No. Grazing land for cattle needs much more space than does grain production for the same caloric benefit.
10,000 square metres equals 1 hectare. Cubic metres would define a 3 dimensional object which a hectare does not describe.
If there were any such thing as a square hectare it would measure the hyper-volume of a 4-dimensional object. How you calculate this would depend on the shape of the object. A really easy one would be a hypercube of side 100 meters; this would have a hypervolume of 1 square hectare, or 108 m4. The other answer to this question is that a hectare is already a measure of area; a hectare is 10,000 square meters, or about 2.4 acres. In our normal three dimensional world it makes no sense to square it; just the attempt could make your head hurt.
An Are is already a square (2-dimensional) measure - a "square are" would be a 4-dimensional measure! The hecto- prefix means hundred. So there are 100 are in 1 hectare. The "are" measure is not used very often; only the hectare (ha) tends to be used.
a hayward would tend the hedges and fences around the water meadow to keep out cattle and to impound any stray cattle.
Very likely sell the cattle to be slaughtered for meat.
0.14 hectare is 15,069.46 square feet.
10,000 square metres equals 1 hectare. Cubic metres would define a 3 dimensional object which a hectare does not describe.
This question has no valid answer.Metres are in units of lengthHectares are in units of areaThey cannot be inter-converted.You might be able to calculate the perimeter of a hectare in metres if you had the dimensions, but a square with an area of one hectare would have a different length of perimeter than a one hectare circle.
They would go on cattle trains were they would squeeze as many people on as they possibly could. Allot of people would die
Raising large number of cattle
If there were any such thing as a square hectare it would measure the hyper-volume of a 4-dimensional object. How you calculate this would depend on the shape of the object. A really easy one would be a hypercube of side 100 meters; this would have a hypervolume of 1 square hectare, or 108 m4. The other answer to this question is that a hectare is already a measure of area; a hectare is 10,000 square meters, or about 2.4 acres. In our normal three dimensional world it makes no sense to square it; just the attempt could make your head hurt.
In the Auschwitz camps: Auschwitz I, Auschwitz II, and Aushwitz III, prisoners had their inmate number tattoo'd on them. It was a way of marking them like cattle, and it ensured their number would always be correct and visible.
There are no kilometers in a hectare, as a kilometer is a measure of distance and a hectare is a measure of area. If you want to compare the relationship between them though, it would be as follows: 1ha = (1km / 10)2 or: 1ha = 1km2/100 In other words, a hectare is equal in area to a square with a side length of one tenth of a kilometer.
A "head" of cattle is just another way of saying herd of cattle. Instead of saying I have 100 herd of cattle, you would say I have 100 head of cattle (this way you are specifying the exact number of cows you have in your herd)
There are 10000 litre/hectare in 1 litres per (square meter). So you would divide by 10000. So if the value was in B2, the formula would be: =B2/10000
Many would brand their cattle with branding-irons which would identify the cattle by brand .
An Are is already a square (2-dimensional) measure - a "square are" would be a 4-dimensional measure! The hecto- prefix means hundred. So there are 100 are in 1 hectare. The "are" measure is not used very often; only the hectare (ha) tends to be used.