Effects of nutritional supplementation on honey bee Apis mellifera L. brood development, colony population growth, and honey yield in central Ethiopia

1 Introduction

Honey production in Ethiopia holds substantial potential and serves as an important source of income across diverse agro-ecological zones due to the country’s rich floral diversity and favorable environmental conditions (Begna et al., 2015), supported by a wide range of honeybee forage species and seasonal honey flow patterns across highland, midland, and lowland zones (Ministry of Agriculture, 2025). Traditional beekeeping systems rely on natural nectar and pollen availability, making colony performance highly sensitive to seasonal fluctuations in forage resources. Periods of floral scarcity expose colonies to nutritional stress, reducing brood development, population growth, and honey production (Di Pasquale et al., 2013; Gemeda, 2014). Colonies may weaken, reduce brood rearing, and fail to maintain optimal productivity.

Although supplemental feeding during dearth periods is common in developed apicultural systems, its adoption in Ethiopia remains limited. This is mainly due to the lack of affordable, nutritionally balanced, and locally adaptable feed formulations. Moreover, feeding strategies developed elsewhere are not directly applicable due to differences in climate, floral composition, and resource availability (Paray et al., 2021). These constraints highlight the need for cost-effective, nutritionally adequate pollen substitute diets tailored to local conditions (Gemeda, 2014; Hilmi et al., 2011; Sihag and Gupta, 2011).

Pollen is a critical component of honey bee nutrition, providing essential proteins, lipids, vitamins, and minerals required for brood development and worker bee physiology. During prolonged forage shortages, colonies deplete stored pollen reserves, leading to reduced egg-laying by the queen, decreased sealed brood area, and declining adult bee populations (Manning, 2006; DeGrandi-Hoffman and Chen, 2015). Therefore, ensuring continuous availability of adequate nutrition, either through natural sources or supplementation, is essential for sustaining colony performance (Keller et al., 2005a).

Despite evidence that pollen substitutes can enhance colony performance, there is limited research evaluating their comparative effectiveness and economic feasibility under Ethiopian conditions. In particular, there is a lack of studies assessing locally formulated diets in terms of their impact on key performance indicators such as feed intake, sealed brood area, adult bee population growth, worker bee weight, pollen storage, honey reserves, and overall colony productivity.

This study evaluated the effects of different supplemental feeding treatments on A. mellifera colonies in Central Ethiopia, with emphasis on brood development, colony population growth, and honey yield. Specifically, the study compared multiple diets, to determine their effects on feed intake, sealed brood area, adult bee population, worker bee weight, pollen and honey storage, and economic feasibility. The findings aim to identify a nutritionally balanced, cost effective, and locally adaptable supplemental feeding strategy that can mitigate the effects of seasonal forage shortages and enhance colony productivity.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study area

The study was conducted in 2023 at the apiary located at 08°38.803′ N and 039°06.441′ E in central Oromia, Ethiopia. The area is characterized by seasonal variation in floral resource availability, with a pronounced forage scarcity period from July to September. During this major dearth season, the natural inflow of pollen to honeybee colonies is insufficient to sustain optimal brood rearing and colony population growth. These conditions provided an appropriate environment to evaluate the effectiveness of supplemental feeding interventions on colony performances.

2.1.1 Experimental design and dietary treatment

The experiment was conducted using a completely randomized design (CRD) with four dietary treatments, each applied to five colonies (n = 5), giving a total of 20 colonies. All colonies were headed by two-month-old productive A. mellifera queens and were selected for uniformity in colony strength, including initial brood area, population size, and food reserves, to ensure comparability prior to treatment allocation. Colonies meeting these criteria were randomly assigned to one of the four dietary treatments using a simple randomization procedure.

The treatments were as follows:

• EPSCF diet: 50% Expeller pressed soybean cake flour (EPSCF) + 49% granulated sugar + 1% vitamin–mineral premix.
• NSCF diet: 49% Niger seed cake flour (NSCF) + 50% granulated sugar + 1% vitamin–mineral premix.
• MBF diet: 49% Mung bean flour (MBF) + 50% granulated sugar + 1% vitamin–mineral premix.
• Control: One liter sucrose syrup.

