Open Access

Nutritional value of a partially defatted and a highly defatted black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens L.) meal for broiler chickens: apparent nutrient digestibility, apparent metabolizable energy and apparent ileal amino acid digestibility

  • Achille Schiavone1, 4Email authorView ORCID ID profile,
  • Michele De Marco1,
  • Silvia Martínez2,
  • Sihem Dabbou1, 3,
  • Manuela Renna3,
  • Josefa Madrid2,
  • Fuensanta Hernandez2,
  • Luca Rotolo3,
  • Pierluca Costa1,
  • Francesco Gai4 and
  • Laura Gasco3, 4
Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology20178:51

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-017-0181-5

Received: 8 November 2016

Accepted: 17 May 2017

Published: 1 June 2017

Abstract

Background

The study aimed to determine the apparent total tract digestibility coefficients (ATTDC) of nutrients, the apparent metabolizable energy (AME and AMEn) and the amino acid (AA) apparent ileal digestibility coefficients (AIDC) of a partially defatted (BSFp) and a highly defatted (BSFh) black soldier fly larvae meal. The experimental diets were: a basal diet and two diets prepared by substituting 250 g/kg (w/w) of the basal diet with BSFp or BSFh, respectively.

Results

Significant differences were found between BSFp and BSFh meals for ATTDC of the nutrients: BSFp resulted more digestible than BSFh, except for ATTDC of CP which did not differed between meals, while a statistical trend was observed for ATTDC of DM and EE. The AME and AMEn values were significantly (P < 0.05) different between the two BSF meals, with higher levels for BSFp (16.25 and 14.87 MJ/kg DM, respectively). The AIDC of the AA in BSFp ranged from 0.44 to 0.92, while in BSFh they ranged from 0.45 to 0.99. No significant differences were observed for the AA digestibility (0.77 and 0.80 for BSFp and BSFh, respectively), except for glutamic acid, proline and serine that were more digestible in the BSFh meal (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Defatted BSF meals can be considered as an excellent source of AME and digestible AA for broilers with a better efficient nutrient digestion. These considerations suggested the effective utilization of defatted BSF larvae meal in poultry feed formulation.

Keywords

Amino acid Apparent digestibility Black soldier fly meal Broiler chicken Metabolizable energy

Background

World population is expected to grow by over a third, reaching over 9 billion people in 2050 having as main consequence that the world will have to produce 70% more food [1]. Consequently, livestock production (in particular that of poultry and swine) will grow exponentially reaching up to double of the current production. Therefore, the foremost gamble will be to guarantee the global capacity to provide enough animal feed (in particular protein ingredients) trying to avoid as much as possible competition with human food demand. For this purpose, insects have been already proposed as a high quality, efficient and sustainable alternative protein source for poultry [2], fish [35] or swine [6]. One of the most promising insects species identified for industrial production in the Western world is the black soldier fly (BSF, Hermetia illucens L.). This insect is normally reared on materials that are unsuitable for human nutrition (e.g., by-products from food processing, organic waste) [7, 8], reaching high growth rates with a good feed conversion [9]. Using different rearing substrates derived from food manufacturing (beet molasses, potato steam peelings, spent grains and beer yeast, bread remains, and cookie remains) and differing in lipid and fat contents, BSF showed a feed conversion rate that ranged between 1.4 and 2.6 [9]. BSF is able to convert these substrates in high quality protein, the content of which ranges from 38% to 46% of DM [9]. The amino acids (AA) composition of BSF is rich in methionine and lysine (9.05 and 22.3 g/kg DM, respectively) [9], and is reported to be similar or even superior than that of soybean [10]. However, nowadays knowledge about the suitability of the use of BSF as poultry feed ingredient is scarce and little-to-date. At this regard, acceptability by animals, feed conversion rates, animal health issues and quality of the obtainable animal-derived food products are of particular interest and not yet investigated sufficiently [11]. In general, little information on the digestibility of insects in livestock species is currently available. Published data on the apparent metabolizable energy (AME) of BSF for broilers are limited as also those on the ileal amino acid digestibility [12]. That limitation consisted on this information is often obtained from a whole insect meal without separation of the fat fraction from the protein one. As it is known, for an efficient and optimal broiler feed formulation the best situation is to manage fat and protein sources separately. For this purpose, and because insect farming is going to be a growing market, nowadays BSF manufacturers have started to produce defatted BSF meals. Defatting of insects can be obtained mechanically by cutting the frozen insect larvae and then pressing them to enable the leakage of intracellular fat [13], or chemically using petroleum ether extraction of the insect meal [14]. The defatting process results in meals with larger protein values (476 to 583 g/kg DM for defatted BSF meals) [13, 15], exceeding those usually found in soybean meals [14, 16, 17]. Henry et al. [5] suggested the importance of defatting insect meals, then using insect protein concentrate as animal feed ingredient and the lipids both for animal nutrition and the production of biodiesel [18, 19].

In order to provide new information useful to facilitate poultry feed formulation, the aim of this study was to determine the total tract digestibility coefficients (ATTDC), the AME, the nitrogen-corrected AME (AMEn) and the AA apparent ileal digestibility coefficients (AIDC) of a partially and a highly defatted BSF meal for broiler chickens.

Methods

The study was performed at the poultry facility of the Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences of the University of Turin (Italy). The experimental protocol was designed according to the guidelines of the current European and Italian laws on the care and use of experimental animals (European Directive 86/609/EEC, put into law in Italy with D.L. 116/92) and was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Department of Veterinary Sciences of the University of Turin (Italy) (protocol number 01/28/06/2016).

Insect meals

Two BSF meals, differing for their fat content, were used in this trial. Both insect meals were obtained from Hermetia Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Baruth/Mark (Germany). The two BSF meals derived from larvae which were fed with cereal by-products. At collection, the larvae weighed around 150–220 mg. The collected larvae were dried for 20 h in an oven at low temperature (60 °C) and ground to a meal. BSF meals were partially and highly defatted. The process was performed using high pressure and without solvents.

