Dietary inclusion of black soldier fly, cricket and superworm in rainbow trout aquaculture: impacts on growth and nutrient profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inclusion of fishmeal and fish oil in aquafeeds is unsustainable, prompting the need for alternative protein and lipid sources. This study evaluates the impact of diets incorporating defatted black soldier fly larvae ( Hermetia illucens ), adult cricket ( Gryllodes sigillatus ) and superworm ( Zophobas morio ) on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, nutrient retention efficiency, fatty acid and amino acid profiles of juvenile rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ). Juvenile trout (100.5 ± 0.6 g; mean ± SD) were fed one of four diets: a control diet with 20% fishmeal, and three experimental diets containing a total of 15% defatted black soldier fly meal, full-fat adult cricket meal, or full-fat superworm meal, with partial replacement of fishmeal and fish oil. Growth performance and body indices were unaffected by dietary treatments. Whole carcass content and retention efficiency of protein were higher in fish fed the control and superworm diets compared to those on cricket and black soldier fly diets. Despite reduced retention efficiency of leucine, phenylalanine, glutamic acid, and serine, carcass amino acid contents were not affected by dietary treatment. Fatty acid retention efficiency was greater in fish on the black soldier fly diet, though overall lipid content was consistent across diets. Notably, lauric acid and myristic acid levels were elevated in the black soldier fly group, while linoleic acid was higher in fish fed the superworm and cricket diets. Phosphorus retention improved significantly with the black soldier fly treatment, yet nitrogen retention was reduced. These findings suggest that insect meals can partially replace fishmeal and fish oil in trout diets without compromising growth or fatty acid composition.
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".