Effects of Agro-Industrial Byproduct-Based Diets on the Growth Performance, Digestibility, Nutritional and Microbiota Composition of Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.)
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Diet Preparation
2.2. Insect Rearing
2.3. Chemical Composition
2.3.1. Proximate Composition
2.3.2. Uric Acid
2.3.3. Amino Acid (AA) and Chitin Composition
2.3.4. Mineral Composition
2.4. Gut Microbiota
2.4.1. Gut Extraction
2.4.2. DNA Extraction
2.4.3. Amplification, Library Preparation, and Sequencing
2.4.4. Bioinformatic Analysis
2.5. Performance and Digestibility Calculation
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Performance and Digestibility
3.2. Chemical Composition of Insects
3.3. Microbiota
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sánchez-Muros, M.J.; Barroso, F.G.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Insect meal as renewable source of food for animal feeding: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasco, L.; Acuti, G.; Bani, P.; Dalle Zotte, A.; Danieli, P.P.; De Angelis, A.; Fortina, R.; Marino, R.; Parisi, G.; Piccolo, G.; et al. Insect and fish by-products as sustainable alternatives to conventional animal proteins in animal nutrition. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 19, 360–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Huis, A.; Van Itterbeeck, J.; Klunder, H.; Mertens, E.; Halloran, A.; Muir, G.; Vantomme, P. Edible Insects, Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security; FAO; ONU: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Chia, S.Y.; Tanga, C.M.; van Loon, J.J.; Dicke, M. Insects for sustainable animal feed: Inclusive business models involving smallholder farmers. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 41, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Commission Regulation. 2021/1372 of 17 August 2021 Amending Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as Regards the Prohibition to Feed Non-Ruminant Farmed Animals, Other than Fur Animals, with Protein Derived from Animals. 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R1372 (accessed on 14 December 2021).
- Stull, V.J.; Kersten, M.; Bergmans, R.S.; Patz, J.A.; Paskewitz, S. Crude Protein, Amino Acid, and Iron Content of Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae) Reared on an Agricultural Byproduct from Maize Production: An Exploratory Study. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2019, 112, 533–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Broekhoven, S.; Oonincx, D.G.A.B.; van Huis, A.; van Loon, J.J.A. Growth performance and feed conversion efficiency of three edible mealworm species (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on diets composed of organic by-products. J. Insect Physiol. 2015, 73, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Masri, J.; Perez, V.; Maya, C.; Zhao, J. Growth performance and nutrient composition of mealworms (Tenebrio Molitor) fed on fresh plant materials-supplemented diets. Foods 2020, 9, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Przemieniecki, S.W.; Kosewska, A.; Ciesielski, S.; Kosewska, O. Changes in the gut microbiome and enzymatic profile of Tenebrio molitor larvae biodegrading cellulose, polyethylene and polystyrene waste. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 256, 113265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Engel, P.; Moran, N.A. The gut microbiota of insects-diversity in structure and function. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 37, 699–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y. Investigation of gut-associated bacteria in Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) larvae using culture-dependent and DGGE methods. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2015, 108, 941–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melis, R.; Braca, A.; Sanna, R.; Spada, S.; Mulas, G.; Fadda, M.L.; Sassu, M.M.; Serra, G.; Anedda, R. Metabolic response of yellow mealworm larvae to two alternative rearing substrates. Metabolomics 2019, 15, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mattioli, S.; Paci, G.; Fratini, F.; Dal Bosco, A.; Tuccinardi, T.; Mancini, S. Former foodstuff in mealworm farming: Effects on fatty acids profile, lipid metabolism and antioxidant molecules. LWT 2021, 147, 111644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 18th ed.; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Real Decreto 2257/1994, de 25 de Noviembre, Por El Que Se Aprueba Los Métodos Oficiales de Análisis de Piensos o Alimentos para Animales y Sus Primeras Materias. Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/1994/11/25/2257 (accessed on 14 December 2021).
- Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marquardt, R.R.; Ward, A.T.; Campbell, L.D. A rapid high-performance liquid chromatographic method for the quantitation or uric acid in excreta and tissue samples. Poult. Sci. 1983, 62, 2099–2105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Madrid, J.; Martínez, S.; López, C.; Orengo, J.; López, M.J.; Hernández, F. Effects of low protein diets on growth performance, carcass traits and ammonia emission of barrows and gilts. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2013, 53, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crespo, M.O.P.; Martínez, M.V.; Hernández, J.L.; Lage Yusty, M.A. High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of chitin in the snow crab, Chionoecetes opilio. J. Chromatogr. A 2006, 1116, 189–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caporaso, J.G.; Kuczynski, J.; Stombaugh, J.; Bittinger, K.; Bushman, F.D.; Costello, E.K.; Fierer, N.; Peña, A.G.; Goodrich, J.K.; Gordon, J.I.; et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 2010, 7, 335–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clarke, K.R. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 1993, 18, 117–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmerman, G.M.; Goetz, H.; Mielke, P.W. Use of an Improved Statistical Method for Group Comparisons to Study Effects of Prairie Fire. Ecology 1985, 66, 606–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, M.J. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol. 2001, 26, 32–46. [Google Scholar]
- Waldbauer, G.P. The Consumption and Utilization of Food by Insects. Adv. Insect Phys. 1968, 5, 229–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viana, M.; López, J.M.; Querol, X.; Alastuey, A.; García-Gacio, D.; Blanco-Heras, G.; López-Mahía, P.; Piñeiro-Iglesias, M.; Sanz, M.J.; Sanz, F.; et al. Tracers and impact of open burning of rice straw residues on PM in Eastern Spain. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 1941–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wadhwa, M.; Bakshi, M.P.S. Utilization of Fruit and Vegetable Wastes as Livestock Feed and as Substrates for Generation of Other Value-Added Products; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Brandon, A.M.; Gao, S.H.; Tian, R.; Ning, D.; Yang, S.S.; Zhou, J.; Wu, W.M.; Criddle, C.S. Biodegradation of polyethylene and plastic mixtures in mealworms (Larvae of Tenebrio molitor) and effects on the gut microbiome. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 6526–6533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, L.; Xie, B.; Dong, C.; Hu, D.; Wang, M.; Liu, G.; Liu, H. Rearing Tenebrio molitor L. (Coleptera: Tenebrionidae) in the “lunar Palace 1” during a 105-day multi-crew closed integrative BLSS experiment. Life Sci. Space Res. 2015, 7, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mancini, S.; Fratini, F.; Turchi, B.; Mattioli, S.; Dal Bosco, A.; Tuccinardi, T.; Nozic, S.; Paci, G. Former foodstuff products in Tenebrio molitor rearing: Effects on growth, chemical composition, microbiological load, and antioxidant status. Animals 2019, 9, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruschioni, S.; Loreto, N.; Foligni, R.; Mannozzi, C.; Raffaelli, N.; Zamporlini, F.; Pasquini, M.; Roncolini, A.; Cardinali, F.; Osimani, A.; et al. Addition of olive pomace to feeding substrate affects growth performance and nutritional value of mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.) larvae. Foods 2020, 9, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Derler, H.; Lienhard, A.; Berner, S.; Grasser, M.; Posch, A.; Rehorska, R. Use them for what they are good at: Mealworms in circular food systems. Insects 2021, 12, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oonincx, D.G.A.B.; de Boer, I.J.M. Environmental Impact of the Production of Mealworms as a Protein Source for Humans-A Life Cycle Assessment. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e51145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, L.; Stasiak, M.; Li, L.; Xie, B.; Fu, Y.; Gidzinski, D.; Dixon, M.; Liu, H. Rearing Tenebrio molitor in BLSS: Dietary fiber affects larval growth, development, and respiration characteristics. Acta Astronaut. 2016, 118, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morales-Ramos, J.A.; Rojas, M.G.; Kelstrup, H.C.; Emery, V. Self-selection of agricultural by-products and food ingredients by Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and impact on food utilization and nutrient intake. Insects 2020, 11, 827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.S.; Chen, Y.-d.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, H.M.; Ji, X.Y.; He, L.; Xing, D.F.; Ren, N.Q.; Ho, S.H.; Wu, W.M. A novel clean production approach to utilize crop waste residues as co-diet for mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) biomass production with biochar as byproduct for heavy metal removal. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 252, 1142–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, A.V.; Sanjinez-Argandoña, E.J.; Linzmeier, A.M.; Cardoso, C.A.L.; Macedo, M.L.R. Food value of mealworm grown on Acrocomia aculeata pulp flour. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0151275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harsányi, E.; Juhász, C.; Kovács, E.; Huzsvai, L.; Pintér, R.; Fekete, G.; Varga, Z.I.; Aleksza, L.; Gyuricza, C. Evaluation of Organic Wastes as Substrates for Rearing Zophobas morio, Tenebrio molitor, and Acheta domesticus Larvae as Alternative Feed Supplements. Insects 2020, 11, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silva, L.B.; De Souza, R.G.; Da Silva, S.R.; Feitosa, A.D.C.; Lopes, E.C.; Lima, S.B.P.; Dourado, L.R.B.; Pavan, B.E. Development of Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on Poultry Litter-Based Diets: Effect on Chemical Composition of Larvae. J. Insect Sci. 2021, 21, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Behmer, S.T. Insect herbivore nutrient regulation. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2009, 54, 165–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ramos-Elorduy, J.; González, E.A.; Hernández, A.R.; Pino, J.M. Use of Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to recycle organic wastes and as feed for broiler chickens. J. Econ. Entomol. 2002, 95, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Commission Regulation. 1275/2013 of 6 December 2013 Amending Annex I to Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as Regards Maximum Levels for Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead, Nitrites, Volatile Mustard Oil and Harmful Botanical Impurities (EC). 2013. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2013:328:TOC (accessed on 14 December 2021).