Pre-experimental period

A total of one hundred one-day-old male broiler chickens (Ross 308) were raised in a floor pen till d 21 and fed a commercial broiler starter diet (227 g/kg of crude protein (CP); 13.4 MJ/kg of AME). All the birds were vaccinated at hatching against Newcastle disease, Marek disease, infectious bronchitis and coccidiosis. At d 21, sixty birds of uniform body weight (822.0 ± 47.7 g) were chosen and randomly distributed over fifteen cages (4 birds per cage). The cages (120 cm × 60 cm) were placed in an insulated room provided with devices to control temperature, light and humidity. Each cage had a linear feeder at the front and a nipple drinker at the back. Health status and mortality of the birds were monitored daily throughout the whole experimental period. From d 21, the birds were fed a commercial broiler diet (190 g/kg of CP; 13.6 MJ/kg AME) until the assay diets were introduced on d 26. During the pre-experimental period, feeds and water were provided ad libitum.

Digestibility trial

On d 26, five replicate cages were randomly assigned to one out of three experimental diets. A basal diet, based on corn and soybean meal, was formulated (Table 1), and two experimental diets were subsequently formulated by substituting 250 g/kg (w/w) of the basal diet with BSFp or BSFh, respectively. All diets contained titanium oxide (TiO, 5 g/kg) as an indigestible marker to calculate the ileal digestibility of amino acids. The diet adaptation period lasted 6 d. Starting at the age of 32 d, the excreta were collected per cage over a period of four days in order to evaluate the total tract digestibility. Fresh feeds and water were available ad libitum during the whole experimental period. Feed intake per cage was measured throughout the experiment and the excreta were sampled daily during the test period. The total fresh excreta per cage was weighed daily, frozen at −20 °C and lyophilized. Four days excreta per cage were pooled for further analysis.
Table 1

Composition (g/kg as fed) of the basal diet

Ingredients

 Maize meal

582.9

 Soybean meal

350.0

 Soybean oil

36.0

 Dicalcium phosphate

12.4

 Calcium carbonate

11.2

 Sodium chloride

2.0

 Sodium bicarbonate

1.5

 Trace mineral-vitamin premixa

4.0

Calculated analysis

 AME, MJ/kg

12.3

 Crude protein

214

 Methionine

1.0

 Lysine

10.1

 Threonine

7.1

 Calcium

8.8

 Phosphorous

5.8

AME apparent metabolizable energy

aMineral-vitamin premix (Final B Prisma, IZA SRL), given values are supplied per kg diet: 2,500,000 IU of vitamin A; 1,000,000 IU of vitamin D3; 7,000 IU of vitamin E; 700 mg of vitamin K; 400 mg of vitamin B1; 800 mg of vitamin B2; 400 mg of vitamin B6; 4 mg of vitamin B12; 30 mg of biotin; 3,111 mg of Ca pantothenate acid; 100 mg of folic acid; 15,000 mg of vitamin C; 5,600 mg of vitamin B3; 10,500 mg of Zn, 10,920 mg of Fe; 9,960 mg of Mn; 3850 mg of Cu; 137 mg of I; 70 mg of Se

On d 35, all the birds were euthanized by intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital and the content of the lower half of the ileum was collected, according to the procedures described by Ravindran et al. [20]. The ileum was defined as the portion of small intestine extending from Meckel’s diverticulum to a point 40 mm proximal to the ileo-cecal junction. The ileal content for each cage was pooled, lyophilized, ground to pass through a 0.5-mm sieve, and stored at −20 °C in airtight containers until laboratory analyses were conducted.

Chemical analysis

Insect meals, diet samples and dried excreta were ground to pass through a 0.5-mm sieve and stored in airtight plastic containers. They were analyzed for DM (# 930.15), ash (# 924.05), CP (# 984.13) and ether extract (EE, # 920.39) according to AOAC procedures [21]. Gross energy (GE) was measured using an adiabatic calorimetric bomb (C7000, IKA, Staufen, Germany). Chitin was analyzed as D-Glucosamine [22] using a modification of method described by Madrid et al. [23] for AA. The uric acid (UA) content in the excreta samples was determined spectrophotometrically (UNICAN UV–Vis Spectrometry, Helios Gamma, United Kingdom) according to Marquardt method [24]. The CP amount of excreta was calculated as follows: CP = (total nitrogen – UA-nitrogen) × 6.25. All analyses were carried out on three replicates for each sample.

The apparent digestibility trial was performed, using the total excreta collection method, to determine ATTDC for DM, organic matter (OM), CP, EE, GE and the AME.

Ileal content samples from each cage were analyzed for DM and AA. In order to perform the AA determination, samples of the diets, ileal digesta and insect larvae meals were prepared using a 22-h hydrolysis step in 6 NHCl at 112 °C under a nitrogen atmosphere. The AA in hydrolysate was determined by HPLC (Waters Alliance System with a Waters 1525 Binary HPLC pump, Waters 2707 autosampler and Waters 2475 multi λ Fluorescence Detector, Milford, USA) after derivatization, according to the procedure described by Madrid et al. [23]. Tryptophan was not determined. Diets samples and ileal content samples were analyzed for TiO content. TiO content was measured on a UV spectrophotometer (UNICAN UV–vis Spectrometry, Helios Gamma, United Kingdom) following the method of Short et al. [25].

Calculations

The ATTDC of the dietary nutrients, the AME and the AIDC of the AA were calculated using two different methods [20, 26].

