Farmers’ acceptance of insects as an alternative protein source in poultry feeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research aimed at assessing the perceptions and willingness of poultry farmers, feed traders and processors to use insects as a source of protein ingredient in poultry feed. The research used a cross-sectional design and a structured questionnaire to collect quantitative data from 287 poultry farmers and 71 feed traders from 3 culturally diverse regions in Uganda. The study findings revealed that majority of the farmers mixed their own poultry feed. Willingness to use insects in poultry feeds was expressed by over 70% of the farmers, feed traders and processors, indicating a strong potential demand for insect-based feeds. However, some poultry farmers doubted the possibility of acquiring insects (rearing/harvesting) in large enough quantities and the consumers’ acceptance of poultry products from birds raised on insect-based feed. Nonetheless, there is a high potential for adoption of insects for use as poultry feed if they can be produced in sustainable quantities that ensure the viability of poultry farming and the feed processing businesses. Int. J. Agril. Res. Innov. & Tech. 8 (2): 32-41, December, 2018
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".