Gram Research analysis of a 2026 feeding trial found that the cricket’s family line mattered far more than the feed. Crickets from the commercially bred line weighed more than twice as much as the grain-fed line by week five, while switching feeds caused no detectable growth loss.
Farmers who raise house crickets for food often wonder which feed helps their insects grow the most. A new study in the Journal of Insect Science, reviewed by Gram Research analysis, suggests the answer depends less on the feed and more on the cricket’s bloodline. Researchers raised two cricket lines that had been kept on different diets for more than four years: one on a grain-based mix and one on a commercial feed. The commercial-fed line had also been bred for larger body size. The researchers then swapped feeds between the lines. The commercially bred line grew far heavier, more than twice the weight of the grain-fed line by week five. Switching to an unfamiliar feed did not slow growth in either line. The commercial feed gave only a small, uncertain boost. The findings suggest that a cricket’s genetic background matters far more than choosing between these two feeds.
Key Statistics
A 2026 controlled feeding trial published in the Journal of Insect Science found that house crickets from a commercially fed, size-selected line weighed more than twice as much as a cereal-fed line by week five, regardless of which feed they ate.
The same 2026 study estimated that the higher-fat commercial feed added only about 0.03 grams of body mass in both cricket lines, with a likely range from minus 0.02 to 0.10 grams.
The 2026 study found no clear home-diet advantage for house crickets, with an estimated effect of about 0.003 grams, meaning crickets grew about as well on a new feed as on their familiar one.
The Quick Take
- What they studied: Researchers wanted to know whether house crickets grow best on the food they were raised on, whether some feeds work better than others, and whether a cricket’s family line matters more than its diet.
- Who participated: The study used house crickets, a common farm insect, rather than people. Two cricket lines were used: one kept for over four years on a grain-based mix and one kept on a commercial feed and bred for larger size. The exact number of crickets was not listed in the summary provided.
- Key finding: Crickets from the commercially bred line were more than twice as heavy as the grain-fed line by week 5, no matter which feed they ate. The line difference was about 0.19 grams, with a likely range of 0.12 to 0.25 grams. Eating the home diet gave no clear advantage.
- What it means for you: If you raise crickets, the cricket line you start with may matter more than the specific feed you pick from these two options. The commercial feed may add a small boost, but the study found this effect was uncertain. Results come from one controlled trial, so treat them as a useful starting point rather than a final rule.
The Research Details
The researchers tested two groups of house crickets that had been raised separately for more than four years. One group had been fed a cereal-based mix, and the other had been fed a commercial formula. The commercial-fed group had also been chosen over generations for larger body size, so the two groups differed in both diet history and genetics.
In the experiment, the researchers swapped feeds between the two groups. Some crickets from each line ate their familiar food, while others switched to the other feed. This setup, called a reciprocal cross-feeding design, let the team compare how each cricket line performed on its own diet and on a new diet. The trial was controlled and replicated, meaning the conditions were kept consistent and repeated across multiple cages.
To sort out what caused the growth differences, the team used statistical models that separated the effects of diet history, diet composition, and body-size selection. They tracked how body mass changed over time and checked whether survival differed between groups. Because the models gave a range of likely values rather than a single number, the researchers could show how confident they were in each effect.
Comparing the same insects on different feeds, and swapping feeds between lines, helps separate the effect of the food from the effect of the insects’ genetic history. Without this design, it would be hard to tell whether a heavier cricket grew heavier because of its feed or because of its family line.
The approach also shows whether crickets are good at adjusting to new foods. If a cricket does well after switching feeds, that suggests its body can adapt quickly. If it struggles, its growth may depend on the food it was raised on. This matters for farmers deciding whether to change feed suppliers.
The study used a controlled, repeated design, which is a strength for a farm-focused trial. Using statistical ranges, instead of only single averages, helps readers see how much uncertainty surrounds each estimate. The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, which means outside experts checked the work before publication.
Still, the summary did not list the total number of crickets, so it is hard to judge the study’s size and power. The two cricket lines also differed in more than one way, so it is not possible to fully separate every cause. Readers should view the results as strong for this setting but not as a final answer for every farm.
What the Results Show
The clearest result was that cricket line made the biggest difference in growth. Crickets from the commercially bred line weighed more than twice as much as the grain-fed line by week five. This gap held steady whether the crickets ate the commercial feed or the grain mix. The estimated line effect was about 0.19 grams, with a likely range of 0.12 to 0.25 grams.
All crickets gained weight over the trial, and the researchers found no clear sign that survival differed between treatments. This suggests the feeds were not harmful to the insects in the time frame studied.
