Insects as an Alternative Protein Source for Animal Feeding: A Short Review about Chemical Composition

  • Vladimir Vrabec University of Life Sciences in Prague. Kamýcká 129, 156 21 Praha 6 – Suchdol
  • Martin Kulma University of Life Sciences in Prague. Kamýcká 129, 156 21 Praha 6 – Suchdol
  • Daniel Cocan University of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Manastur Str., Nr. 3-5, Cluj-Napoca, 400372, Cluj,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15835/buasvmcn-asb:11656
Keywords: alternative protein source, amino acid, insects, nutrient content

Abstract

Currently, insects are considered as a potential substitute for fishmeal and Currently, insects are considered as a potential substitute for fishmeal and soybean meal in feeding mixtures for farm animals. However, detailed information regarding insects’ nutritional values is available only for some species. We suggested criteria for insect suitability to mass production and found 15 species from 5 orders which meet our requirements: Blattaria: Blaptica dubia, Blatta lateralis, Eublaberus distanti, Coleoptera: Alphitobius diaperinus, Tenebrio molitor, Zophobas morio, Diptera: Hermetia illucens, Musca domestica, Lepidoptera: Antheraea assamensis, Bombyx mori, Galleria mellonela, Samia riciini, Orthoptera: Acheta domestica, Locusta migratoria, Zonocerus variegates. We have collected available information about their nutritional composition and compared it to soybean meal and fishmeal. Protein content was found to be similar to (or slightly higher than in) soybean and fish meals. In terms of protein quality, it was found that insect protein composition is more similar to soybean protein or fishmeal with low protein concentration, than to that of high concentration fishmeal or casein. Due to highest lysine and metionin contents, we recommend Musca domestica and Samia riciini as most suitable protein sources for poultry and pigs feeding

Author Biographies

Vladimir Vrabec, University of Life Sciences in Prague. Kamýcká 129, 156 21 Praha 6 – Suchdol
Department of Zoology and Fisheries.
Martin Kulma, University of Life Sciences in Prague. Kamýcká 129, 156 21 Praha 6 – Suchdol
Department of Zoology and Fisheries.
Daniel Cocan, University of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Manastur Str., Nr. 3-5, Cluj-Napoca, 400372, Cluj,
Department of Fundamental Sciences and Biotechnologies.
Published
2015-10-13
Issue
Vol. 72 No. 2 (2015): BULLETIN OF UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES AND VETERINARY MEDICINE CLUJ-NAPOCA. ANIMAL SCIENCE AND BIOTECHNOLOGIES
Section
Reviews
 Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).