Insects as feed: Gendered knowledge attitudes and practices among poultry and Pond Fish farmers in Kenya
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study on knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) among poultry and pond fish farmers from Kisii, Nakuru and Kirinyaga counties in Kenya was conducted to establish insect for feed interventions likely to reduce the cost of feeds in these enterprises and benefit women and men equitably. Data were collected through sex and enterprise type disaggregated focus group discussions with farmers. \n \nPoultry farming was more established than fish farming in all three counties. Women were more involved than men in poultry, and men more than women in fish, farming. For both enterprises, women did same number of chores as men except for fish in the dry season when women did more chores. For most chores, women worked longer than men. Men and women knew of many insects fed raw to chicken and fish. Men stated that insect fed chickens are bigger and women affirmed that they are tastier. For both enterprises, men mainly decided on allocation of money jointly with women, or alone. Women mainly decided on allocation of feeding resources. \n \nBecause gender roles were more clearly defined in poultry enterprises, it would be more useful to start conducting gender targeted interventions with poultry farmers. Among the interventions recommended include insect farming technologies at the homestead for women and wild insect catching technologies for women and men. Surplus insects farmed / harvested can be sold to commercial feed processors through contractual arrangements between them and the producers. Advocacy interventions to prevent economically dormant men taking over insect rearing enterprises from women once they become profitable, and time saving technologies for use by time-poor women are also recommended.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it