Make it a standard? The creation and variability assessment of a consensus standard protocol for Tenebrio molitor larvae feeding trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interest in the nutrition of the yellow mealworm ( Tenebrio molitor L.) larvae is on the rise, leading to an increase in publications on this topic. The absence of a standard protocol and resulting differences in experimental designs reduces comparability among studies and impedes research on mealworm nutrition. To address this, a consensus standardised protocol was developed specifically for the evaluation of mealworm larval growth and performance in feeding trials. The efficacy of this protocol was evaluated through an international ring test involving seven partners using two wheat brans as dry feed (a standard bran and a local bran) at 27 °C and 60% relative humidity. As experimental units, plastic crates filled with 2.1 kg of bran and 10,000 4-week-old larvae were used with six replicates. Agar gel was provided as wet feed ad libitum . The mean individual larval weight and the number of larvae per crate were determined weekly until either three or more replicates ran out of feed or pupation exceeded 10%. At harvest, the total larval fresh biomass and amount of frass was determined. Larval samples were taken for chemical analysis. To assess the protocol, the within (repeatability) and between (reproducibility) laboratory variability was calculated for each parameter. The repeatability was good (limit at 12% (standard) and 14% (local)). The reproducibility was poorer with a limit 2.7 times higher for the standard feed (36%) and 3.8 times higher for the local feed (55%). For both feeds, the total larval fresh harvest, amount of frass and the larval protein concentration were the most consistent both within and among laboratories. The highest variability was observed at the early life stages and for the larvae ash content. The detailed consensus standard protocol and repeatability/reproducibility estimates can be used as basis for future mealworm feeding trials, comparing results and future improvements.
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 | 0.285 | 0.224 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".