Recently, Milla et al.1 concluded that “livestock species are relatively large mammals with low basal metabolic rates, which indicate moderate to slow life histories”. While this claim may appear counterintuitive—production animals should be characterized by fast growth, a feature of a comparatively fast pace of life—the analyses performed in that study do not allow any claims to be made with respect to the comparative level of metabolism in domestic species.
When comparing one measurement that depends on another between two groups of organisms, such as absolute or mass-specific metabolism, which depends on body mass, it is the nature of the relationship between the measurements that must be investigated (for example, in a linear model in which ‘group’ is used as a co-variable), not the differences between measurement averages of the two groups.
Figure 1a,b shows two idealized groups that vary in the body mass range of their individuals, but not in the level of metabolism, arbitrarily set to 293 kJ per kg0.75 per day (as in ref. 2). In log–log space, both the slope and the intercept of their respective regression lines are identical (as indicated by the gray and dotted red regression lines). However, owing to the difference in body mass range in these groups, they distinctly differ in the average level of metabolism that is calculated as the mean of all individual group data points (the squares in Fig. 1a,b; Fig. 1b corresponds to Fig. 3a in Milla et al., and the squares represent the boxplots of Fig. 4b in Milla et al.). Comparing these averages when detached from the underlying body mass is meaningless. Therefore, any conclusions drawn by Milla et al. as to whether livestock species are characterized by a low or high level of metabolism are premature.
When dealing with the phenomenon of metabolism, one can use three different units: absolute metabolic rates (joules per day, refer to Fig. 1a), ‘mass-specific’ metabolic rates (joules per body mass and day, refer to Fig. 1b), and relative metabolic rates (joules per metabolic body weight and day, refer to Fig. 1c). Note that the reference frame can be chosen to facilitate any possible statement3: large animals have higher absolute metabolic rates (Fig. 1a), larger animals have lower ‘mass-specific’ metabolic rates (Fig. 1b), or relative metabolic rates do not change with body mass (Fig. 1c). The choice of the reference unit may be driven by the desire to make a certain rhetorical argument. The only unit that would, in theory, allow a reasonable comparison of the calculated average levels of metabolism is one that applies the correct ‘body mass correction’ based on the actual body mass scaling in the dataset; in the model example, that is metabolic body weight (Fig. 1c).
References
Milla, R. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1808–1817 (2018).
Kleiber, M. Hilgardia 6, 315–353 (1932).
Clauss, M., Steuer, P., Müller, D. W., Codron, D. & Hummel, J. PLoS One 8, e68714 (2013).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clauss, M. No evidence for different metabolism in domestic mammals. Nat Ecol Evol 3, 322 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0817-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0817-2
This article is cited by
-
Reply to ‘No evidence for different metabolism in domestic mammals’
Nature Ecology & Evolution (2019)