| Literature DB >> 31137732 |
Silvia Cappellozza1, Maria Giovanna Leonardi2, Sara Savoldelli3, Domenico Carminati4, Anna Rizzolo5, Giovanna Cortellino6, Genciana Terova7, Enzo Moretto8, Andrea Badaile9, Giuseppe Concheri10, Alessio Saviane11, Daniele Bruno12, Marco Bonelli13, Silvia Caccia14, Morena Casartelli15, Gianluca Tettamanti16.
Abstract
The worldwide growing consumption of proteins to feed humans and animals has drawn a considerable amount of attention to insect rearing. Insects reared on organic wastes and used as feed for monogastric animals can reduce the environmental impact and increase the sustainability of meat/fish production. In this study, we designed an environmentally closed loop for food supply in which fruit and vegetable waste from markets became rearing substrate for Hermetia illucens (BSF- black soldier fly). A vegetable and fruit-based substrate was compared to a standard diet for Diptera in terms of larval growth, waste reduction index, and overall substrate degradation. Morphological analysis of insect organs was carried out to obtain indications about insect health. Processing steps such as drying and oil extraction from BSF were investigated. Nutritional and microbiological analyses confirmed the good quality of insects and meal. The meal was then used to produce fish feed and its suitability to this purpose was assessed using trout. Earthworms were grown on leftovers of BSF rearing in comparison to a standard substrate. Chemical analyses of vermicompost were performed. The present research demonstrates that insects can be used to reduce organic waste, increasing at the same time the sustainability of aquaculture and creating interesting by-products through the linked bio-system establishment.Entities:
Keywords: aquaculture; drying process; earthworms; fat body; insect meal; microbiological analyses; midgut; rainbow trout; waste reduction index
Year: 2019 PMID: 31137732 PMCID: PMC6562786 DOI: 10.3390/ani9050278
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Figure 1Development time of black soldier fly (BSF) larvae grown on SD (black circles) and VMD (white circles under laboratory conditions. Bars refer to standard deviation.
Figure 2Development time of BSD larvae grown on VMD in mass rearing conditions. Bars refer to standard deviation.
Larval developmental time and final weight, overall degradation and waste reduction index of BSF larvae grown on different diets and conditions.
| SD | VMD | Mass Rearing VMD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development time (day) | 17 ± 0 c | 45 ± 1 a | 31 ± 0 b |
| Maximum weight before prepupal stage (mg) | 225.4 ± 7.3 | 183.3 ± 6.6 | 230.8 ± 26.9 |
| Overall degradation (D) | 0.46 ± 0.01 c | 0.52 ± 0.01 b | 0.96 ± 0.00 a |
| Waste reduction index (WRI) | 3.06 ± 0.06 a | 1.78 ± 0.07 c | 2.35 ± 0.00 b |
Values are reported as mean ± SD. In the same row different letters denote significant differences. One-way-ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test were carried out by using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.
Figure 3Morphological comparison of midgut and fat body from larvae reared on SD and VMD. (A,B) Cross-section of the posterior midgut. Columnar cells display a different thickness of the brush border (arrowheads). (C,D) Fat body. A higher amount of protein granules (arrowheads) and a smaller size of lipid droplets (arrows) is observable in trophocytes of larvae grown on SD compared to VMD. e, epithelium; mc, muscle cells; l, lumen; pm, peritrophic matrix. Bar: 50 μm.
Figure 4BSF biomass reared on SD and VMD and dried with (VMD1) or without (VMD2) substrate, as it appeared at the end of the drying process.
Results of the regression analysis of percent residue weight (Wr) vs. drying time.
| Larvae | Nobs |
|
|
| R2adj | SEE | MAE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimates | Estimates | ||||||
| SD | 16 | 95.09 ± 3.43 | −3.65 ± 0.28 | −0.96 | 91.07 | 6.71 | 5.60 |
| VMD1 | 30 | 95.78 ± 2.27 | −3.86 ± 0.17 | −0.97 | 94.69 | 5.68 | 4.88 |
| VMD2 | 30 | 92.51 ± 2.68 | −3.81 ± 0.20 | −0.96 | 92.58 | 6.71 | 5.66 |
Estimates, mean ± SE, standard error; the statistical analysis is highly significant for all the experimental theses (a), for intercept and (b), slope; (r), correlation coefficient; (R2adj), R-squared adjusted for d.f. standard error; of (SEE), the estimate of the model; of (MAE), mean absolute error.