Dry ingredients for the three artificial diets were thoroughly mixed and homogenized to produce pollen substitute patties. Each colony received 250 g of its respective diet once per week, placed above the brood nest to facilitate rapid consumption. Control colonies were provided with one liter of sucrose syrup (1, 000 g granulated sugar in 1 L water) weekly, following (Sultana et al., 2024).

Feeding was conducted weekly for four weeks during the dearth season, from 1 to 28 July 2023. All colonies were maintained under uniform management conditions throughout the experimental period. Environmental conditions, including temperature, rainfall, relative humidity, and solar radiation, were not continuously monitored during the experiment but were compiled afterward from nearby meteorological records.

2.2 Chemical composition analysis of feed ingredients

To determine the nutritional composition of the major protein sources used in the experimental diets, representative 1-kg samples of EPSCF, NSCF, and MBF were collected and submitted to Bless Agri-Food Laboratory Services PLC for analysis. EPSCF and NSCF samples were analyzed using Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS; FOSS 2500), a rapid and non-destructive technique widely applied for feed evaluation (Givens et al., 1997). The instrument was calibrated using established reference calibration datasets and validated against standard wet chemistry methods maintained by the laboratory. Parameters determined included crude protein, crude fat, crude ash, and crude fiber, while total carbohydrates were estimated by difference and metabolizable energy was calculated from proximate composition values.

Due to the absence of an appropriate calibration model for MBF in the NIRS system, MBF was analyzed using standard wet chemistry methods following laboratory standard operating procedures (SOP/7.2-C1 to SOP/7.2-C5) for moisture, crude protein, crude fat, crude ash, and crude fiber determination. Carbohydrates and energy values were similarly derived by calculation. All chemical analyses were performed in triplicate, and mean values were used for subsequent evaluation to ensure analytical precision and reproducibility. All compositional parameters were expressed on a dry matter (% DM) basis to ensure uniformity and comparability across feed ingredients.

Although the study emphasizes the importance of protein quality, amino acid profiling was not conducted due to laboratory constraints. Nevertheless, crude protein content was used as an indicator of nutritional adequacy, as supported by previous studies on pollen substitute formulation.

2.2.1 Performance parameters and data collection

2.2.1.1 Feed consumption and colony growth

Feed intake was assessed at 7-day intervals following diet administration in accordance with standard colony assessment procedures (Delaplane et al., 2013). For each colony, the remaining unconsumed patty was collected and weighed after seven days, and weekly feed consumption was calculated as the difference between the amount offered and the residual feed recovered. Similarly, syrup consumption was determined by measuring the volume of syrup remaining when feed was not completely consumed during the observation period. Over the 28-day experimental period, the quantities of patties and syrup provided to each colony were recorded, and average consumption per week calculated for subsequent analysis. Colony weight was measured at 21-day intervals, while other colony performance parameters were recorded according to their respective standard assessment intervals.

2.2.1.2 Estimation of colony weight and colony population

Colony weight (total adult bee weight) was estimated indirectly using the difference between total hive weight and the weight of non-bee hive components, following a practical non-destructive approach for assessing colony strength. For determining total hive weight, each colony was weighed at night, when majority of colony members present inside the hive. A calibrated mechanical platform scale (SOEHNLE, Germany) was used for measuring the weight. For uniformity, all hives were weighed with the same configuration (bottom board, hives super (s), frames, inner cover, and outer cover). The total hive weight (W total) was recorded for each colony at each measurement interval.

2.2.1.3 Determination of hive component weight (without bees)

To estimate the weight of hive components and stored materials exclusive of adult bees, the following procedure was used:

• At the beginning of the experiment, the empty hive components (bottom board, brood chamber, frames with foundation, covers) were weighed and recorded as the structural hive weight (W structure).
• During each data collection period, honey and pollen stores were estimated by weighing frames individually after gently brushing off bees. The combined weight of brood frames containing honey, pollen, and brood (W _frames) was recorded.
• The weight of syrup feeders and supplemental patties remaining in the hive (W feed) was also measured and included where applicable.

The estimated non-bee hive weight (W non-bee) was calculated as:

Wnon−bee=Wstructure+Wframes+Wfeed

2.2.1.4 Estimation of colony weight

Colony weight (W bees) was calculated as the difference between total hive weight and non-bee hive weight:

Wbees=Wtotal−Wnon−bee

This difference represents the total live adult bee weight within the colony at the time of measurement.

