| Literature DB >> 31246993 |
Jaana M Sorjonen1, Anu Valtonen1, Elina Hirvisalo2, Maija Karhapää2, Vilma J Lehtovaara1, Josefina Lindgren1, Pertti Marnila2, Patrick Mooney1, Maarit Mäki2, Hilkka Siljander-Rasi2, Miika Tapio2, Maria Tuiskula-Haavisto2, Heikki Roininen1.
Abstract
Edible insect rearing could provide one alternative for protein production by having a smaller environmental impact than traditional livestock farming due to insects' ability to convert organic side streams. Currently, the insect rearing industry utilizes soybeans as a major source of protein in the feeds. Protein-rich by-products of food industry could be used to replace them in insect feeds, but it is not known if they also meet the insects' nutritional requirements. Our study evaluated the growth performance of two widely used edible cricket species, Acheta domesticus and Gryllus bimaculatus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae), on 18 experimental diets. The experimental diets included commercial chicken feeds and cricket diets, where soybean was partly and completely replaced with by-products from food industry: potato protein, barley mash, barley feed, compressed leftover of turnip rape and mix of broad bean and pea on three levels of protein. We found that the high- and medium-protein turnip rape and barley mash diets produced the highest yield and an increase in all performance variables. Overall, the high- and medium-protein diets produced the highest yield, growth and fastest development. Our results showed that by-products of food industry could be utilized as a part of the cricket feeds and thus advance the goals of circular economy.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31246993 PMCID: PMC6597079 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218830
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The nutrient content and details of the 18 experimental diets.
| Protein (%) | Carbohydrate (%) | Fat (%) | Proportion of by-product in feed (%) | Source of by-product or control diet | Experimental round | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finnamyl Oy | ||||||
| Potato-half | 30.5 | 51.2 | 4.0 | 10 | 1 | |
| Potato-all | 30.5 | 52.2 | 4.1 | 20 | 1 | |
| Barley mash-H | 30.5 | 50.5 | 5.7 | 29 | Honkavuori brewery Oy | 2 |
| Barley mash-M | 22.5 | 58.0 | 6.5 | 41 | 2 | |
| Barley mash-L | 15.0 | 66.0 | 5.4 | 20 | 2 | |
| Barley feed-H | 30.0 | 51.0 | 5.2 | 15 | Altia Oyj | 2 |
| Barley feed-M | 22.5 | 58.2 | 7.4 | 44 | 2 | |
| Barley feed-L | 15.0 | 66.0 | 6.5 | 31 | 2 | |
| Broad bean pea-H | 30.0 | 50.4 | 3.8 | 30 | Karita | 3 |
| Broad bean pea-M | 22.5 | 58.2 | 3.9 | 30 | 3 | |
| Broad bean pea-L | 15.0 | 66.0 | 4.2 | 13 | 3 | |
| Turnip rape-H | 30.0 | 48.4 | 6.3 | 23 | Kankaisten ljykasvit | 3 |
| Turnip rape-M | 22.5 | 56.8 | 5.9 | 5 | 3 | |
| Turnip rape-L | 15.0 | 66.0 | 5.0 | 7 | 3 | |
| Chicken feed | 15.2 | 56.6 | 4.4 | Milka kanatäysrehu | 1, 2, 3 | |
| Organic chicken feed | 17.9 | 52.3 | 5.5 | Luonnon Punaheltta | 3 | |
| Patton’s modified diet no. 16 | 30.0 | 50.2 | 4.0 | Patton, 1967 | 1 | |
| Patton+vitamins | 30.2 | 51.0 | 3.9 | 1 |
H = high-protein (30.5%), M = medium-protein (22.5%), L = low-protein (15.0%).
aBy-product of potato flour production.
bBy-product of beer production.
cBy-product of ethanol production.
dCommonly used plant protein sources in Finland.
eBy-product of rapeseed oil production.
fVitamin mixture Vanderzant and salt mixture Wesson added.
Details of statistical models.
| Yield | Dev. rate | Survival | ECI | Weight | RGR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear Mixed Model | Linear Mixed Model | Generalized Linear Mixed Model, binary logistic model | Generalized Linear Mixed Model | Linear Mixed Model | Linear Mixed Model | |
| Fixed terms | diet treatment | diet treatment, experimental time | diet treatment | diet treatment | diet treatment, sex, experimental time | diet treatment, sex, experimental time |
| Random terms | (experimental time | (experimental time | experimental time, (experimental time | experimental time, (experimental time | (experimental time | (experimental time |
| Covariates | male ratio, start weight | male ratio, start weight | male ratio, start weight | male ratio, start weight | start weight | start weight |
| Linear Mixed Model | Linear Mixed Model | Generalized Linear Mixed Modeld | Generalized Linear Mixed Modeld | Linear Mixed Model | Linear Mixed Model | |
| Fixed terms | diet treatment | diet treatment | diet treatment | diet treatment, sex | diet treatment, sex | |
| Random terms | (experimental time | experimental time, (experimental time | experimental time, (experimental time | experimental time, (experimental time | experimental time, (experimental time | experimental time, (experimental time |
| Covariates | male ratio, start weight | male ratio, start weight | male ratio, start weight | male ratio, start weight | start weight | start weight |
*Asterisks indicate the combinations of experimental time, room and block which were included as random effects to control for the dependency structure inherent in the experimental design.
aMeasured from each container.
bMeasured for each individual.
cDependent variable was specified as the number of individuals that survived in the end of the experiment (events) out of individuals in the start (trials).
dGamma distribution.
Fig 1Mean yield (g) per 10 reared individuals of H = high-protein (30.5%), M = medium-protein (22.5%), L = low-protein (15.0%).
Fig 2Mean individual final weight (g) of H = high-protein (30.5%), M = medium-proteins (22.5%), L = low-protein (15.0%).
Fig 3Mean relative growth rate of H = high-protein (30.5%), M = medium-protein (22.5%), L = low-protein (15.0%).
Fig 4Mean developmental rate of H = high-protein (30.5%), M = medium-protein (22.5%), L = low-protein (15.0%).
Fig 5Mean survival of H = high-protein (30.5%), M = medium-protein (22.5%), L = low-protein (15.0%).
Fig 6Mean ECI of H = high-protein (30.5%), M = medium-protein (22.5%), L = low-protein (15.0%).