Figure 5Square root-X models of percent residue weight (Wr) vs. drying time: Fitted model (blue line), confidence limits at 95% level (red lines), prediction limits (purple lines) and experimental data.
Multiple sample comparison of drying profiles (SD, VMD1, and VMD2) at different time intervals.
| Drying Time (min) | SD | VMD1 | VMD2 | ANOVA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 54.6 ± 0.12 | 56.4 ± 0.72 | 52.6 ± 3.91 | 0.218 |
| 120 | 45.9 ± 0.58 | 47.1 ± 0.29 | 43.9 ± 3.47 | 0.286 |
| 180 | 38.4 ± 0.57 | 36.4 ± 0.87 | 34.0 ± 3.52 | 0.195 |
| 240 | 36.4 ± 0.35 a | 30.7 ± 1.19 b | 28.6 ± 3.41 b | 0.034 |
| 300 | 35.9 ± 0.24 a | 28.1 ± 1.12 b | 26.1 ± 3.16 b | 0.009 |
| 360 | 35.7 ± 0.13 a | 26.7 ± 0.89 b | 24.9 ± 2.84 b | 0.004 |
Means ± SD; values followed by different letters in the same row are significantly different (p-level < 0.05). ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test were carried out (Statistica 8 software).
Microbial contaminations along the production chain of the insect meal for fish feed production (insects are grown on VDM in mass rearing conditions); mean values (Log cfu g−1) ± standard deviations of duplicate samples.
| Products | Total Viable | Enterobacteriaceae |
| Enterococci | Sulfite-Reducing | Yeasts | Molds | Salmonella |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BSF rearing | 6.55 ± 0.57 | 1.70 ± 0.71 | <1.00 | 3.88 ± 1.64 | 2.15 ± 0.75 | 2.48 ± 0.76 | <2.00 | Absence |
| Dried BSF biomass | 5.05 ± 0.06 | <1.00 | <1.00 | <1.00 | 2.50 ± 0.14 | 2.30 ± 0.43 | <2.00 | Absence |
| Defatted BSF meal | 4.35 ± 0.49 | <1.00 | <1.00 | <1.00 | 1.54 ± 0.51 | <2.00 | <2.00 | Absence |
| Experimental fish feed | ||||||||
| BSF 0 (Control) | 4.23 ± 0.24 | 2.51 ± 0.63 | <1.00 | 2.20 ± 0.17 | <1.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | Absence |
| BSF 10 (10% BSF meal) | 4.43 ± 0.38 | 2.76 ± 0.49 | <1.00 | 1.30 ± 0.43 | 1.35 ± 0.49 | 2.15 ± 0.21 | 2.48 ± 0.67 | Absence |
| BSF 20 (20% BSF meal) | 4.25 ± 0.13 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | <1.00 | 1.24 ± 0.34 | 1.15 ± 0.21 | <2.00 | <2.00 | Absence |
| BSF 30 (30% BSF meal) | 4.22 ± 0.45 | <1.00 | <1.00 | <1.00 | <1.00 | <2.00 | <2.00 | Absence |
Nutritional analyses of the BSF biomass produced on VMD in mass rearing condition.
| % d.m. | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|
| Dry matter | 97.00 ± 0.31 |
| Crude protein | 39.42 ± 0.16 |
| Ash | 7.08 ± 0.00 |
| Fat | 35.62 ± 0.27 |
| Chitin | 4.02 ± 0.02 |
| Nitrogen-free extracts | 13.86 ± 0.14 |
| Starch | 1.82 ± 0.05 |
| Glucose | 0.30 ± 0.00 |
Amino acid content of BSF biomass produced on VMD in mass rearing conditions (mg/g d.m).
