Applying nutritional ecology to optimize diets of crickets raised for food and feed
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
Abstract Increasing yield is a primary goal of mass insect rearing for food and feed, and diet shapes insect life history traits important to yield, such as survival, development time, and body size at adulthood. Little is known about how developmental macronutrient intake impacts survival, growth, and adult body size of mass reared insects. Here, we applied the nutritional geometry framework and reared individual tropical house crickets ( Gryllodes sigillatus ) from hatch to adulthood on a wide range of protein:carbohydrate diets. We measured weekly food consumption, survival, development time to adulthood, and adult body size and mass, and calculated a yield metric to extrapolate our individual-level results and predict how diet influences yield at the mass rearing level. Yield was maximized on a 3 P :1 C diet, as crickets fed this diet were most likely to develop into adults and grew maximum mass and body size. When provided with a choice between diets, crickets selected a relatively balanced 1.05 P :1 C diet throughout development, but males consumed 17% more protein than females. Our results represent a crucial first step towards determining the optimal standard feed formulation required to maximize cricket farming yield.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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