The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Diets for Mass-Rearing Acheta domesticus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) as a Novelty Food, and Comparison of Food Conversion Efficiency with Values Reported for Livestock
Abstract
As part of research on mass-rearing the cricket Acheta domesticus (L.) as a novelty (innovative) food, four cricket diets, two prepared in the laboratory and two commercial, were compared on the basis of cost per kilogram (wet weight) of eighth instars produced. Costs were influenced by dietary ingredients, mean cricket wet weight at time of harvest, and feed/gain ratios. For the laboratory-prepared diets, crickets grown on Patton’s diet no. 16 or on NRC reference chick diet averaged 0.443 and 0.418 g at time of harvest, with feed/gain ratios of 0.923 and 0.949, respectively. Because of the cost of ingredients, however, the cost per kilogram of live crickets produced was only $0.21 for the NRC chick diet compared with $2.55 for Patton’s no. 16; these costs exclude the cost of labor for mixing the diets. Performance of crickets on the laboratory-prepared diets was somewhat better than performance on the commercial diets. The food conversion efficiency of crickets at 30°C or higher was found to be higher than reported for broiler chicks and pigs and much higher than those reported for sheep and cattle.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Oonincx, D. G. A. B., van Itterbeeck, J., Heetkamp, M. J. W., van den Brand, H., van Loon, J. J. A., & van Huis, A. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014445 · Cited by 853
EFSA Scientific Committee (2015) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4257 · Cited by 804
Potential and challenges of insects as an innovative source for food and feed production
Rumpold, B. A., & Schlüter, O. K. (2013) · Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2012.11.005 · Cited by 782
Edible Insects in a Food Safety and Nutritional Perspective: A Critical Review
Belluco, S., Losasso, C., Maggioletti, M., Alonzi, C. C., Paoletti, M. G., & Ricci, A. (2013) · Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12014 · Cited by 708
van Broekhoven, S., Oonincx, D. G. A. B., van Huis, A., & van Loon, J. J. A. (2015) · Journal of Insect Physiology · doi:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2014.12.005 · Cited by 451
Metadata
- Authors
- Nakagaki, B. J., & Defoliart, G. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Entomology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1991-06-01
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 891-896
- ISSN
- 0022-0493 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-291X
- OpenAlex
- W2145859886
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Diets for Mass-Rearing Acheta domesticus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) as a Novelty Food, and Comparison of Food Conversion Efficiency with Values Reported for Livestock. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jee/84.3.891
- The paper
- Nakagaki, B. J., & Defoliart, G. R. (1991). Comparison of Diets for Mass-Rearing Acheta domesticus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) as a Novelty Food, and Comparison of Food Conversion Efficiency with Values Reported for Livestock. Journal of Economic Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/84.3.891
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.