| Amino Acids | Mean ± SD | Amino Acids | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aspartate | 37.89 ± 0.43 | Cysteine | 0.46 ± 0.02 |
| Glutamic acid | 64.87 ± 0.36 | Valine | 24.68 ± 0.57 |
| Serine | 17.94 ± 0.15 | Methionine | 17.62 ± 0.83 |
| Histidine | 12.36 ± 0.74 | Phenylalanine | 18.84 ± 0.06 |
| Glycine | 22.90 ± 0.01 | Isoleucine | 15.86 ± 0.09 |
| Threonine | 21.53 ± 0.69 | Leucine | 26.98 ± 0.13 |
| Arginine | 48.30 ± 1.04 | Lysine | 19.78 ± 0.31 |
| Alanine | 38.85 ± 0.11 | Proline | 14.56 ± 0.32 |
| Tyrosine | 20.46 ± 0.32 | Tryptophan | 4.27 ± 0.08 |
Figure 6Mineral levels in BSF meal. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test (GraphPad Prism5).
Figure 7Mineral levels in the fish diets (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test (GraphPad Prism5).
Growth performances of rainbow trout fed the experimental diets (n = 3 tanks).
| Diet | BSF0 | BSF10 | BSF20 | BSF30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IBW(g) | 67.01 ± 1.71 | 66.38 ± 2.51 | 65.63 ± 0.42 | 66.95 ± 2.31 |
| FBW(g) | 223.20 ± 23.67 | 220.34 ± 29.60 | 216.97± 26.16 | 221.74 ± 22.25 |
| WG(g) | 156.86 ± 4.33 | 154.20 ± 6.04 | 146.89 ± 8.03 | 152.30 ± 10.18 |
Means ± SE; IBW, initial body weight; FBW, final body weight; WG, weight gain. Values do not differ significantly according to one-way ANOVA (IBM SPSS Statistics version 25).
Growth parameters of earthworms reared on BSF rearing leftovers, VMD, or simple peat moss (control).
| BSF Leftovers | VMD | Peat Moss | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial earthworm number | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Initial earthworm weight (g) | 3.17 ± 0.32 | 2.90 ± 0.15 | 2.90 ± 0.62 |
| Final earthworm number | 21 ± 7 | 41 ± 21 | 8 ± 3 |
| Final earthworm weight (g) | 3.69 ± 1.12 a | 3.10 ± 0.25 a | 1.58 ± 1.73 b |
| Number increase | 11 ± 7 a | 31 ± 21 a | −1.33 ± 0.78 b |
| Weight increase (g) | 0.52 ± 0.33 a | 0.20 ± 0.33 a | −1.32 ± 1.38 b |
Values are reported as mean ± SD. In the same row different letters denote significant differences (One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test—Statsoft).
Chemical analyses of the three growing substrates and of resulting organic soil amendments.
| Dry Matter (%) | Ash * | N * | EE * | CF * | A * | Nitrates § | N * | C * | C/N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peat moss (63.74) * | 3.05 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 32.33 | 0.022 | 39.74 | 1.22 | 51.92 | 42.56 |
| VMD (19.78) * | 5.18 | 1.18 | 2.67 | 30.63 | 0.056 | N.D. | 5.50 | 51.93 | 32.25 |
| BSF leftovers (90.70) * | 9.77 | 2.25 | 3.12 | 34.68 | 0.127 | 5.73 | 2.45 | 47.46 | 19.37 |
| Peat moss + Ef (19.63) * | 4.10 | 1.07 | 1.14 | 33.36 | 0.017 | 61.56 | 1.22 | 52.33 | 42.89 |
| VMD + Peat moss + Ef (13.90) * | 4.75 | 1.30 | 0.88 | 31.99 | 0.095 | 2035.26 | 1.50 | 51.34 | 34.23 |
| BSF + Peat moss + Ef (18.36) * | 7.07 | 1.84 | 0.85 | 30.55 | 0.228 | 8185.37 | 2.06 | 49.86 | 24.20 |
Ef, after E. fetida rearing; N, nitrogen; TKN, measured by Kjeldahl method; EE, ether extracts; CF, crude fiber; A, ammonia (ammoniacal nitrogen); C, carbon; CNS, measured by elemental analyzer; * % dry matter; § mg/kg dry matter.