Complete nutrient composition of commercially raised invertebrates used as food for insectivores

Abstract

A variety of invertebrates are commonly fed to insectivorous animals by both zoos and hobbyists, but information as to the nutrient composition of most commercially raised species is limited. Adult house crickets, house cricket nymphs (Acheta domesticus), superworms (Zophobas morio larvae), giant mealworm larvae, mealworm larvae and adult mealworms (Tenebrio molitor), waxworm larvae (Galleria mellonella), and silkworm larvae (Bombyx mori) were analyzed for moisture, crude protein, crude fat, ash, acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), minerals, amino acids, fatty acids, and vitamins. Earthworms (Lumbricus terresstris) were analyzed for moisture, crude protein, crude fat, ash, ADF, NDF, minerals, amino acids, and vitamins A and D 3 . Proximate analyses were variable, with wide ranges found for moisture (57.9-83.6%), crude protein (9.3-23.7%), crude fat (1.6-24.9%), ADF (0.1-7.4%), NDF (0.0-11.5%), and ash (0.6-1.2%). Energy content ranged from a low of 674 kcal/kg for silkworms to 2,741 kcal/kg for waxworms.Using an amino acid scoring pattern for rats, the first limiting amino acid for all invertebrates tested was the total sulfur amino acid methionine+cystine. Deficiencies by nutrient (% of samples deficient vs. NRC requirements for rats on a dry matter (DM) basis) were as follows: calcium (100%), vitamin D 3 (100%), vitamin A (89%), vitamin B 12 (75%), thiamin (63%), vitamin E (50%), iodine (44%), manganese (22%), methioninecystine (22%), and sodium (11%). Deficiencies by invertebrate species (number of nutrients deficient vs. the NRC requirements for rats on a DM basis) were as follows: waxworms (9), superworms (8), giant mealworm larvae (7), adult mealworms (6), mealworm larvae (5), adult house crickets (4), house cricket nymphs (4), silkworms (4), and earthworms (4). These data provide a basis for determining nutrient intake of captive insectivores, and will aid in the development of gut-loading diets to provide captive insectivorous animals with appropriate levels of necessary nutrients. Zoo Biol 21: 269-285, 2002.

Effect of pre-treatment and drying method on physico-chemical properties and dry fractionation behaviour of mealworm larvae (Tenebrio molitor L.)

“…Chemical composition of larvae [6,12,13,35,41]. The large heterogeneity of nutrient composition-even in the same species and metamorphic stage-can be ascribed to different diet, instar, origin, season, and gut content [7].…”

Improvement of techno-functional properties of edible insect protein from migratory locust by enzymatic hydrolysis

“…Compositional analyses of several edible insect species and their different metamorphic stages reveal promising nutritional quality in terms of protein and fat content, valuable amino acid and fatty acid profiles and noteworthy concentrations of certain micronutrients [1][2][3][4][5]. Species belonging to the order Orthoptera such as locusts, grasshoppers and crickets were reported to exhibit highest average protein concentrations up to 77% db (dry base) among all insect orders [5].…”

Designing a diet for captive native frogs from the analysis of stomach contents from free-rangingLeiopelma

“…(1) The invertebrates being fed out had naturally very poor Ca:P ratios (Anderson 2000;Finke 2002). The artificially high ratio was dependent on the majority of the calcium supplementation powder staying on the insects and being eaten by the frogs before it had been removed by the insect, which may occur within minutes to (Reichle et al 1969;Donoghue & Langenberg 1996).…”

“…We recommend using the average maximum prey size to the frog's SVL ratio as the basis of deciding the optimal size range of prey fed out, but allowing smaller numbers of larger prey items to be fed out as this ratio may vary. Using this ratio should ensure that the prey size mimics that which is eaten by freeliving frogs of varying age, as the nutritional value of some invertebrates change with age and size (Finke 2002;Donoghue 2006). The percentage of invertebrates eaten by order is a useful guide to diet composition, but may not take into account the difference in size among the prey items and therefore their contribution in terms of the total volume of the diet.…”