Profitability of insect production for <i>T. molitor</i> farms in the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insects are increasingly considered as a relevant alternative protein source in the transition to a more circular economy and more sustainable food production. Understanding the profitability of insect farms is crucial for starting entrepreneurs, established rearers, and third parties. In this study we analysed the revenues and expenses of seven T. molitor farms in the Netherlands, representing approximately a quarter of the total sector. We calculated their gross margin and net present value. Revenues came from the sales of fresh larvae and insect frass, and from extension services. Expenses included investments, and non-allocated and variable expenses. Results cover technical and economic results, and a qualitative description of farm operations. The gross margins and net present values ranged from -180 to 2,030 and from -12,359 to 15,535 EUR/tonne fresh larvae production, respectively. The main determinants of T. molitor farms’ profitability included the sales price of larvae, and its labour and substrate expenses. Our estimates can be used by decision making of farmers, credit providers, and policy makers to support the growth of this still very small, but emerging sector.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".