2.2.1.5 Estimation of adult bee population

To estimate adult bee population, ten live worker bees were sampled per treatment during nighttime (to ensure the majority of foragers had returned to the hive). The bees were placed in pre-weighed containers, immobilized by freezing, and weighed using a precision analytical balance (JA203H). To convert colony weight into the number of adult bees, the fresh weight of 10 worker bees from each treatment group was taken, and the mean individual bee weight (W _individual) was determined as:

Windividual=Wsample10

Then, total adult bee population per colony (N _bees) was then calculated by dividing the colony weight (W bees) by the W _individual (mean individual bee weight), i. e., the estimated adult bee population per colony (N _bees) was then calculated as:

Nbees=WbeesWindividual

2.2.1.6 Measurement frequency

Colony weight measurements were taken at every 21-days interval throughout the experimental period to correspond with a full brood cycle of A. mellifera. All measurements were performed under similar environmental conditions to minimize variability due to moisture fluctuations or other changes.

This weight-difference method enabled repeated, minimally invasive estimation of colony strength and facilitated comparison of treatment effects on colony growth dynamics.

2.2.1.7 Measurement of sealed brood area

Brood development was evaluated three weeks after the start of supplemental feeding and at subsequent intervals. For each colony, all capped brood frames were assessed. Digital images of both sides of each frame were captured, and analyzed with the count tool in Adobe Photoshop^® 2023 following Knopp et al. (2006). The total sealed brood area per colony was obtained by summing the measured areas of all brood-containing frames.

2.2.1.8 Honey yield determination

Honey yield was determined at harvest by uncapping sealed honeycombs and extracting honey using a centrifugal extractor. Following extraction, frames were weighed using a calibrated mechanical platform scale (SOEHNLE, Germany). Honey yield per frame was calculated as the difference between the weight of capped honey-filled combs before extraction and the weight of empty combs after extraction. Total honey yield per colony was obtained by summing yields across harvested frames.

2.21.9 Economic analysis

An economic evaluation was conducted to determine the cost-effectiveness of each supplemental diet. The cost of feed formulation was calculated based on prevailing market prices of ingredients at the time of the experiment. Feed cost per kilogram and total feed cost per colony were computed. Gross revenue per treatment was estimated by multiplying the total honey yield per colony by the market price per kilogram at harvest. Cost–benefit ratios were then derived to compare economic returns among treatments.

2.2.1.10 Statistical analyses

Data on feed consumption, pollen storage, sealed brood area, adult bee population, and honey yield were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a repeated-measures approach to account for measurements taken from the same colonies over time. Statistical analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.3.3).

Treatment effects were considered significant at a 5% significance level (α = 0.05), and where significant differences were detected, post-hoc Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) tests were used for mean separation. Prior to analysis, data were checked for normality, homogeneity of variance, and other ANOVA assumptions to ensure the validity of the model.

3 Results

Nutritional composition of pollen substitutes

Figure 1(a) shows the nutritional composition of the three pollen substitute diets. EPSCF had the highest crude protein (46.0%) compared with NSCF (34.5%) and MBF (20.6%). MBF had the lowest crude fiber (3.7%), while NSCF had the highest (18.1%). Crude fat and ash were highest in NSCF (12.5% fat; 8.3% ash) and lowest in MBF (2.3% fat; 2.9% ash), with EPSCF intermediate (5.8% fat; 6.3% ash). Carbohydrates were highest in MBF (62.2%) and lowest in NSCF (21.3%). Energy content was highest in EPSCF (368.2 Kcal/100 g), followed by MBF (352.2 Kcal/100 g) and NSCF (335.9 Kcal/100 g).

Honey yield

Honey yield differed significantly among colonies receiving different supplemental diets during the experimental period (p < 0.05). Colonies supplied with the EPSF diet produced the highest mean honey yield (14.75 ± 0.565 kg/colony), followed by the Control group (11.22 ± 0.547 kg/colony). These two treatments did not differ significantly from each other but yielded significantly higher honey than the NSCF (9.73 ± 0.828 kg/colony) and MBF (8.12 ± 0.864 kg/colony) treatments. No significant difference was observed between the NSCF and MBF groups (Figure 1b).