- Stoops, J.; Crauwels, S.; Waud, M.; Claes, J.; Lievens, B.; Van Campenhout, L. Microbial community assessment of mealworm larvae (Tenebrio molitor) and grasshoppers (Locusta migratoria migratorioides) sold for human consumption. Food Microbiol. 2016, 53, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garofalo, C.; Osimani, A.; Milanović, V.; Taccari, M.; Cardinali, F.; Aquilanti, L.; Riolo, P.; Ruschioni, S.; Isidoro, N.; Clementi, F. The microbiota of marketed processed edible insects as revealed by high-throughput sequencing. Food Microbiol. 2017, 62, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Osimani, A.; Milanović, V.; Cardinali, F.; Garofalo, C.; Clementi, F.; Pasquini, M.; Riolo, P.; Ruschioni, S.; Isidoro, N.; Loreto, N.; et al. The bacterial biota of laboratory-reared edible mealworms (Tenebrio molitor L.): From feed to frass. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 272, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandeweyer, D.; Smet, J.D.; Van Looveren, N.; Campenhout, L. Van Biological contaminants in insects as food and feed. J. Insects Food Feed 2021, 7, 807–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.S.; Ding, M.Q.; He, L.; Zhang, C.H.; Li, Q.X.; Xing, D.F.; Cao, G.L.; Zhao, L.; Ding, J.; Ren, N.Q.; et al. Biodegradation of polypropylene by yellow mealworms (Tenebrio molitor) and superworms (Zophobas atratus) via gut-microbe-dependent depolymerization. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 144087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, J.; Cho, H.w.; Jung, H.; Park, J.; Yun, S.; Ha, S.; Lee, Y.; Kim, T.J. Changes in Intestinal Microbiota Due to the Expanded Polystyrene Diet of Mealworms (Tenebrio molitor). Indian J. Microbiol. 2021, 61, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sangiorgio, P.; Verardi, A.; Dimatteo, S.; Spagnoletta, A.; Moliterni, S.; Errico, S. Tenebrio molitor in the circular economy: A novel approach for plastic valorisation and PHA biological recovery. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 52689–52701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jung, J.; Heo, A.; Woo Park, Y.; Ji Kim, Y.; Koh, H.; Park, W. Gut microbiota of Tenebrio molitor and their response to environmental change. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 24, 888–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tinker, K.A.; Ottesen, E.A. The core gut microbiome of the American cockroach, Periplaneta americana, is stable and resilient to dietary shifts. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 6603–6610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dong, H.L.; Zhang, S.X.; Chen, Z.H.; Tao, H.; Li, X.; Qiu, J.F.; Cuii, W.Z.; Sima, Y.H.; Cui, W.Z.; Xu, S.Q. Differences in gut microbiota between silkworms (Bombyx mori) reared on fresh mulberry (Morus alba var. multicaulis) leaves or an artificial diet. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 26188–26200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yun, J.H.; Roh, S.W.; Whon, T.W.; Jung, M.J.; Kim, M.S.; Park, D.S.; Yoon, C.; Nam, Y.D.; Kim, Y.J.; Choi, J.H.; et al. Insect gut bacterial diversity determined by environmental habitat, diet, developmental stage, and phylogeny of host. