The effects of cricket meal (<i>Gryllus sigillatus</i>) on the meat quality, growth, and internal morphology of broiler chickens
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
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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