Consumption of pollen substitutes

The consumption of pollen substitute diets varied significantly among treatments across the four feeding periods (Table 1; Figure 1c). In Round 1, colonies fed EPSCF consumed significantly higher amounts (150.0 ± 4.3 g, a) compared to MBF (120.0 ± 3.8 g, b) and NSCF (110.0 ± 3.5 g, b). A similar pattern was observed in Round 2 and Round 3, where EPSCF recorded significantly higher consumption (175.0 ± 5.2 g and 225.0 ± 6.1 g, respectively, a) than both MBF and NSCF (b), which did not differ significantly from each other. In Round 4, EPSCF (160.0 ± 4.5 g, a) remained significantly higher than NSCF (140.0 ± 3.7 g, b), while MBF (155.0 ± 4.2 g, ab) showed intermediate consumption and did not differ significantly from either EPSCF or NSCF. Overall, ANOVA results indicated a statistically significant difference among treatments (F = 3.87, p = 0.032). Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test confirmed that EPSCF consumption was generally higher than MBF and NSCF, while MBF and NSCF were not significantly different in most feeding periods.

Table 1. Consumption of pollen substitute diets (g per colony) across feeding periods.

Treatment means with different letters in the same round are significantly different (ANOVA p < 0.05; Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.05).

Sealed brood counts of colonies treated with pollen substitutes

Sealed brood was quantified in cell counts using digital image analysis of brood frames. Colonies fed with EPSCF and MBF diets exhibited higher brood production compared to the control, particularly during August and September (Table 2; Figure 1(d)). In August, colonies receiving MBF and EPSCF diets produced significantly higher sealed brood counts than NSCF, while the control showed intermediate performance. In September, EPSCF resulted in the highest brood counts, significantly outperforming NSCF, whereas MBF and control treatments were statistically similar to both groups.

Table 2. Sealed brood counts (cells per colony) under different treatments across months.

Treatments means with different letters are significantly different (Anova P< 0.05; Tukey’s HSD, p<0.05).

Population growth treatment groups

Colony populations increased across all treatments during the study period (Figure 2(a)). Colonies in the control treatment exhibited the highest mean population growth, followed by Treatment 1, Treatment 2, and Treatment 3. However, the differences among treatments were not statistically significant (F = 0.0475, P = 0.9861), indicating that the treatments did not have a measurable effect on hive population. In order to contextualize colony population growth in relation to pollen availability throughout the 2023 experimental period, meteorological data from 2019 to 2023 were analyzed. The time-series analysis (Figure 2(b) showed that rainfall in 2023 was comparatively lower and less continuous than in previous years, particularly in September.

Weight of ten bees

The body weight of bees from colonies treated with EPSCF, NSCF, and MBF in July 2023 appeared higher than that of the control group, as shown in Figure 2(c). In August, colonies provided with MBF and EPSCF showed relatively higher weight compared to NSCF, while in September, only EPSCF treated colonies exhibited an increase. However, despite these apparent variations over time, statistical analysis revealed that the differences among treatments were not significant (ANOVA: F = 0.4934, p = 0.6889; p > 0.05). This indicates that the treatments did not have a statistically significant effect on the weight of ten bees. The observed variations are therefore likely attributable to natural variability or other uncontrolled factors rather than treatment effects.

Number of bee bread cells per colony

As shown in Figure 2(d), colonies receiving the EPSCF diet in 2023 exhibited the highest bee bread accumulation in July. In August, a decline in bee bread stores was observed in colonies fed MBF and EPSCF, whereas NSCF-treated colonies showed relatively stable levels. In September, colonies supplemented with MBF recorded relatively higher bee bread stores, while NSCF-fed colonies had the lowest values. However, these differences were not statistically significant among treatments (ANOVA: F = 0.3163, p = 0.8134), indicating that the dietary treatments did not significantly affect bee bread (pollen) accumulation in the colonies. This lack of significant difference may be attributed to natural variation in pollen availability, differences in foraging activity, colony nutritional requirements, seasonal floral dynamics, and other uncontrolled environmental factors.

Cost-benefit analysis

The cost-benefit analyst sums the potential rewards expected from a situation or action and then subtracts the total costs associated with taking that action (David et al., 2013). These cost-benefit analyses were conducted utilizing data from the experiment, which revealed some changes in the pollen substitutes being used on the apiary. This analysis complements the biological performance results by translating improvements in brood development, colony strength, and honey yield into economic outcomes.