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 5254–5264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rajagopal, R. Beneficial interactions between insects and gut bacteria. Indian J. Microbiol. 2009, 49, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lou, Y.; Li, Y.; Lu, B.; Liu, Q.; Yang, S.S.; Liu, B.; Ren, N.; Wu, W.M.; Xing, D. Response of the yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) gut microbiome to diet shifts during polystyrene and polyethylene biodegradation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 416, 126222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramos, S.; Martín, M.Á. Impact of diet on gut microbiota. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 37, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tinker, K.A.; Ottesen, E.A. The hindgut microbiota of praying mantids is highly variable and includes both prey-associated and host-specific microbes. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0208917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruno, D.; Bonelli, M.; De Filippis, F.; Di Lelio, I.; Tettamanti, G.; Casartelli, M.; Ercolini, D.; Caccia, S. The intestinal microbiota of Hermetia illucens larvae is affected by diet and shows a diverse composition in the different midgut regions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e01864-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Courgette By-Product | Tigernut Pulp | Brewer’s Spent Grains | Brewer’s Yeast | Bread Remains | Rice Straw | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dry matter (DM %) | 5.64 | 17.12 | 24.90 | 95.12 | 76.20 | 93.43 |
Composition (% DM) | ||||||
Ash | 12.12 | 0.85 | 2.75 | 5.72 | 2.26 | 16.01 |
Crude Protein | 23.01 | 5.60 | 27.26 | 48.48 | 13.40 | 2.85 |
Starch | 0.0 | 19.01 | 2.64 | 0.0 | 78.75 | 0.0 |
Ether Extract | 1.86 | 18.61 | 8.34 | 1.02 | 0.27 | 1.05 |
NDF 2 | 19.12 | 54.80 | 45.35 | 0.07 | 5.27 | 68.23 |
ADF 3 | 13.42 | 23.85 | 15.80 | 0.0 | 0.53 | 40.91 |
ADL 4 | 1.22 | 4.40 | 1.68 | 0.0 | 0.16 | 2.86 |
HS-LP 1 | MS-MP | LS-HP | |
---|---|---|---|
Ingredient composition (% as feed) | |||
Courgette by-product | 30.00 | 25.00 | |
Tiger nut pulp | 5.00 | 5.00 | |
Brewer’s grains | 10.00 | 25.00 | |
Bread remains | 85.00 | 40.00 | 20.00 |
Brewer’s yeast | 15.00 | 10.00 | 20.00 |
Rice straw | 5.00 | 5.00 | |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Analyzed composition (% dry matter (DM)) 2 | |||
Crude protein | 18.51 | 21.03 | 26.34 |
Starch | 61.10 | 29.81 | 20.01 |
Ether extract | 2.80 | 5.85 | 7.12 |
Neutral detergent fiber | 10.32 | 17.50 | 19.91 |
Acid detergent fiber | 0.70 | 9.52 | 10.01 |
Acid detergent lignin | 0.23 | 1.14 | 1.21 |
Macrominerals | |||
Ca | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
P | 0.33 | 0.52 | 0.60 |
Na | 0.67 | 0.29 | 0.20 |
Mg | 0.04 | 0.14 | 0.15 |
K | 0.50 | 1.91 | 1.75 |
Trace minerals (mg/100 g DM) | |||
Fe | 2.92 | 4.84 | 4.07 |
Mn | 0.27 | 1.28 | 1.79 |
Cu | 0.35 | 0.42 | 1.08 |
Zn | 3.67 | 5.29 | 6.89 |
Amino acids (% DM) | |||
Arginine | 0.69 | 0.77 | 1.00 |
Histidine | 0.40 | 0.37 | 0.47 |
Isoleucine | 0.59 | 0.63 | 0.82 |
Leucine | 0.98 | 1.05 | 1.39 |
Lysine | 0.52 | 0.63 | 0.91 |
Methionine | 0.61 | 0.65 | 0.78 |
Phenylalanine | 0.81 | 0.70 | 0.91 |
Threonine | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.75 |
Valine | 0.64 | 0.71 | 0.92 |
Alanine | 0.54 | 0.88 | 1.16 |
Aspartic acid | 0.74 | 1.17 | 1.60 |
