Effects of Cricket Powder on Growth Performance, Carcass Traits, Pork Quality, Physicochemical, and Sensory Analyses of Finishing Swine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feeding pigs, a balanced diet is an important factor to promote growth performance and results in higher yield and quality pork. Alternative ingredients such as cricket powder (CP) can be used as a substitution to provide high-quality protein for swine. Therefore, this experiment was investigated the effects of cricket powder on growth performance, carcass traits, pork quality, physicochemical, and sensory analyses of finishing swine. Eight finishing hogs (Hampshire cross) were allotted to two treatments: 1) control (0% CP) and 2) control + 2% CP (CP replaced SBM), for 34 days. All treatments were analyzed for growth and carcass performance (ADG, ADFI, G: F, LEA, BF, HCW, and DP), sensory evaluation (9-point hedonic scale with 14 trained panelists), physicochemical (nutrition content, pH, moisture (%), ash content, color (L*, a*, b*), lipid oxidation (TBARS)), and microbiological analysis (aerobic heterotrophs (AH), E. coli, Enterobacteriaceae). Pork loin samples coated with 2% CP were used for all treatments, except the control treatment. Each treatment was prepared and stored at 3°C for 9 days. The results showed that the control diet pigs outgained pigs fed 2% CP 1.03 kg/d vs. 0.62 kg/d. There was no difference (p>0.05) in ADFI or G: F regardless of treatment. Pigs fed 2% CP tended to have greater DP (80.10% vs. 78.21%). The 2% CP treatment obtained the highest scores for all sensory attributes, acceptability (85.71%), and purchase intent (71.43%). Adding 2% CP improved the crude fiber (4.44%), iron (13.60 ppm), and zinc contents (21.50 ppm). Pigs fed 2% CP had increased (p<0.05) a* redness (10.51), pH value (5.91), and moisture content (73.03%). No E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae were detected in this experiment. In addition, samples with 2% CP increased redness values, decreased lipid oxidation, and decreased aerobic heterotrophs counts compared to the control treatment. Thus, our results suggest that adding cricket powder in swine production can be used to promote sustainability, enhance meat color, decrease undesirable microorganism growth, and prolong the shelf-life of pork loin.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".