The ATTDC of the dietary nutrients of the insect larvae meals were calculated as follows:
$$ \mathrm{ATTDC}\ {\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{diet}} = \left[\left(\mathrm{total}\ \mathrm{X}\ \mathrm{ingested}\hbox{--}\ \mathrm{total}\ \mathrm{X}\ \mathrm{excreted}\right)\ /\ \mathrm{total}\ \mathrm{X}\ \mathrm{ingested}\right] $$
$$ \mathrm{ATTDC}\ {\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{insect}\ \mathrm{larvae}\ \mathrm{meal}} = \left[\mathrm{ATTDC}\ \mathrm{X}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{insect}\ \mathrm{larvae}\ \mathrm{meal}\ \mathrm{diet}-\left(\mathrm{ATTDC}\ \mathrm{X}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{basal}\ \mathrm{diet} \times 0.75\right)\right]\ /\ 0.25. $$
where X represents DM, OM, CP, EE or GE.
The AME values of the insect larvae meals were calculated using the following formula with appropriate corrections made according to the differences in the DM content:
$$ \mathrm{AM}{\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{diet}}\left(\mathrm{MJ}/\mathrm{kg}\right) = \left[\left(\mathrm{feed}\ \mathrm{intake} \times \mathrm{GE}\ \mathrm{diet}\right)-\left(\mathrm{excreta}\ \mathrm{output} \times \mathrm{GE}\ \mathrm{excreta}\right)\right]\ /\ \mathrm{feed}\ \mathrm{intake} $$
$$ \mathrm{AM}{\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{insect}\ \mathrm{larvae}\ \mathrm{meal}}\left(\mathrm{MJ}/\mathrm{kg}\right) = \left[\mathrm{AME}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{insect}\ \mathrm{larvae}\ \mathrm{meal}\ \mathrm{diet}-\left(\mathrm{AME}\ \mathrm{basal}\ \mathrm{diet} \times 0.75\right)\right]\ /\ 0.25 $$
Correction for zero nitrogen (N) retention was made using a factor of 36.54 KJ per gram N retained in the body in order to estimate the N-corrected apparent metabolizable energy (AMEn) [27]. N-retention was calculated using the following formula:
$$ {\mathrm{N}}_{\mathrm{retention}} = \left[\left(\mathrm{feed}\ \mathrm{intake} \times \mathrm{N}\ \mathrm{diet}\right)-\left(\mathrm{excreta}\ \mathrm{output} \times \mathrm{N}\ \mathrm{excreta}\right)\right]\ /\ \mathrm{feed}\ \mathrm{intake}\ \left(\mathrm{kg}\right) $$
The AIDC of the AA of the insect larvae meals was calculated, using TiO as the indigestible marker, as follows:
$$ \mathrm{AIDC}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{AA}{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{diet}} = \left(\mathrm{AAX}\ /\ \mathrm{TiO}\right)\mathrm{d}\ \hbox{--}\ \left(\mathrm{AAX}\ /\ \mathrm{TiO}\right)\mathrm{i}\ /\ \left(\mathrm{AAX}\ /\ \mathrm{TiO}\right)\mathrm{d} $$
$$ \begin{array}{l}\mathrm{AIDC}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{AA}{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{insect}\ \mathrm{larvae}\ \mathrm{meal}} = \Big[\left(\mathrm{AIDC}\ \mathrm{AA}\mathrm{X}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{the}\ \mathrm{insect}\ \mathrm{larvae}\ \mathrm{meal}\ \mathrm{diet} \times \mathrm{AA}\mathrm{X}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{the}\ \mathrm{insect}\ \mathrm{larvae}\ \mathrm{meal}\ \mathrm{diet}\right)\\ {}\hbox{--}\ \left(\mathrm{AIDC}\ \mathrm{AA}\mathrm{X}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{the}\ \mathrm{basal}\ \mathrm{diet} \times \mathrm{AA}\mathrm{X}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{the}\ \mathrm{basal}\ \mathrm{diet} \times 0.75\right)\Big]\ /\ \left(\mathrm{AAX}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{the}\ \mathrm{insect}\ \mathrm{larvae}\ \mathrm{meal}\ \mathrm{diet} \times 0.25\right).\end{array} $$
where:
$$ \left(\mathrm{AA}\ /\ \mathrm{Ti}\mathrm{O}\right)\mathrm{d} = \mathrm{ratio}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{the}\ \mathrm{AA}\ \mathrm{and}\ \mathrm{T}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{O}\ \mathrm{concentrations}\ \mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\ \mathrm{the}\ \mathrm{diet}; $$
$$ \left(\mathrm{AA}\ /\ \mathrm{AIA}\right)\mathrm{i} = \mathrm{ratio}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{the}\ \mathrm{AA}\ \mathrm{and}\ \mathrm{T}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{O}\ \mathrm{concentrations}\ \mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\ \mathrm{the}\ \mathrm{i}\mathrm{leal}\ \mathrm{digesta}; $$
$$ \mathrm{A}\mathrm{A}\mathrm{X}:\ \mathrm{represents}\ \mathrm{each}\ \mathrm{A}\mathrm{A}\ \mathrm{evaluated}. $$

Statistical analyses

The statistical analysis of the ATTDC, AME and AIDC of BSFp and BSFh meals was performed with SPSS 17 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA 2008) [28]. The experimental unit was the cage. Data were analyzed using Mann–Whitney U test. Before testing for group differences, non-normality of the data distribution and homogeneity of variances were assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk and Levene test, respectively. Differences were considered to be significant at P ≤ 0.05. A statistical trend was considered at P ≤ 0.10.

