The effects of cricket meal (<i>Gryllus sigillatus</i>) on the meat quality, growth, and internal morphology of broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cricket ( Gryllus sigillatus) meal (CM) was fed to Ross 308 broiler chickens ( n = 624 total; 26 birds/pen) at dietary inclusion rates of 0% (non-medicated control; NM), 0% (medicated control; 0.05% virginiamycin, 0.03% monensin; M), 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% CM (non-medicated) for 35 days to determine the impact of this novel feed ingredient on the growth, feed intake, organ indices, and meat quality of these chickens. The final average live weight of broilers fed 5% CM was lower than broilers fed the 10% CM ( P < 0.05) and the 0% NM diets ( P < 0.05). Total weight gain was lowest in chickens fed 5% CM ( P < 0.05) and the % ratio of the weight of the small intestine to body weight of the chickens fed 5% CM was significantly higher on day 20 than that of the other treatments ( P < 0.05). Meat texture and colour were not affected by dietary treatments. Cooking loss in birds fed the 10% CM diet was significantly higher than that of birds fed the 0% NM control. Feeding up to 20% CM did not alter the growth, organ indices, or meat quality of broiler chickens, although further research is required to determine whether including >20% CM in the diet will produce similar results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".