Comparison of Diets for Mass-Rearing Acheta domesticus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) as a Novelty Food, and Comparison of Food Conversion Efficiency with Values Reported for Livestock

Abstract

As part of research on mass-rearing the cricket Acheta domesticus (L.) as a novelty (innovative) food, four cricket diets, two prepared in the laboratory and two commercial, were compared on the basis of cost per kilogram (wet weight) of eighth instars produced. Costs were influenced by dietary ingredients, mean cricket wet weight at time of harvest, and feed/gain tatios. For the laboratory-prepared diets, crickets grown on Patton's diet no. 16 or on NRC reference chick diet averaged 0.443 and 0.418 g at time of harvest, with feed/gain ratios of 0.923 and 0.949, respectively. Because of the cost of ingredients, however, the cost per kilogram of live crickets produced was only $0.21 for the NRC chick diet compared with $2.55 for Patton's no. 16; these costs exclude the cost of labor for mixing the diets. Perfoimance of crickets on the laboratory-prepared diets was somewhat better than performance on the commercial diets. The food conversion efficiency of crickets at SffC or higher was found to be higher than reported for broiler chicks and pigs and much higher than those reported for sheep and cattle. KEY WORDS Insecta, Acheta domesticus, human food, diets Snvnner-spEcIES op crickets are used as food by non-European cultures, notable among which are Brachytrupes portentosus (Lichtenstein) through

Growth and survival of reared Cambodian field crickets (Teleogryllus testaceus) fed weeds, agricultural and food industry by-products

“…There should be no potential hazards for people consuming crickets reared on cassava tops since hydrogen cyanide seems not to be accumulated or stored in blood and tissues (Simeonova and Fishbein, 2004). (Clifford and Woodring, 1990;Nakagaki and DeFoliart, 1991;Patton, 1963). Although there were considerable variations in nutrient content between the feeds tested in this study, there was no simple relationship between nutrient content and weight gain.…”

“…If there are no major differences in digestibility, mineral content or content of anti-nutritional substances between these feeds, the difference is most likely explained by the amino acid profile. Nakagaki and DeFoliart (1991) also found that there were no differences in weight of crickets fed a 14% CP diet (commercial non-breeding rabbit feed, 20% crude fibre) for 21 days compared with crickets fed a 22% CP diet (corn and soybean-meal based chicken diet, <5% crude fibre). Moreover, Megido et al (2016) found no correlation between dietary CP content and CP content of T. testaceus.…”

“…In international commercial cricket rearing (Hanboonsong et al, 2013;Lundy and Parrella, 2014) and in scientific studies (Megido et al, 2016;Nakagaki and DeFoliart, 1991), crickets are commonly fed chicken feed. We therefore used a common chicken feed (Top Feed) as the control feed in this study.…”

The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review

“…One of the main reasons why insects are considered as potentially sustainable sources of animal protein is because of their high feed conversion efficiency (Nakagaki and deFoliart 1991;Berenbaum 1995;Gullan and Cranston 2005;RamosElorduy 2008;Premalatha et al 2011;Looy et al 2013). The reason for this expectation is that insects are poikilothermic.…”

Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Dietary Regimen

“…When these figures are adjusted for edible weight (usually the entire animal cannot be eaten), the advantage of eating insects becomes even greater than other animal (Van Huis, 2013). Nakagaki and De Foliart, 1991 estimated that up to 80 percent of a cricket is edible and digestible compared with 55 percent for chicken and pigs and 40 percent for cattle.…”