Cysteine | 1.13 | 1.13 | 1.33 |
Glycine | 0.61 | 0.62 | 0.75 |
Glutamic acid | 3.06 | 2.90 | 3.39 |
Proline | 1.22 | 1.33 | 1.48 |
Serine | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.94 |
Tyrosine | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.59 |
Diet 1 | SEM 2 | p-Value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HS-LP | MS-MP | LS-HP | |||
Initial individual weight (mg) | 0.60 | 0.65 | 0.69 | 0.079 | 0.898 |
Final individual weight (mg) | 100.29 b | 112.99 b | 168.69 a | 2.483 | <0.001 *** |
Weight gain (mg) | 99.69 b | 112.34 b | 168.00 a | 2.517 | <0.001 *** |
First pupae emergence (days) | 88.90 b | 120.09 a | 91.00 b | 2.840 | <0.001 |
Mortality (%) | 15.90 | 13.63 | 14.54 | 1.775 | 0.871 |
Total intake (mg/larvae) | 133.43 c | 207.43 b | 275.21 a | 5.746 | <0.001 *** |
Feed Conversion Ratio (g/g) | 1.39 b | 1.67 a | 1.58 a | 0.026 | 0.001 ** |
Efficiency Conversion Ingested (%) | 72.68 a | 60.37 b | 63.13 b | 1.208 | 0.001 ** |
Coefficient of DM 3 digestibility (%) | 70.38 a | 49.63 c | 56.47 b | 1.012 | <0.001 *** |
Uric acid (mg/mg excreta) | 0.01 c | 0.02 b | 0.03 a | 0.001 | <0.001 *** |
Diet 1 | SEM 2 | p-Value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HS-LP | MS-MP | LS-HP | |||
Dry matter (DM, %) | 34.32 b | 41.78 a | 44.21 a | 1.219 | 0.007 |
Composition (% DM) | |||||
Ash | 3.83 a | 3.72 a | 3.48 b | 0.014 | 0.004 |
Crude protein | 45.96 b | 49.07 ab | 52.46 a | 0.551 | 0.039 |
Ether extract | 33.92 | 28.93 | 27.30 | 1.130 | 0.186 |
Chitin | 3.06 | 3.78 | 4.82 | 0.583 | 0.540 |
Diet 1 | SEM 2 | p-Value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HS-LP | MS-MP | LS-HP | |||
Macrominerals (% DM) | |||||
Ca | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.008 | 0.167 |
P | 0.72 | 0.83 | 0.86 | 0.043 | 0.458 |
Na | 0.29 | 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.018 | 0.236 |
Mg | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.24 | 0.013 | 0.183 |
K | 1.00 | 1.22 | 1.12 | 0.052 | 0.375 |
Trace elements (mg/100 g DM) | |||||
Fe | 3.65 | 4.15 | 3.95 | 0.239 | 0.724 |
Cu | 0.86 | 1.37 | 1.35 | 0.057 | 0.059 |
Zn | 9.44 | 13.10 | 17.00 | 0.811 | 0.071 |
Al | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.029 | 0.763 |
Cr | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.402 |
Mn | 0.49 | 0.84 | 1.06 | 0.055 | 0.056 |
Co | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.140 |
Ni | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.003 | 0.901 |
Ba | 0.05 | 0.25 | 0.05 | 0.070 | 0.476 |
As | 0.01 b | 0.06 a | 0.06 a | 0.001 | 0.017 |
Cd | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.001 | 0.589 |
Pb | 0.40 | 0. 05 | 0. 11 | 0.007 | 0.209 |
Diet 1 | SEM 2 | p-Value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HS-LP | MS-MP | LS-HP | |||
Essential amino acids | |||||
Arginine | 5.22 | 5.96 | 5.12 | 0.092 | 0.061 |
Histidine | 3.11 | 3.41 | 2.90 | 0.149 | 0.473 |
Isoleucine | 4.80 | 4.89 | 4.48 | 0.050 | 0.085 |
Leucine | 7.03 | 7.25 | 6.96 | 0.060 | 0.273 |
Lysine | 4.43 | 4.34 | 5.67 | 0.318 | 0.305 |
Methionine | 2.97 | 2.26 | 2.94 | 0.245 | 0.494 |
Phenylalanine | 4.14 | 4.27 | 3.76 | 0.292 | 0.780 |
Threonine | 4.53 | 4.57 | 4.04 | 0.183 | 0.514 |
Valine | 6.36 | 6.66 | 6.20 | 0.088 | 0.236 |
No essential amino acids | |||||
Alanine | 7.97 | 7.94 | 7.58 | 0.099 | 0.333 |
