Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34564236›Full record

ReviewInsects2021

Valorisation Potential of Using Organic Side Streams as Feed for

Meggie Van Peer, Lotte Frooninckx, Carl Coudron, Siebe Berrens, Carlos Álvarez, David Deruytter, Geert Verheyen, Sabine Van Miert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insects, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Have the environmental benefits of insect farming been overstated? A critical review.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Meggie Van PeerRadius, Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Kleinhoefstraat 4, 2440 Geel, Belgium.
Lotte FrooninckxRadius, Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Kleinhoefstraat 4, 2440 Geel, Belgium.
Carl CoudronProvincial Research and Advice Centre for Agriculture and Horticulture, 8800 Rumbeke-Beitem, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0620-6187
Siebe BerrensRadius, Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Kleinhoefstraat 4, 2440 Geel, Belgium.
Carlos ÁlvarezTeagasc Food Research Centre, Department of Food Quality and Sensory Science, D15 KN3K Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-3266-893X
David DeruytterProvincial Research and Advice Centre for Agriculture and Horticulture, 8800 Rumbeke-Beitem, Belgium.
Geert VerheyenRadius, Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Kleinhoefstraat 4, 2440 Geel, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9268-9228
Sabine Van MiertRadius, Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Kleinhoefstraat 4, 2440 Geel, Belgium.

Funding

Interreg NWE1004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to increasing welfare and population, the demand for alternative protein sources, obtained with minimal use of natural resources, is rising in today's society. Insects have the potential to be used as an alternative protein source since they are considered to be able to convert low-value biomass into high-value components, resulting in opportunities for valorisation of organic side streams. Moreover, insects are suggested to be a sustainable protein source, referring to the efficient "feed to body" mass conversion potential. The aim of this review was to explore the potential to rear the yellow mealworm (

Indexed as

biomassby-productsinsect productionside streamsvalorisation

Identifiers

PMID34564236
PMCPMC8467494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.