Total costs (TC) included both fixed and variable costs associated with managing an apiary of ten colonies in Langstroth hives under each treatment (EPSCF, MBF, NSCF, and control). Net income (NI) was calculated as:

NI=TR−TCNI = TR − TCNI=TR−TC

where TR represents total revenue and TC represents total cost.

Fixed costs and depreciation

Fixed costs consisted of long-term capital investments required for apiary establishment, including Langstroth hives, bee colonies, hive stands, protective gear, beeswax foundation sheets, casting molds, smoker, honey extractor, and hive tools (Table 3). These costs were identical across all treatments; therefore, they are presented once. The total depreciation cost (ETB 7, 101.55) was uniformly applied to all treatments, ensuring that differences in economic performance were attributed solely to treatment effects rather than variations in capital investment.

Table 3. Breakdown of fixed costs for apiary establishment (ETB) for ten bee colonies (common to all treatments).

Bold values indicate the highest value for the respective parameter among the treatments.

Variable costs

Variable costs included labor, sugar feeding, pollen substitute ingredients, and vitamin -mineral supplements. These costs varied among treatments due to differences in the composition and quantity of supplemental diets. Consequently, total production costs differed slightly across treatments, while fixed costs remained constant.

Revenue estimation

Total revenue was estimated using the mean honey yield per colony and the prevailing farm-gate price of ETB 600 per kg. In line with the productivity results reported in the study, colonies supplemented with EPSCF produced the highest honey yield, followed by the control, NSCF, and MBF treatments.

For ten colonies, total honey production was 114 kg (EPSCF), 66 kg (control), 40.6 kg (NSCF), and 32 kg (MBF), resulting in total revenues of ETB 68, 400.00, 39, 600.00, 24, 360.00, and 19, 200.00, respectively (Table 4).

Table 4. Production Costs (ETB) and revenue from honey sale (ETB).

Values are presented for an apiary consisting of ten colonies. “–” indicates no cost incurred. Exchange rate during the study period: 1 USD = ETB 56.68.

Bold values indicate the highest value for the respective parameter among the treatments.

Financial indicators

Economic performance was evaluated using net income (NI), benefit–cost ratio (BCR), and return on investment (ROI).

Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR): BCR=TRTCA BCR greater than 1 indicates economic viability.

Return on Investment (ROI):

ROI measures profitability relative to total investment cost.

The results indicated that the EPSCF treatment generated the highest economic return, followed by the control treatment. In contrast, MBF resulted in a slight financial loss, while NSCF produced only marginal profitability. These findings suggest that EPSCF pollen substitute provides the most economically viable feeding strategy under the conditions of the present study.

Economic performance of treatments

The EPSCF treatment generated a net income of ETB 48, 305.12, with a BCR of 3.40 and an ROI of 240.39%, demonstrating strong profitability, while the control ranked second with a net income of ETB 24, 098.45 and a BCR of 2.55. In contrast, the MBF treatment resulted in a slight financial loss (BCR < 1), and the NSCF treatment showed only marginal profitability (BCR = 1.22) (Table 5). The negative ROI for MBF reflects increased economic risk, likely due to low consumption of MBF patties (125–155 g/colony), which limited nutrient intake and honey production, as the mung bean flour was unprocessed (not roasted, germinated, or dehulled), reducing palatability (Guajardo-Flores et al., 2017).

Table 5. Financial Analysis of Honey Production under Different Treatments (ETB).

BCR = Total revenue ÷ Total cost. ROI (%) = (Net income ÷ Total cost) × 100. A BCR greater than 1 indicates economic viability.

4 Discussion

The crude fat in EPSCF (5.8%) aligns with previous studies showing low-fat soybean flours improve colony efficiency, brood development, and honey storage in A. mellifera (Haydak and Tanquary, 1942; Bhandari et al., 1978; Ahmad et al., 2021). Although amino acid profiling provides a more precise evaluation of protein quality, it was not performed due to laboratory limitations.

The enhanced performance of EPSCF-fed colonies may be attributed to the balanced nutritional composition of the diet, which likely supported improved brood development, worker population growth, and foraging activity. Dietary supplementation during pollen scarcity has been shown to be consistently associated with enhanced worker physiology, improved brood development, and increased colony productivity (De Jong et al., 2009; Sihag and Gupta, 2013; Ullah et al., 2021).