Results

Chemical and amino acid compositions of diets and insect meals

The proximate composition and GE of the two BSF meals and the three experimental diets are summarized in Table 2. The chemical composition of the two BSF meals differed mainly in terms of CP and EE contents. As expected, the BSFp meal showed a lower CP content than the BSFh meal (553 and 655 g/kg DM, respectively). On the contrary, the BSFh meal, being highly defatted, showed a lower EE content than the BSFp meal (46 and 180 g/kg DM, respectively). The GE contents of the BSFp and BSFh meals were 24.4 and 21.2 MJ/kg DM, respectively. The two defatted BSF meals revealed a relevant chitin content (50 and 69 g/kg DM for BSFp and BSFh, respectively).
Table 2

Analyzed chemical composition of the two BSF meals and of the three experimental diets

Items

BSFp meal

BSFh meal

Basal diet

BSFp diet

BSFh diet

Dry matter, g/kg diet

942

985

889

897

906

Organic matter, g/kg DM

901

907

814

817

824

Crude protein, g/kg DM

553

655

246

343

374

Ether extract, g/kg DM

180

46

71

103

72

Gross energy, MJ/kg DM

24.4

21.2

18.7

20.0

19.4

Chitin, g/kg DM

50

69

-

17

21

The AA compositions of the two BSF larvae meals and of the three experimental diets are presented in Table 3. As expected, the AA content was different in the two BSF meals, and BSFh showed higher content than BSFp for all AA (both indispensable and dispensable). In both meals, leucine was the most abundant indispensable AA (28.6 and 36.7 g/kg DM in BSFp and BSFh, respectively), whereas glutamic acid was the most abundant dispensable one (48.7 and 63.7 g/kg DM in BSFp and BSFh, respectively). Both meals were deficient of cysteine (0.1 and 0.2 g/kg DM in BSFp and BSFh, respectively). BSFh, having higher CP content than BSFp, was the highest source of lysine, threonine and methionine (25.2, 21.8 and 8.56 g/kg DM, respectively).
Table 3

Amino acid concentration (g/kg DM) of the two BSF meals and of the three experimental diets

Items

BSFp meal

BSFh meal

Basal diet

BSFp diet

BSFh diet

Indispensable amino acids

 Arginine

21.5

27.0

14.5

16.0

17.7

 Histidine

12.3

16.3

5.73

7.64

8.66

 Isoleucine

18.5

24.0

9.27

12.0

13.1

 Leucine

28.6

36.7

17.8

20.6

22.9

 Lysine

21.0

25.2

12.1

14.5

15.8

 Methionine

6.46

8.56

2.43

3.52

4.46

 Phenylalanine

16.6

21.8

10.5

12.0

13.4

 Threonine

17.2

21.8

8.06

11.0

12.1

 Valine

27.2

34.5

10.2

15.4

16.7

Dispensable amino acids

 Alanine

34.5

43.7

10.2

17.8

20.1

 Aspartic acid

37.2

48.8

22.5

26.6

30.0

 Cysteine

0.1

0.2

2.49

2.35

2.74

 Glycine

23.5

30.3

9.03

13.6

15.3

 Glutamic acid

48.7

63.7

40.1

41.4

46.2

 Proline

30.6

32.7

12.6

16.1

19.0

 Serine

20.3

26.8

11.8

14.6

16.5

 Tyrosine

26.4

34.1

5.84

11.5

13.5

Apparent nutrient digestibility

The ATTDC of the nutrients, as well as the AME and AMEn of the BSFp and BSFh meals are reported in Table 4. The BSFp meal resulted more digestible than the BSFh one. Significant differences were found between the two BSF meals for the ATTDC of EE and GE (P < 0.05), a statistical trend was observed for the ATTDC of DM and OM (P < 0.10), while no significant difference was found for ATTDC of CP (P = 0.834).
Table 4

Apparent digestibility coefficients of the total tract (ATTDC) of the nutrients, AME and AMEn of the two BSF meals for broilers (n = 5)

Items

BSFp meal

BSFh meal

SEM

P-value

Dry matter

0.63

0.59

0.010

0.092

Organic matter

0.69

0.64

0.012

0.057

Crude protein

0.62

0.62

0.019

0.834

Ether extract

0.98

0.93

0.951

0.008

Gross energy

0.61

0.50

0.021

0.012

AME, MJ/kg DM

16.25

11.55

0.811

0.008

AMEn, MJ/kg DM

14.87

9.87

0.860

0.008

AME apparent metabolizable energy, AMEn N-corrected apparent metabolizable energy

Apparent metabolizable energy

The two BSF meals also differed (P < 0.05) for AME and AMEn (Table 4). In particular, BSFp showed mean AME and AMEn values of 16.25 and 14.87 MJ/kg DM, respectively, while for BSFh, the values of AME and AMEn were 11.55 and 9.87 MJ/kg DM, respectively.

Apparent ileal amino acid digestibility

The determined values for the AIDC of the AA are shown in Table 5. The AIDC of the AA in the BSFp meal ranged from 0.44 to 0.92, while in the BSFh meal values ranged from 0.45 to 0.99. Overall, no significant differences were found between the two BSF meals for the AIDC of indispensable AA. The AIDC of lysine was 0.80 for both BSF meals while the AIDC of methionine were 0.83 and 0.78 for BSFp and BSFh, respectively. Among the dispensable AA, no significant differences were found except for glutamic acid (0.81 vs. 0.85), proline (0.65 vs. 0.82) and serine (0.71 vs. 0.77) that were more digestible in the BSFh meal (P < 0.05).
Table 5

Apparent ileal digestibility coefficients (AIDC) of amino acids of the two BSF meals for broilers (n = 5)

Items

BSFp meal

BSFh meal

SEM

P-value

Indispensable amino acids

 Arginine

0.79

0.80

0.015

0.841

 Histidine

0.64

0.63

0.022

0.834

 Isoleucine

0.83

0.87

0.018

0.293

 Leucine

0.84

0.89

0.019

0.141

 Lysine

0.80

0.80

0.013

0.753

 Methionine

0.83

0.78

0.023

0.293

 Phenylalanine

0.82

0.86

0.020

0.249

 Threonine

0.73

0.77

0.022

0.675

 Valine

0.90

0.91

0.015

0.833

 Mean

0.80

0.81

0.016

0.917

Dispensable amino acids

 Alanine

0.92

0.99

0.026

0.249

 Aspartic acid

0.82

0.80

0.012

0.234

 Cysteine

0.44

0.45

0.017

0.834

 Glycine

0.66

0.65

0.020

0.548

 Glutamic acid

0.81

0.85

0.013

0.046

 Proline

0.65

0.82

0.041

0.008

 Serine

0.71

0.77

0.019

0.035

 Tyrosine

0.92

0.95

0.019

0.833

 Mean

0.74

0.79

0.014

0.114

Overall meana

0.77

0.80

0.015

0.673

aAverage digestibility of 17 amino acids

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first one testing the ATTDC of nutrients, the AME and AMEn, and the AA AIDC of a partially defatted and a highly defatted black soldier fly larvae meal for broiler chickens.

