Table 7.
Effects of dietary insect meal inclusion on aquatic species quality traits in comparison with the control diet used in the different trials.
| Aquatic Species | Insect Species | Insect Form | % FM Substitution | % Insect Inclusion | Days of Feeding | Impact on Flesh Quality (Raw/Cooked Fillets/Frozen) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlantic salmon | HI | Partially defatted larva meal | 25% and 100% | 5% and 25% | 105 | No differences for odour, flavour/taste or texture among the groups (cooked). | [84] |
| Carp var. Jian | HI | Partially defatted | 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% | 3.5%, 7%, 10.5% and 14% | 56 | No differences in the proximate composition, while the HI inclusion decreased the PUFA n3 content. | [45] |
| Partially defatted larva meal | 25% and 50% | 20% and 40% | 78 | Significant changes in the perceived intensity of aroma, flavor and texture. Dominance of a metallic flavor characterized the fillets of fish fed HI diets (cooked). |
[89] | ||
| Rainbow trout | HI | Partially defatted larva meal | 25% and 50% | 20% and 40% | 78 | 50% inclusion: increased the EEcontent and induced a decrease of the valuable PUFA, with a worsening of the lipid health indexes (raw). | [18] |
| Partially defatted larva meal | 25% and 50% | 20% and 40% | 78 | 50% HI inclusion: decreased the fillet yellowness. Increase in the SFA (C12:0) and MUFA contents. Decrease in the PUFA content t(raw). |
[86] | ||
| Partially defatted larva meal | 25% and 50% | 20% and 40% | 78 | Differences in quality after 30 days of storage (frozen). No HIeffect on the pH, shear stress, color and water holding capacity of the fillets (frozen/cooked). HI50: increased the SFA and decreased the MUFA and the PUFA contents (frozen/cooked). |
[88] | ||
| Partially defatted larva meal | 46% | 28.1% | 49 | No differences in the chemical composition. Decrease in the PUFA (EPA and DHA) content. Increase in the SFA (C12:0) content. Slightly darker coloration of fish fed HI vs control. No organoleptic differences (cooked). |
[43] | ||
| Full-fat pre-pupa normal (N) or enriched (E) | 25% and 50% | 16.4% and 32.8% (N); 18.12% and 36.24% (E) |
56 | Sensory analysis: no significant difference for both the N and the E HI. Improvement of the EDA and DHA contents in the enriched HI fish (raw). |
[44] | ||
| Rainbow trout | TM | Full-fat larva meal | 25% and 50% | 25% and 50% | 90 | Increase in the CP content and decrease in the EPA and the DHA contents (raw). | [10] |
| Full-fat larva meal | 25% and 50% | 25% and 50% | 90 | No influence on the pH, water holding capacity, cooking loss, shear force and color (raw &cooked). No differences in the proximate composition. Decrease in the PUFA content (EPA and DHA). |
[82] | ||
| Gilthead seabream | TM | Full-fat larva meal | 33.4% and 74% | 25% and 50% | 163 | No negative effect on the marketable indexes with a 25% of TM inclusion level. At 50% of TM inclusion level, dressed yield was penalized (raw). |
[8] |
| Blackspot seabream | TM | Full-fat larva meal | 26% and 51% | 21% and 40% | 131 | TM50 vs FM fish fillets (fresh): higher yellowness and chroma, but lower hue. No effect on the proximate composition. Decrease in the PUFA content (EPA and DHA) and worsening in the lipid health indexes. |
[81] |
| Pacific white shrimp |
TM | Full-fat TM larva meal | 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% | 7.63%, 15.25%, 22.88% and 30.5% | 42 | Increase in the CL content. Decrease in the EPA and DHA contents. No differences in the proximate composition, color and firmness. |
[85] |
| HI | Partially defatted larva meal | 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% | 7.1%, 14.1%, 21.2%, 28.3% and 36.3% | 63 | Maximum whole-body CP and CL content achieved at 29% and 15% of HI inclusion, respectively. | [47] |
Note: HI: Hermetia illucens; TM: Tenebrio molitor; FM: fish meal; EE: ether extract; SFA: saturated fatty acids; MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA: poly unsaturated fatty acids;DHA: Docosahexaenoic acid; EPA: Eicosapentaenoic acid; CP: crude protein; CL: crude lipid.