Brewery waste as a sustainable protein source for the banded cricket (Gryllodes sigillatus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Crickets, like other edible insects, can convert organic by-products of the food and agricultural industries into high-value protein. Waste products high in protein like brewer’s spent grain and brewer’s spent yeast are particularly attractive replacements for unsustainable protein sources in cricket feed like fishmeal or soy. Such replacement will only be advantageous, however, if feeding on these waste products does not impact, or only minimally impacts, cricket survival, growth, and body composition. In this study, a farmed cricket species, Gryllodes sigillatus , was reared in isolation on experimental diets in which fishmeal was wholly or partially replaced with either brewer’s spent grain or brewer’s spent yeast. Cricket survival, development and macromolecular composition were not different across diets. However, wholly replacing fishmeal with brewer’s spent yeast or brewer’s spent grain reduced cricket adult body mass by approximately 16%. To extend these findings toward a farm environment, a second cohort of crickets were reared communally on diets in which fishmeal, and fishmeal and soy (a secondary protein source), were replaced by brewer’s spent grain. We found that in a communal environment, crickets reared on both diets performed equally as well as the control. Therefore, brewing waste products are promising candidates for use as a primary protein source in the feed of G. sigillatus . In addition to contributing towards the goals of a circular bioeconomy through the repurposing of waste, the use of brewing waste in cricket feed may have a positive impact of the cricket farming industry as a cost-effective and sustainable alternative to traditional feed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".