Chemical and amino acid compositions of diets and insect meals

The compositional data of our study showed that the two BSF meals obtained after defatting are good sources of dietary protein. Both meals showed a higher CP content than soybean meal. In particular, the BSFh meal with its 655 g/kg of DM, was close to the CP content of meat and fish meals [29, 30]. The BSFp meal had similar CP content of a defatted BSF larvae meal reported by Cullere et al. [31]. The EE content found in this experiment for BSFp was higher than those reported by Cullere et al. [31] who used defatted BSF larvae meals (156 g/kg DM) in broiler quails. These differences could be mainly due to the insect rearing substrate [6, 32] and the defatting process [33, 34], which can both influence the variability in the amounts of EE. Using three rearing substrates differing in their nutrient composition [mixture of middlings (EE: 5.9% DM), dried distillers’ grains with solubles (EE: 8.4% DM), and dried sugar beet pulp (EE: 1.1% DM)], Tschirner and Simon [35] reported that the EE content of BSF larvae reached 30.8%, 38.6% and 3.4% of DM, respectively. Fasakin et al. [14] also showed that defatting maggot meal, either oven dried or sun dried, definitely influenced its nutrient composition (EE contents varied from 7.00% to 7.40% DM, respectively). Kroeckel et al. [13] used a defatted BSF meal obtained by cutting the frozen pupae to enable the leakage of intracellular fat from the larvae using tincture press (pression at 450 bar and 60 °C for 30 min). These authors reported that the EE and CP contents for such a BSF meal were 118 and 475 g/kg DM, respectively, with high methionine and lysine contents (21.8 and 71.2 g/kg CP). Tschirner and Simon [35] showed that the best fat reduction of BSF larvae (from 30.8 to 16.6% of DM) was achieved by pressing them at 250 bar and 50 °C for 30 min. In addition, Purshke et al. [33] demonstrated that pressure, time and their interaction had the most significant effects on defatting mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.) larvae. In the same context, Sheppard et al. [36] stated that the CP content of larvae meal could be increased by over 60% when protein and fat are separated. According to Castell [37], the defatting process increases the CP and decreases the lipid value of the insect meal, which may lead to total or partial destruction of AA such as cysteine, tryptophan and methionine. Our study showed that the only difference between the two meals was the fat content and that the AA concentration proportionally grew in relation to the CP content.

Based on the current knowledge, very few studies are available in the literature on the chitin content of defatted BSF larvae meals. Kroeckel et al. [13] reported a chitin amount of 96 g/kg DM in defatted BSF larvae. However, Diener et al. [38] indicated that the exoskeleton of the BSF pre-pupae contains approximately 87 g/kg DM of the polysaccharide chitin. Our results on chitin contents of both BSFp and BSFh were lower than those reported by the above mentioned authors.

Our results also confirmed that the AA of highly or partially defatted BSF meals were higher than those reported for full-fat BSF ones [12, 39]. As expected, in the defatted meal the protein was more concentrated and therefore the amount of AA was higher. In fact, the AA level in BSFp was about 20% lower than in BSFh meal. The relative percentage of each AA remained unchanged in both BSFp and BSFh meals compared with full-fat BSF meal [6, 39]. Performic acid oxidation was not performed prior to acid hydrolysis, so the values of cysteine and methionine could be undervalued.

In their study about full-fat BSF meal, De Marco et al. [12] concluded that AA level in BSF meal was lower than in other insect meals. The results obtained in the current trial showed that the defatting process managed to match, and even surpass, the AA profile of other insect meals, for example obtainable from T. molitor [12] and other species of insects rich in AA [5, 6, 32, 40].

AA in both defatted BSF meals used in this trial were at higher levels than in plant protein sources (pea protein, full-fat soya bean, sunflower meal and soya bean meal) [20, 30, 41, 42]. The BSFh meal showed similar levels of some AA (valine, methionine, lysine, aspartic acid, serine and alanine) than those found in meat meal (26.9–29.0; 8.1–10.2; 24.6–30.0; 41.5–45.7; 25.6–26.4; 38.8–43.5 g/kg DM, respectively) [20, 30]. In BSFh meal, the amounts of some AA (histidine, alanine, tyrosine and valine) were higher than those found for fishmeal (13.9–16.2; 40.5–41.4; 19.9–21.5; 30.4–33.0 g/kg DM, respectively), while the rest of AA remained at levels below those usually found in fishmeal [20, 30]. Therefore, the insect meal defatting process provided a new ingredient characterized by high quality AA profile. Such profile is comparable to that of other animal protein sources, namely meat and fish meal, usually used in poultry diets.

Apparent nutrient digestibility

In the present study, significant differences were found between BSFp and BSFh meals in the ATTDC for EE and GE and a statistical trend was observed for the ATTDC of DM and OM. Nevertheless, no differences were found for ATTDC of CP. Overall, the ATTDC of the nutrients were moderate for the two defatted BSF larvae meals, except for EE. Furthermore, the ATTDC of EE in our study was comparable to that reported by De Marco et al. [12] for full-fat BSF meal. Our results are also in line with those reported by Cullere et al. [31] who found EE apparent digestibility of BSF diets close to 90% in broiler quails. Till now few researches have dealt with the use of defatted BSF meals in animal nutrition. Regarding the use of defatted insect meals in fish feed, Kroeckel et al. [13] reported that at inclusion levels higher than 33%, a defatted BSF pre-pupae meal decreased diet palatability, protein digestibility and growth performance of juvenile turbot if compared to a control diet.

