Applying nutritional ecology to optimize diets of crickets raised for food and feed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing yield is a primary goal of mass insect rearing for food and feed, and diet impacts insect life-history traits that affect yield, such as survival, development time and body size. However, experiments rarely test the nutritional requirements of insects from hatch to adulthood, and so little is known about how the full developmental macronutrient intake impacts the 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".