The commercial feed, which has a higher fat content, may have added a small amount of weight in both lines. The estimated effect was about 0.03 grams, with a range from minus 0.02 to 0.10 grams. The researchers estimated about an 87 percent chance that this effect was above zero, which is suggestive but not strong proof.
Finally, the researchers found no clear benefit for crickets eating the food they were raised on. The estimated home-diet effect was very close to zero, about 0.003 grams. Switching to a new feed also caused no detectable growth loss, which suggests the crickets’ bodies can adjust to different foods.
The study suggests that switching feeds is not risky for growth, at least over the period studied. For farmers, this may offer flexibility when feed prices or supplies change. The researchers also noted that feed intake was not measured in this trial, so it is still unclear whether crickets ate more of one feed or whether they turned food into body mass more efficiently.
The team also pointed out that gut bacteria, the microbes that live in the digestive system, could play a role in how well crickets use their food. This idea was not tested here, but it points to a useful direction for future work.
Many farm studies focus on comparing feeds, asking which diet produces the biggest or fastest-growing insects. This study adds a different view: the insect’s own history and breeding may shape growth as much as or more than the diet itself. This fits with broader animal farming research, where genetics often influence growth alongside feed quality. Readers who want the full picture should look at how this study builds on earlier feed trials for house crickets.
The summary does not state the total number of crickets, which makes it harder to judge how precise the estimates are. The two cricket lines differed in both diet history and body-size breeding, so the study cannot fully separate those two causes. The researchers also did not measure how much food each group ate, so they cannot tell whether differences came from eating more or from using food better.
The study measured growth up to week five, which may not reflect the full growth period used on farms. The researchers themselves recommended future studies that follow crickets to harvest age, use repeated cricket lines, and combine feed intake data with gut bacteria analysis. Until those studies are done, the results should be read as useful but not final.
The Bottom Line
Confidence is highest for the finding that cricket line strongly affects growth, since the estimated effect was clear and consistent. Confidence is moderate that switching feeds does not slow growth, based on the observed period. Confidence is low for the claim that the commercial feed adds weight, since the estimate was small and its range included zero. Farmers should prioritize the origin and breeding of their starting stock, then test feeds on a small scale before making large changes.
Cricket farmers, feed producers, and researchers who work with insect farming will find this study most useful. Home hobbyists who raise crickets for pet food may also find the feed-switching results helpful. People who only eat crickets or buy cricket products may not need to act on these findings, since the study focused on farm growth rather than nutrition for eaters.
The study tracked growth over about five weeks, so its results apply to that window. Farmers who choose a stronger cricket line may see larger harvests within a single production cycle. Any benefit from switching feeds should be checked over full production runs, since the study did not follow crickets all the way to harvest age.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the type of cricket feed affect how fast house crickets grow?
The feed mattered less than expected in a 2026 Journal of Insect Science trial. The commercially bred cricket line grew more than twice as heavy as the grain-fed line by week five, while the commercial feed added only a small, uncertain amount of weight.
Can house crickets switch to a new feed without losing growth?
In a 2026 feeding study, crickets that switched to an unfamiliar feed showed no detectable growth cost. The researchers suggested this points to physiological flexibility, meaning the insects can adjust to new food rather than depending on a specific diet.
Why do some house crickets grow heavier than others on the same food?
Research reviewed by Gram found that breeding history plays a major role. In a 2026 trial, crickets from a line bred for larger body size grew far heavier than another line, even when both ate the same feed. Genetic background appeared to matter more than diet choice.
What should cricket farmers measure to choose the best feed?
Researchers recommend tracking body weight weekly, recording feed intake, and following crickets to harvest age. Combining these measures helps separate how much insects eat from how efficiently they turn food into body mass, which the 2026 study did not fully test.
Want to Apply This Research?
- Weigh a random sample of 20 crickets from each batch every week, record the average body mass, and log which cricket line and feed were used. Compare weekly averages across batches to see which combination leads to the heaviest insects by week five.
- Before starting a new batch, record the cricket line source in your app. If you are considering a feed switch, run a small test group on the new feed alongside your usual feed and compare weights over the same period.
- Keep a long-term log of cricket line, feed type, weekly weights, survival counts, and harvest weights for each batch. Over several cycles, review these records to see whether line origin or feed choice makes a bigger difference in your own setup.
This article summarizes a single animal study on house crickets raised for farming and feed production. It does not provide advice for human nutrition or medical decisions. Results may differ across farms, climates, and cricket strains. Anyone planning a large insect farming operation should consult agricultural extension services or qualified animal nutrition specialists before making changes.
This research translation is published by Gram Research, the science division of Gram, an AI-powered nutrition tracking app.