Fasakin et al. [14] indicated that defatting maggot meal enabled an increase of its dietary inclusion level without affecting the growth performance of African catfish. However, a recent study on Atlantic salmon showed that highly defatted BSF meal (170 g/kg DM), dried at a conventional temperature, surprisingly reduced fish growth compared to a slightly defatted BSF meal (255 g/kg DM) dried at a low temperature [15]. The effectiveness of the defatted BSF meal seems related to a better efficient nutrient digestion, even if the metabolic mechanisms related to this effect require a more in-depth investigation. Regarding poultry, Cullere et al. [31] showed that a defatted BSF meal could be introduced in the diet for growing broiler quails at 10–15%, partially replacing conventional soybean meal and soybean oil, with no negative effects on productive performance, mortality and carcass traits. Elwert et al. [43] demonstrated that increasing levels of defatted BSF meal resulted in decreasing feed consumption and body weight of broiler chickens, but no significant effect on feed conversion ratio was observed. Recently Schiavone et al. [44] reported that the partial or total replacement of soybean oil by BSF fat in broiler diets did not affect growth performance, feed choice and carcass characteristics, while the fatty acid profile of breast meat was greatly affected by the BSF fat inclusion level. All these researchers reported interesting results about the suitability of defatted BSF meals as diet ingredients for poultry and different fish species.

Although chickens have been shown to produce chitinase in the proventriculus and hepatocytes [45], the digestibility of chitin seems to be limited [46]. The moderate ATTDC of the nutrients in the present study can be attributed to the level of chitin supplied by the BSF meals, which was reported to inhibit nutrient absorption from the intestinal tract and thereby to reduce fat and protein absorption in broiler chickens [2, 4749]. In this context, De Marco et al. [12] speculated that the chitin contained in the exoskeleton of the BSF meal may negatively influence the apparent digestibility coefficient of the total tract of nutrients in broiler chickens. Indeed, Marono et al. [50] indicated that chitin is the main factor affecting the in vitro protein digestibility of BSF meal and showed that CP digestibility was negatively correlated to the chitin content. Moreover, it has been shown that high concentrations (up to 45%) [51] of the chitin present in the cuticular exoskeleton of insects negatively affect the feed intake and reduce protein digestibility [52].

Apparent metabolizable energy

Regarding AME, the BSFp meal showed significantly higher levels of AME and AMEn than the BSFh meal, due to its higher content of EE. De Marco et al. [12] reported a higher level of AME and AMEn in full-fat BSF larvae meal. Elwert et al. [43] calculated the content of AMEn in three different defatted BSF meals at three different levels of fat. The data obtained showed AMEn of 12.3, 12.4 and 12.7 MJ / kg, respectively. In view of these results, the AME and AMEn values of defatted BSF are relevant, and this can result in higher economic efficiency in broiler meat production.

Apparent ileal amino acid digestibility

Broilers were able to utilize the AA of both partially and highly defatted BSF meals with high AIDC (about 80%) and, as expected, AIDC were not affected by the defatting process, except for proline. AIDC for AA in the defatted BSF meals were similar to those reported for soybean by Valencia et al. [42], Ravindran et al. [20] and Huang et al. [53] for 21, 42 and 49 d old broiler chickens, respectively. Also, the results of AIDC were within the range of values reported by Valencia et al. [42] for protein concentrates (pea protein and soya protein concentrates). Furthermore, in the present study the AIDC of AA were higher than those reported for other animal protein sources (feather meal, meat meal and meat and bone meals) and were similar to those obtained for fish meal [20], also for the most limiting AA such as lysine, methionine and threonine. Histidine was the AA which showed the lowest AIDC for the defatted BSF meals; however, the obtained value was similar to that reported for other animal protein sources [20]. The high content of AA with good AIDC indicates that the tested defatted BSF meals could find a place as invaluable protein-rich sources in broiler feeding.

Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that partially and highly defatted BSF larvae meals can be suitable ingredients for broiler chickens diets. The two tested BSF meals, being rich in AA with high AIDC, could find a place as a valuable AA rich resource in the feed industry for broiler chickens. Furthermore, this study provides data on the apparent metabolizable energy of BSF meals that is helpful in the formulation of broiler diets. However moderate ATTDC of nutrients was observed, consequently digestibility issues require further studies, as the chitin content may not be the only factor able to affect nutrient digestibility. Regarding the chemical composition, BSFh resulted more appealing than BSFp due to its higher protein content. Furthermore BSFh, containing a lower EE amount, would be less prone to lipid oxidation than BSFp, which may improve the storage time of the meal. Further research efforts are necessary necessary to deeply investigate the impact of defatted larvae meal on broiler chickens growth performance, meat quality traits and consumer acceptance.

Abbreviations

AA: 

Amino acid

AIDC: 

Apparent ileal digestibility coefficient

AME: 

Apparent metabolizable energy

AMEn: 

N-corrected apparent metabolizable energy

ATTDC: 

Apparent total tract digestibility coefficients

BSFh: 

Highly defatted black soldier fly larvae meal

BSFp: 

Partially defatted black soldier fly larvae meal

CP: 

Crude protein

d: 

Day

DM: 

Dry matter

EE: 

Ether extract

GE: 

Gross energy

OM: 

Organic matter

TiO: 

Titanium oxide

UA: 

Uric acid

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. Heinrich Katz, the owner of Hermetia Baruth GmbH, Baruth/Mark (Germany), for providing the two black soldiers fly meals. The authors are also grateful to Mrs. Chiara Bianchi, Mrs. Vanda Malfatto, Dr. Paolo Montersino, Mr. Dario Sola and Mr. Mario Colombano for bird care and technical support.

Funding

The research was supported by the University of Turin (Ex 60% 2014–2015).