The reduced performance of MBF may be explained by its lower palatability and nutritional limitations. According to Guajardo-Flores et al. (2017), processing techniques like roasting, germination, and dehulling mung bean flour plays a critical role in altering dietary fiber and sensory qualities. Whole mung bean seed powder was used in this investigation without processing, which might have affected palatability.

These results indicate a clear preference for EPSCF patties over MBF and NSCF, consistent with previous studies (Sihag and Gupta, 2011; Kumar and Agrawal, 2014). However, the findings contrast with Tesfaye (2019). The observed brood development trends confirm that protein-rich diets significantly improve sealed brood production (Zheng et al., 2014; Kumar and Agrawal, 2014; Sihag and Gupta, 2013).

The observed population growth pattern may reflect favorable environmental conditions that enhanced pollen availability. Lower rainfall and reduced humidity improve pollen dispersal and pollinator foraging efficiency, whereas precipitation and high humidity reduce pollen availability and collection (Corbet, 1990; Requier et al., 2017; Olszowski et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021).

The findings on body weight are consistent with Paray et al. (2021), showing that soybean-based diets improve bee weight. Bee bread dynamics indicate improved foraging performance and resource utilization under EPSCF treatment.

The economic analysis mirrored the biological performance trends observed in the study. EPSCF showed the highest profitability, while MBF showed economic risk due to low consumption and poor performance.

Synthesis with study findings

Overall, the economic analysis corroborates the biological results, demonstrating that supplementation with EPSCF significantly enhances both colony productivity and profitability during pollen dearth periods. The higher net returns and efficiency indicators confirm that EPSCF is the most economically viable feeding strategy under the conditions of the central Ethiopian highlands.

Study limitations

The experiment was conducted within a single season, which may not adequately capture seasonal variations in colony nutritional requirements, pollen availability, and foraging dynamics. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted in the context of the specific environmental and seasonal conditions under which the study was performed. In addition, the study was constrained by a relatively short experimental duration and limited sample size, largely due to time and budget limitations, which may affect the robustness and wider applicability of the results. Furthermore, there is a scarcity of studies on pollen substitutes in Ethiopia, and comprehensive data on honeybee feeding practices remain limited.

5 Contribution to knowledge

This study provides experimental evidence on the effectiveness of locally formulated pollen substitute diets for Apis mellifera during seasonal pollen shortages in the central Ethiopian highlands. Among the tested diets, colonies supplemented with defatted EPSCF showed superior performance in feed consumption, brood development, worker bee weight, and honey production. The EPSCF treatment produced an average honey yield of 11.4 kg per colony, compared with 6.6 kg in the control, 4.6 kg in NSCF, and 3.2 kg in MBF treatments. Economic analysis also showed that EPSCF generated the highest profitability with a benefit cost ratio of 3.40 and a return on investment of 240.39%. The study therefore provides baseline scientific evidence on the nutritional and economic potential of locally available plant protein sources for honeybee supplemental feeding in Ethiopia.

6 Conclusion

EPSCF as a pollen substitute significantly improved colony performance during the pollen dearth period in the central Ethiopian highlands. Colonies fed EPSCF exhibited the highest honey yield and economic return, demonstrating its effectiveness under conditions of limited natural pollen availability. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small sample size (n = 5 colonies per treatment) and single-season evaluation, which may limit generalizability across different environmental conditions. Ethiopian honeybees constitute a distinct subspecies, Apis mellifera simensis, well adapted to the country’s highland agro-ecology (Meixner et al., 2011). In this context, EPSCF can be recommended as a practical supplemental diet for maintaining colony productivity during seasonal pollen shortages. Specifically, beekeepers can feed 250 g EPSCF patties per colony per week, placing them on the top bars of the brood combs above the brood cluster, and covering them with wax paper to prevent moisture loss. Further research is needed to optimize amino acid balance, explore fermented plant-based protein sources, and evaluate long-term effects through multi-season and multi-location studies.

Correction note

A correction has been made to this article. Details can be found at: 10.3389/frbee.2026.1983344.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Ujjwal Layek, Rampurhat College, India

Reviewed by: Md Mashiur Rahman, The Pennsylvania State University (PSU), United States

Awraris Getachew, Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia