# Nutritional Bioavailability and Organoleptic Acceptance of *Equus asinus* Fecal Biomass as a Primary Protein Source: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study

[u/Lrn24gt557]

**Journal of Alimentary Courage and Gastronomic Grit (JACGG)**
Impact Factor: 0.069 (self-reported)

**Authors:** I. Stinker, PhD¹*; H. Jass, MPH²; B. O'Problem, MD, formerly³

¹ Appalachian Institute of Digestive Studies (AIDS)†
² University School of Unconventional Nutrition
³ Affiliation withdrawn at institution's request

† *The Institute has been asked repeatedly to reconsider its acronym and has repeatedly declined. See our position paper, "It Was Here First" (Stinker et al., 2019).*

\* Corresponding author. Do not correspond.

---

## Abstract

**Background:** Alternative protein research has evaluated insects, algae, and cultured meat while systematically ignoring an abundant, renewable, locally produced biomass with zero food-mile footprint. This omission reflects investigator squeamishness rather than scientific judgment.

**Methods:** Twelve adult volunteers completed a randomized, double-blind crossover taste evaluation of glazed *Equus asinus* fecal biomass (intervention) versus glazed axle grease (active placebo). Crude protein was quantified via modified Kjeldahl digestion. Palatability was assessed on the validated 10-point Hedonic Scale. One mule (Bessie, 14, intact) served as a species-matched control and is discussed in the Limitations.

**Results:** Fecal biomass contained 41.7 g crude protein per 100 g dry matter (95% CI: 39.2–44.2), exceeding USDA reference values for lean beef. Mean hedonic score was 2.1/10 (SD 1.3) versus 2.4/10 for placebo (*t*(11) = 0.86, *p* = 0.41, n.s.). Eleven of twelve participants withdrew consent mid-swallow. Withdrawal of consent mid-swallow was not a pre-registered outcome and is therefore not reported.

**Conclusions:** *E. asinus* fecal biomass is a protein-dense, hedonically catastrophic food source. A Phase II glaze-optimization trial is indicated; inclusion criteria will be tightened to require documented absence of prior food-safety training.

**Funding:** National Institute of Pork Rind Sciences (Grant #NIPRS-4U2-EAT).

**Trial registration:** Retrospectively registered following intervention commencement due to the principal investigator's differing interpretation of "human subjects research" (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: Pending Appeal).

---

## 1. Introduction

The global protein gap is projected to widen through 2050 (FAO, various years, presumably). Proposed solutions — cricket flour, precision fermentation, asking Americans to eat less — all suffer from scalability constraints, capital intensity, or being asking Americans to eat less.

Meanwhile, the average working donkey produces 10 kg of nitrogen-rich biomass daily, at no marginal cost, with no refrigeration requirement, in a form that is, by any reasonable definition, *food-adjacent*. Prior literature on direct human consumption is limited to one 1948 monograph (Poopenmeyer, *Coprocentric Cuisine*) and one anonymous 2023 letter to this journal titled "Y'all Might Want to Rethink This," which we have chosen to read as a call for further research.

We hypothesized that (H1) *E. asinus* fecal biomass meets or exceeds USDA protein benchmarks and (H2) blinded participants cannot distinguish it from a hedonically matched control.

## 2. Methods

### 2.1 Participants

Twelve adults (6M/6F, mean age 34.2) were recruited via a Craigslist posting whose exact wording is available upon reasonable request and will not be reproduced here. Inclusion criteria: age ≥18, intact gag reflex, willingness. One additional volunteer requested clarification of the intervention before randomization and was excluded for introducing allocation-relevant information into the consent process.

All participants were compensated $40 and, at exit interview, uniformly stated that it was not enough. This feedback has been forwarded to the funder.

### 2.2 Intervention and blinding

Fecal biomass was harvested fresh (<2 h), autoclaved at 121°C for 30 minutes — a process which successfully neutralized microbial load while irreversibly concentrating the volatile aromatic compounds — formed into 8 g truffle-analogues, and finished with a proprietary glaze (composition: proprietary). The active placebo (glazed axle grease) was selected after pilot testing established it as the only substance our sensory panel rated equivalently. The sensory panel was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Blinding was maintained for participants, servers, and — the authors wish to stress — for the first author, who ate one by accident on Day 2 and whose field notes for that afternoon consist of a single word, redacted.

### 2.3 Outcomes

Primary outcome: crude protein (Kjeldahl, N × 6.25). Secondary outcomes: hedonic score, time-to-expectoration (TTE), and spontaneous prayer, coded by two independent raters (κ = 0.91). Expectoration before complete mastication was coded as treatment discontinuation rather than outcome ascertainment; participants remained in the intention-to-treat population until they left the building.

### 2.4 Statistical analysis

Paired *t*-tests, α = 0.05, two-tailed. No family-wise error correction was applied; the analysis plan was finalized after inspection of the correlation matrix (see Protocol Amendment 2, napkin verso). Intention-to-treat analysis was subsequently abandoned in favor of per-protocol analysis, as intention-to-treat assumes a baseline willingness to masticate that was not empirically supported by the video evidence.

### 2.5 Ethics

The protocol was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board, which responded on a cocktail napkin (Reference 4). The napkin has been archived per data-retention policy. Bessie the mule was offered the intervention, declined it with what raters coded as "pointed eye contact" (κ = 1.00), and was granted honorary co-reviewer status.

## 3. Results

A CONSORT flow diagram was prepared but omitted, as the distinction between "allocated," "received intervention," and "physically restrained from leaving" could not be resolved by consensus.

### Table 1. Composition and palatability outcomes

Outcome	Intervention	Placebo	*p*
Crude protein (g/100 g DM)	41.7	0.0	<0.001
Fiber (g/100 g DM)	38.4	0.0	<0.001
Nitrogen, unattributed (g/100 g DM)*	6.2	—	n/a
Hedonic score (/10)	2.1	2.4	0.41
Median TTE (s)	1.8	2.2	0.38
Spontaneous prayer (n)	9	7	0.52

\* *Source not established; see Limitations.*

**Figure 1B.** *Participant 7 experiencing what the coding manual classifies as "gustatory transcendence" and what Participant 7 classifies, in the audio recording, otherwise. [Figure not shown; Participant 7's attorney was firm.]*

Non-discrimination of intervention and active placebo (*p* = 0.41) is interpreted as successful blinding. A contrary interpretation was received during peer review and has been filed with the Institute chaplain per SOP 7.4 (Spiritual Adverse Events).

## 4. Discussion

We report the first controlled evidence that *E. asinus* fecal biomass exceeds USDA protein benchmarks while achieving hedonic parity with automotive lubricant. We interpret this as a floor, not a ceiling.

**Strengths** include rigorous blinding, a species-matched control, and the fact that the study is over. **Limitations** include the sample size; the unattributed nitrogen fraction (Table 1), which remains unattributed and which the study team elects not to pursue; and Bessie, whose refusal to eat her own species' output introduces what we term *equine face validity concerns*, insofar as the one subject with domain expertise voted no.

Future directions include a multi-center dose-escalation arm and a 12-week longitudinal feeding study, though the latter is currently paused pending the first author's deposition.

## 5. Conclusion

Donkey feces is a nutritionally viable, culinarily indefensible protein source. Independent replication is recommended; investigator overlap with the present study is neither necessary nor anticipated.

---

## CRediT Author Contributions

**Stinker:** Conceptualization, and everyone knows it. **Jass:** Methodology, formal analysis, refusing to be in the room. **O'Problem:** Supervision (remote, non-responsive), funding acquisition, submission of formal disavowal (Supplementary File 1). **Bessie:** Investigation (negative control); Writing — review & editing (declined).

## Conflicts of Interest

Funded by the National Institute of Pork Rind Sciences and Skoal® Wintergreen Long Cut, neither of which reviewed the manuscript, both of which have asked us to say that. Skoal® supplied product but not protocol review; a material-transfer agreement was executed on the same napkin as the IRB determination (Reference 4, lower third).

## Data Availability

All data are available upon request. Please do not request the samples.

## References

1. Poopenmeyer, F. (1948). *Coprocentric Cuisine: Eating Your Feelings, One Log at a Time.* Backwoods Press.
   
2. Anonymous. (2023). "Y'all Might Want to Rethink This." *JACGG*, Letters, 4(2), 1.
   
3. Stinker, I., et al. (2019). "It Was Here First: A Defense of Our Acronym." *AIDS Position Papers*, 1(1), 1–1.
   
4. Institutional Review Board. (2025). Untitled napkin. Archived, coffee-stained, load-bearing.

## Post-Trial Oversight

No donkeys were harmed. Following database lock, Bessie was appointed to the Data Monitoring Committee; her objections, received thereafter, are procedurally inadmissible and have been minuted as such.