer, fewer truckloads. A single improvement in feed efficiency moves carbon, water, and land use in the right direction at the same time, which few other practices can claim.
The national feed conversion ratio improved by about 6% between 2016 and 2023, from roughly 1.7 to 1.6 on average. Over the same period, average live weight at market rose by about 9%, from 2.17 to 2.32 kilograms. Better genetics, better nutrition, and better day-to-day management all played a part.
The feed itself also became less carbon-intensive. The carbon intensity of one kilogram of broiler feed dropped by about 10%, driven by changes in composition rather than any single ingredient. Together, the improved conversion ratio and the lower-impact ration are the main reasons the footprint of Canadian chicken fell 6% over those seven years.
One of the most useful findings in the assessment is how unevenly the footprint is distributed across the ration. Kilogram for kilogram, synthetic amino acids such as lysine, methionine, and threonine, along with premix, carry 10 to 20 times the impact of grains, largely because the fermentation process that produces amino acids uses large amounts of electricity and natural gas. These ingredients make up a small share of the diet but a meaningful share of its footprint, so small changes in inclusion rates move the total more than most producers would guess.
None of this argues for cutting them out. Amino acids are part of why conversion ratios are as good as they are and pulling them back would cost more in performance than it saves in footprint. The point is precision: inclusion rates grounded in current flock data rather than habit. Co-products tell a similar story from the other direction. Ingredients like corn distillers grains and bakery meal carry low footprints because they are by-products of other industries, and their share of Canadian rations has been rising.
The 2025 on-farm survey shows much of this is already underway. Just over 80% of feed is served pelleted. About half of respondents already use feed additives, and about half practice precision feeding; counting those planning to adopt within five years, both approaches should soon pass the halfway mark across the sector. Use of by-products is lower, at about a quarter of farms.
The survey also carries a caution. More than half of producers do not expect to cut their feed conversion ratio further in the next five years, and about one in ten believe theirs is already optimal under current conditions, though about a third still see room to improve. The easy gains have been taken. What remains is the harder work of protecting those gains and finding smaller margins in more places.
So where should a producer look? The recommendations from the assessment, combined with practices farmers themselves reported, point to a short list. Review the feed program with a nutritionist on a regular schedule, not only when prices move, and ask specifically whether amino acid and premix levels are supported by recent flock performance. Ask feed suppliers which co-products or newer ingredients are available in your region, and whether footprint information exists for the rations you buy.
Closer to the barn, the theme is waste. Feed that spills, spoils, or disappears carries a full environmental footprint and returns nothing. Bin sensors that track inventory, feeder adjustments that limit spillage, and storage management that prevents spoilage all show up directly in conversion numbers. Several surveyed producers also pointed to added storage capacity, which cuts the number of delivery trucks arriving each year. Through it all, track conversion flock over flock: consistency and good records will reveal problems faster than any single technology.
Footprint should be one input in feed decisions, not the only one. Cost, bird performance, health, and ingredient availability still carry the weight they always have. The encouraging news is that these goals usually pull in the same direction: the ration that converts well is very often the ration with the smaller footprint.
A few questions can start the conversation, whether with yourself, your nutritionist, or your feed supplier:
Feed efficiency is a genuine strength of Canadian chicken production and, at the same time, still its biggest opportunity. The progress since 2016 was not one big decision; it was many small ones, made flock after flock.
The next round of progress will look the same.
