The yellow mealworm as a novel source of protein.

By A. Ghaly, F. Alkoaik. 2009

201 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Problem statement: Yellow mealworms of different sizes (4.8-182.7 mg) were grown in a medium of wheat flour and brewer’s yeast (95:5 by weight) to evaluate their potential as a protein source. Approach: There was an initial adjustment period (3-9 days) observed during which the younger larvae (4.8-61.1 mg) grew slowly while the older ones (80.3-182.7 mg) lost weight. After this initial period, the younger larvae (4.8-122.1 mg) increased in weight while the older ones (139.6-182.7 mg) continued to lose weight as they entered the pupal stage. For efficient production of larvae, they should be harvested at a weight of 100-110 mg. The moisture issue in the medium presents an important management problem for commercial production. Results: A system in which eggs are separate from adults and hatched in separate chambers would alleviate the danger of losing the larval population due to microbial infection. The moisture, ash, protein and fat contents were 58.1-61.5, 1.8-2.2, 24.3-27.6 and 12.0-12.5%, respectively. Yellow mealworms seem to be a promising source of protein for human consumption with the required fat and essential amino acids. Further research into raising them on a variety of low quality substances/wastes such as saw dust, waste paper, corn starch and potato flour is recommended. Conclusion/Recommendations: The future research should also investigate the nutrition content of the medium (minerals, protein, fat, carbohydrates and vitamins) and the effect of environmental parameters (temperature, humidity, production of CO2 and heat) on protein yield and quality. This information will aid in the design of an economically viable large scale production system.

Subfields: Genetics, Insect Science, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/868f3e1d140d8513b777e5a23adb275d665abf8c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Genetics

  1. Rahman Jabir
  2. Pier Paolo Miglietta
  3. M. Abd
  4. F. D. Leo
  5. Marcello Ruberti
  6. S. Massari
  7. L. Gasco
  8. G. Piccolo

In Insect Science

  1. L. Gasco
  2. G. Piccolo
  3. Rahman Jabir
  4. Pier Paolo Miglietta
  5. M. Henry
  6. M. Abd
  7. F. D. Leo
  8. Marcello Ruberti

In Molecular Biology

  1. Rahman Jabir
  2. Pier Paolo Miglietta
  3. M. Abd
  4. F. D. Leo
  5. Marcello Ruberti
  6. S. Massari
  7. S. Vikineswary
  8. S. A. Razak

Citations in the corpus