Aspartic acid | 5.83 | 6.01 | 7.94 | 0.211 | 0.054 |
Cysteine | 8.08 | 6.80 | 8.24 | 0.662 | 0.664 |
Glycine | 5.69 | 5.88 | 5.17 | 0.116 | 0.176 |
Glutamic acid | 10.06 | 10.20 | 11.59 | 0.241 | 0.137 |
Proline | 8.45 | 7.14 | 5.79 | 0.427 | 0.178 |
Serine | 5.00 | 5.22 | 4.85 | 0.104 | 0.437 |
Tyrosine | 6.36 | 7.21 | 6.78 | 0.327 | 0.619 |
Diet 1 | SEM 2 | p-Value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HS-LP | MS-MP | LS-HP | |||
Chao1 index | 18.40 | 22.24 | 28.58 | 2.001 | 0.154 |
Shannon index | 1.34 b | 1.78 ab | 2.71 a | 0.204 | 0.050 |
Simpson index | 0.40 b | 0.51 ab | 0.77 a | 0.056 | 0.050 |
Diet 1 | SEM 2 | p-Value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HS-LP | MS-MP | LS-HP | |||
Tenericutes | 67.88 a | 70.08 a | 13.41 b | 6.645 | 0.007 |
Proteobacteria | 6.04 b | 17.99 b | 42.84 a | 2.569 | 0.000 |
Firmicutes | 23.62 | 7.89 | 28.71 | 4.731 | 0.222 |
Cyanobacteria | 1.86 b | 1.23 b | 8.46 a | 0.754 | 0.004 |
Fusobacteria | 0.04 | 2.09 | 5.23 | 2.051 | 0.582 |
Bacteroidetes | 0.33 | 0.51 | 0.71 | 0.159 | 0.614 |
Actinobacteria | 0.23 | 0.01 | 0.30 | 0.085 | 0.357 |
Diet 1 | SEM 2 | p-Value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HS-LP | MS-MP | LS-HP | |||
Spiroplasmataceae | 67.84 a | 69.83 a | 13.41 b | 6.620 | 0.007 |
Moraxellaceae | 1.33 b | 8.74 b | 30.75 a | 3.339 | 0.010 |
Lactobacillaceae | 14.87 a | 0.11 b | 0.16 b | 2.317 | 0.044 |
Bacillaceae | 5.95 | 4.75 | 11.03 | 1.742 | 0.313 |
Enterobacteriaceae | 4.21 | 6.25 | 8.84 | 1.234 | 0.332 |
Nostocaceae | 1.79 b | 1.22 b | 7.70 a | 0.722 | 0.006 |
Streptococcaceae | 0.27 | 0.15 | 11.90 | 2.888 | 0.191 |
Fusobacteriaceae | 0.04 | 2.09 | 5.23 | 2.051 | 0.582 |
Paenibacillaceae | 0.32 | 1.23 | 2.11 | 0.407 | 0.235 |
Leuconostocaceae | 0.50 b | 0.14 b | 1.88 a | 0.205 | 0.012 |
Staphylococcaceae | 0.16 b | 0.20 b | 0.90 a | 0.083 | 0.006 |
Rhodobacteraceae | 0.06 b | 0.21 b | 1.19 a | 0.160 | 0.028 |
Clostridiaceae | 0.65 | 0.90 | 0.34 | 0.208 | 0.548 |
Bacteroidaceae | 0.30 | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.063 | 0.878 |
Xanthomonadaceae | 0.00 | 1.08 | 0.04 | 0.330 | 0.367 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Montalbán, A.; Sánchez, C.J.; Hernández, F.; Schiavone, A.; Madrid, J.; Martínez-Miró, S. Effects of Agro-Industrial Byproduct-Based Diets on the Growth Performance, Digestibility, Nutritional and Microbiota Composition of Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.). Insects 2022, 13, 323. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13040323
Montalbán A, Sánchez CJ, Hernández F, Schiavone A, Madrid J, Martínez-Miró S. Effects of Agro-Industrial Byproduct-Based Diets on the Growth Performance, Digestibility, Nutritional and Microbiota Composition of Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.). Insects. 2022; 13(4):323. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13040323
Chicago/Turabian StyleMontalbán, Ana, Cristian Jesús Sánchez, Fuensanta Hernández, Achille Schiavone, Josefa Madrid, and Silvia Martínez-Miró. 2022. "Effects of Agro-Industrial Byproduct-Based Diets on the Growth Performance, Digestibility, Nutritional and Microbiota Composition of Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.)" Insects 13, no. 4: 323. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13040323