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

AS, MDM and LG conceived and designed the experiment. AS, MDM, SD, MR, LR,PC and LG collected the experimental data. FG carried out the chemical analysis. SM, JM and FH carried out the AA analysis of feed and excreta. AS, MDM, SM, SD, MR, JM and LG analyzed and interpreted the data. AS, MDM, SM, SD, LG and JM wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

The experimental protocol used in this study, including animal management, housing, and slaughter procedures, was approved by the Animal Care Committee of the Department of Veterinary Science of the University of Turin (Italy).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin
(2)
Department of Animal Production, University of Murcia
(3)
Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Turin
(4)
Institute of Science of Food Production, National Research Council

References

  1. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). How to feed the world 2050: Global agriculture towards 2050. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2009. p. 12–3.Google Scholar
  2. Bovera F, Piccolo G, Gasco L, Marono S, Loponte R, Vassalotti G, et al. Yellow mealworm larvae (Tenebrio molitor L.) as a possible alternative to soybean meal in broiler diets. Br Poult Sci. 2015;56(5):569–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Gasco L, Henry M, Piccolo G, Marono S, Gai F, Renna M, et al. Tenebrio molitor meal in diets for European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) juveniles: Growth performance, whole body composition and in vivo apparent digestibility. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2016;220:34–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Belforti M, Gai F, Lussiana C, Renna M, Malfatto V, Rotolo L, et al. Tenebrio molitor meal in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) diets: effects on animal performance, nutrient digestibility and chemical composition of fillets. Ital J Anim Sci. 2015;14:670–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Henry M, Gasco L, Piccolo G, Fountoulaki E. Review on the use of insects in the diet of farmed fish: past and future. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2015;203:1–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Makkar HP, Tran G, Heuzé V, Ankers P. State of the art on use of insects as animal feed. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2014;197:1–33.Google Scholar
  7. Nguyen TTX, Tomberlin JK, Vanlaerhoven S. Ability of Black Soldier Fly (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) Larvae to recycle food waste. Environ Entomol. 2015;44(2):407–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Spranghers T, Ottoboni M, Klootwijk C, Ovyn A, Deboosere S, De Meulenaer B, et al. Nutritional composition of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) prepupae reared on different organic waste substrates. J Sci Food Agr. 2017;97:2594–600.Google Scholar
  9. Oonincx DGAB, van Broekhoven S, van Huis A, van Loon JJA. Feed conversion, survival and development, and composition of four insect species on diets composed of food by-products. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144601.Google Scholar
  10. Veldkamp T, Van Duinkerken G, Van Huis A, Iakemond CMM, Ottevanger E, Bosch G, et al. Insects as a sustainable feed ingredient in pig and poultry diets - a feasibility study. Wageningen UR Livest. Res. 2012. Report 638.Google Scholar
  11. Maurer V, Holinger M, Amsler Z, Früh B, Wohlfahrt J, Stamer A, et al. Replacement of soybean cake by Hermetia illucens meal in diets for layers. J Insects Food Feed. 2016;2(2):83–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. De Marco M, Martínez S, Hernandez F, Madrid J, Gai F, Rotolo L, et al. Nutritional value of two insect meals (Tenebrio molitor and Hermetia illucens) for broiler chickens: apparent nutrient digestibility, apparent ileal amino acid digestibility and apparent metabolizable energy. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2015;209:211–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Kroeckel S, Harjes AGE, Roth I, Katz H, Wuertz S, Susenbeth A, et al. When a turbot catches a fly: evaluation of a pre-pupae meal of the Black Soldier Fly (Hermetia illucens) as fish meal substitute – growth performance and chitin degradation in juvenile turbot (Psetta maxima). Aquaculture. 2012;364–365:345–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Fasakin EA, Balogun AM, Ajayi OO. Evaluation of full-fat and defatted maggot meals in the feeding of clariid catfish Clarias gariepinus fingerlings. Aquac Res. 2003;34:733–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Lock EJ, Arsiwalla T, Waagbø R. Insect larvae meal as an alternative source of nutrients the diet of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) postsmolt. Aquacult Nutr. 2016;22:1202–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Veldkamp T, Bosch G. Insects: a protein-rich feed ingredient in pig and poultry diets. Anim Front. 2015;5(2):45–50.Google Scholar
  17. Hossain MA, Nahar N, Kamal M. Nutrient digestibility coefficients of some plant and animal proteins for rohu (Labeo rohita). Aquaculture. 1997;151:37–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Belforti M, Lussiana C, Malfatto V, Rotolo L, Zoccarato I, Gasco L. Two rearing substrates on Tenebrio molitor meal composition: issues on aquaculture and biodiesel production. In: Vantomme P, Munke C, van Huis A, editors. 1st International Conference “Insects to Feed the World”. The Netherlands: Wageningen University, Ede-Wageningen; 2014. p. 59.Google Scholar
  19. Surendra KC, Olivier R, Tomberlin JK, Jha R, Khanal SK. Bioconversion of organic wastes into biodiesel and animal feed via insect farming. Renew Energy. 2016;98:197–202.Google Scholar
  20. Ravindran V, Hew LI, Ravindran G, Bryden WL. Apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids in dietary ingredients for broiler chickens. Anim Sci. 2005;8:85–97.Google Scholar
  21. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 18th ed. Washington: AOAC International; 2005.Google Scholar
  22. Wang X, Chen X, Chen L, Wang B, Peng C, He C, et al. Optimizing high-performance liquid chromatography method for quantification of glucosamine using 6-aminoquinolyl-N-hydroxisuccinimidyl carbamate derivation in rat plasma: application to a pharmacokinetic study. Biomed Chromatogr. 2008;22:1265–71.Google Scholar
  23. Madrid J, Martínez S, López C, Orengo J, López MJ, Hernández F. Effects of low protein diets on growth performance, carcass traits and ammonia emission of barrows and gilts. Anim Prod Sci. 2013;53:146–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Marquardt RR. A simple spectrophotometric method for the direct determination of uric acid in avian excreta. Poult Sci. 1983;62:2106–08.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Short FJ, Gorton P, Wiseman J, Boorman KN. Determination of titanium dioxide added as an inert marker in chicken digestibility studies. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 1996;59:215–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Nalle CL, Ravindran V, Ravindran G. Nutritional value of white lupins (Lupinus albus) for broilers: apparent metabolizable energy, apparent ileal amino acid digestibility and production performance. Animal. 2012;6:579–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill FW, Anderson DL. Comparison of metabolizable energy and productive energy determinations with growing chicks. J Nutr. 1958;64:587–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. SPSS. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 17.0. New York: Mc Graw-Hill; 2008.Google Scholar
