Evaluation of Yellow Mealworm Meal as a Protein Feedstuff in the Diet of Broiler Chicks

Abstract

Yellow mealworm meal (MWM) as a protein feedstuff in the broiler diet was investigated based on the growth performance, hematological characteristics, carcass, and meat quality of broiler chicks. A total of 700 one-day-old Ross 308 male broiler chicks were assigned to five dietary MWM treatments containing 0%, 2%, 4%, and 8% dried MWM or 10.48% fresh mealworm (corresponding to 4% dried MWM). For each treatment, there were seven pens with 20 chicks each. The nutritional profile of dried MWM is comparable to all conventional protein feedstuffs. MWM significantly increased BW and ADG (linear and quadratic, p < 0.05), and FCR was best at 4% MWM inclusion level (quadratic, p < 0.10) for broiler chicks during the starter phase. The predicted MWM levels for optimal starter BW and ADG were 4.13% and 3.84%. Hematological characteristics of broiler chicks fed on the MWM diet did not differ or showed small change within the physiological range. A fresh 10.48% mealworm diet significantly reduced the blood LZM for the grower. Broiler Chicks fed on fresh 10.48% mealworm had a significantly reduced abdominal fat percentage compared to the 4% dried MWM counterparts. MWM did not significantly affect meat quality. Taken together, MWM inclusion in broiler diet is acceptable as a protein feedstuff, and a 4% level could stimulate early growth in the starter phase.

Growth performance, serum biochemistry and meat quality traits of Jumbo quails fed with mopane worm (Imbrasia belina) meal-containing diets

“…Nonetheless, dietary treatments had no influence on carcass characteristics and internal organ weights of Jumbo quails. These findings were consistent with those of other authors who found that inclusion of insect meals in place of soybean meal had no effect on relative weights of internal organs ( Zadeh, Kheiri, & Faghani, 2019 ) and carcass traits ( Elahi et al., 2020 ). Despite the nutritional properties of MW, its effect on quail meat quality has not been investigated.…”

“…Indeed, no dietary influences were observed on overall feed intake and growth traits. These findings were in line with those of many authors who reported a lack of differences on growth performance of various poultry species when soybean meal was replaced with various insect meals ( Maurer et al., 2016 ; Biasato et al., 2016 ; Cullere et al., 2018 ; Elahi et al., 2020 ). Contrary to our findings, several studies have reported that the inclusion of insect meals improves the bird performance ( Mareko, Nsoso, Mosweu, Mokate, & Madibela, 2010 ; Mbhele, Mnisi, & Mlambo, 2019 ; Zadeh, Kheiri, & Faghani, 2019 ).…”

“…Despite the nutritional properties of MW, its effect on quail meat quality has not been investigated. We found that inclusion of MWM had no effect on meat pH, temperature, water retention, cooking and thawing losses, which was in agreement with the findings of Mbhele, Mnisi, and Mlambo (2019) and Elahi et al. (2020) , who reported a lack of dietary effect on meat quality.…”

Cafeteria-Type Feeding of Chickens Indicates a Preference for Insect (Tenebrio molitor) Larvae Meal

“…The variable content of amino acids may be due to factors such as methodology employed, local food availability, and larval stage [4,31,32]. Overall, our results are in agreement with those reported by Ravzanaadii et al [26], evaluating the nutritional value of T. molitor as a food and feed source, as well as De Marco et al [17] and Elahi et al [33], who evaluated the potential use of T. molitor for broiler chickens.…”

Beyond the protein concept: health aspects of using edible insects on animals

“…On the other hand, the inclusion of HI meal in jumbo quail diets increased the albumin/globulin ratio, which may have compromised the birds' immunity and caused plasma disorders (Mbhele et al, 2019). However, other researchers did not show any differences in blood traits following the ingestion of insect meals, thus suggesting the need to further study the mechanism of action (Biasato et al, 2016(Biasato et al, , 2017(Biasato et al, , 2018bDabbou et al, 2018;Elahi et al, 2020).…”