  29. Tran G, Sauvant D. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials: pigs, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, horses, fish. In: Sauvant D, Pérez JM and Tran G (editors). Chemical data and nutritional value. Paris: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Association Française de Zootechnie; 2004. p. 17–24.Google Scholar
  30. Ravindran V, Hew LI, Ravindran G, Bryden WL. A comparison of ileal digesta and excreta analysis for the determination of amino acid digestibility in food ingredients for poultry. Br Poult Sci. 1999;40:266–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Cullere M, Tasoniero G, Giaccone V, Miotti-Scapin R, Claeys E, De Smet S, et al. Black soldier fly as dietary protein source for broiler quails: apparent digestibility, excreta microbial load, feed choice, performance, carcass and meat traits. Animal. 2016;10(12):1923–30.Google Scholar
  32. Sánchez-Muros MJ, Barroso FG, Manzano-Agugliaro F. Insect meal as renewable source of food for animal feeding: a review. J Clean Prod. 2014;65:16–27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Purschke B, Stegmann T, Schreiner M, Jäger H. Pilot-scale supercritical CO2 extraction of edible insect oil from Tenebrio molitor L. larvae – Influence of extraction conditions on kinetics, defatting performance and compositional properties. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol. 2017;119:1–12.Google Scholar
  34. Zhao X, Vázquez-Gutiérrez JL, Johansson DP, Landberg R, Langton M. Yellow mealworm protein for food purposes - Extraction and functional properties. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0147791.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Tschirner M, Simon A. Influence of different growing substrates and processing on the nutrient composition of black soldier fly larvae destined for animal feed. J Insects Food Feed. 2015;1(4):249–59.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Sheppard C, Newton GL, Burtle G. Black soldier fly prepupae a compelling alternative to fish meal and fish oil. A public comment prepared in response to a request by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Tifton: University of Georgia; 2007.Google Scholar
  37. Castell JD. Aquaculture nutrition. In: Bilio M, Rosenthal H, Sinderman CJ, editors. Realism in Aquaculture; Advances, Constraints, Perspectives, Bredene, Belgium: European Aquaculture Society. 1986. p. 251–308.Google Scholar
  38. Diener S, Zubrügg C, Trockner K. Conversion of organic material by black soldier fly larvae: establishing optimal feeding rates. Waste Manag Res. 2009;27:603–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Finke MD. Complete nutrient content of four species of feeder insects. Zoo Biol. 2013;32:27–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Barroso FG, de Haro C, Sánchez-Muros MJ, Venegas E, Martínez-Sánchez A, Pérez-Bañón C. The potential of various insect species for use as food for fish. Aquaculture. 2014;422/423:193–201.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Huang KH, Li X, Ravidran V, Bryden WL. Comparison of apparent ileal amino acid digestibility of feed ingredients measured with broilers, layers and roosters. Poult Sci. 2006;85:625–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Valencia DG, Serrano MP, Lázaro R, Jiménez-Moreno E, Mateos GG. Influence of micronization (fine grinding) of soya bean meal and full-fat soya bean on the ileal digestibility of amino acids for broilers. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2009;150:238–48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Elwert C, Knips I, Katz P. A novel protein source: maggot meal of the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) in broiler feed. In: Gierus M, Kluth H, Bulang M, Kluge H, editors. Tagung Schweine- und Geflügelernährung, November 23–25, 2010, Institut für Agrar- und Ernährungswissenschaften, Universität HalleWittenberg, Lutherstadt Wittenberg, Germany. 2010. p. 140–42.Google Scholar
  44. Schiavone A, Cullere M, De Marco M, Meneguz M, Biasato I, Bergagna S, et al. Partial or total replacement of soybean oil by black soldier larvae (Hermetia illucens L.) fat in broiler diets: effect on growth performances, feed-choice, blood traits, carcass characteristics and meat quality. Ital J Anim Sci. 2017;16:93–100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2016.1249968.
  45. Suzuki M, Fujimoto W, Goto M, Morimatsu M, Syuto B, Toshihiko I. Cellular expression of gut chitinase mRNA in the gastrointestinal tract of mice and chickens. J Histochem Cytochem. 2002;50:1081–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hossain S, Blair R. Chitin utilization by broilers and its effect on body composition and blood metabolites. Br Poult Sci. 2007;48(1):33–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Razdan A, Pettersson D. Effect of chitin and chitosan on nutrient digestibility and plasma lipid concentrations in broiler chickens. Br J Nutr. 1994;72(2):277–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Khempaka S, Chitsatchapong C, Molee W. Effect of chitin and protein constituents in shrimp head meal on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, intestinal microbial populations, volatile fatty acids, and ammonia production in broilers. J Appl Poult Res. 2011;20:1–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Vidanarachchi JK, Kurukulasuriya MS, Kim SK. Chitin, chitosan and their oligosaccharides in food industry. In: Kim SK, editor. Chitin, Chitosan, Oligosaccharides and Their Derivatives: Biological Activities and Applications. New York: CRC Press; 2010. p. 543–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Marono S, Piccolo G, Loponte R, Di Meo C, Attia YA, Nizza A, et al. In vitro crude protein digestibility of Tenebrio molitor and Hermetia illucens insect meals and its correlation with chemical composition traits. Ital J Anim Sci. 2015;14:338–43.Google Scholar
  51. Muzzarelli RAA. Chitin. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1977.Google Scholar
  52. Longvah T, Mangthya K, Ramulu P. Nutrient composition and protein quality evaluation of eri silkworm (Samia ricinii) prepupae and pupae. Food Chem. 2011;128:400–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Huang KH, Ravindran V, Li X, Bryden WL. Influence of age on the apparent ileal amino acid digestibility of feed ingredients for broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci. 2005;46:236–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement