Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Prospects of rearing selected southern African swarming insects for animal feed: a review on insect farming and the economic value of edible insects

Agriculture & Food Security volume 13, Article number: 6 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

The potential of insects as animal feed is currently under doubtful spotlight due to the limited number of reared insect species and fewer farm or biotechnological companies producing insects on a large scale for animal feed worldwide. Again, the costs of incorporating reared insects in animal diets as an alternative replacement for expensive conventional protein sources (CPS), mainly fishmeal and soybean meal, remain uncertain due to gradual increase in the sales prices of farmed insects. To date, black soldier fly, yellow mealworm and cricket are the only insect species dominating in the insect farming industry at limited supply. This triggers the need to expand insect farming through the introduction of additional insect species while monitoring the costs of insect-based diets. The commercial rearing of swarming edible insects with a good nutritional profile, such as termites alates (Macrotermes spp.), migratory locusts (Locusta migratoria) and mopane worms (Imbresia belina) found in Southern Africa could potentially become an alternative solution to expand insect farming in addition to the commonly reared insect species. However, there is limited information available on the reproductive ability and economic value of swarming insects as animal feed. Therefore, this paper will provide an overview of the possible rearing of selected swarming insects as well as the profitability of using insect-based diets. It will also give clarity on whether the mass production of edible insects will be cost-effective or not by discussing and comparing recent sales prices of various edible insect as compared to that of CPS in animal diets.

Introduction

With the mounting human population, agriculture through intense farming in combination with biotechnology to produce alternative feed is a key strategy to address worldwide poverty, hunger and food insecurity, which is one of the Sustainable Development Goals by United Nations [1, 2]. However, the livestock production industry is facing a significant challenge in continuous rise in prices of feed ingredients, especially protein sources, such as fishmeal and soybean meal due environmental factors such as climate change including prolonged drought [3], greenhouse gas emissions, water and land pollution as well as high global demand for protein [4, 5]. Hence, fish and soyabean production are widely documented as the main contributor to high total feed costs in poultry, fish, pigs and pets diets [6, 7]. The European Union (EU) in 2017 promoted insects as food and feed to increase protein supply for both humans and animals, which stimulated more interest in insect farming [8,9,10,11]. However, due to health regulations, only limited number of ‘conventional insect’ species namely, domestic cricket (Acheta domesticus), black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens), common housefly (Musca domestica) and yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) were permitted to be bred and reared on a large scale. These insects are grown mainly on food substrates, such as mixed organic waste, food waste from shops and markets, industrial food waste and commercial animal feed [12]. Moreover, black soldier fly larvae is considered as the topmost farmed and studied insect for use as animal feed, mainly for poultry, fish and pets [9,10,11, 13,14,15,16,17,18,19].

However, for the sector to grow and expand sustainably for animal feed purposes, there is a need to increase the number of reared insect species through mass production of other edible insects including highly reproductive, seasonal swarming insects from Southern Africa. This includes edible insects such as termites alates (Macrotermes spp.), migratory locusts (Locusta migratoria) and mopane worms (Imbresia belina). These edible insects could be considered for farming on a large scale since they are environmentally friendly, have a good nutritional profile [20, 21]. Moreover, they are adapted to feeding on readily available specific tree leaves and grasses, however, they could also be reared on food substrates utilised by conventional insects [22]. Their incorporation in animal diets has been widely reported to provide nutritional, economic, environmental and health benefits [9, 23,24,25,26,27,28]. Most previous insects studies focused more on the nutritional value, processing, storage and safe consumption [29,30,31,32] and less on their profitability and price differentials [9, 33, 34]. Thus, are insects and insect-based diets cost effective and economically beneficial as compared to conventional protein sources?

This review, therefore, intends to provide valuable information on the potential rearing of selected swarming insects on a large scale as well as answers on the cost-effectiveness of incorporating insects and insect meals for animal feeding. Thus, the potential farming of termites, locusts and mopane worms based on their reproductive ability was discussed, different food substrates required by reared insects as well as recent reports on the inclusion of insect meals in animal diets, and lastly the economic efficiency of utilising insect-based animal diets and the costs of producing insects on a large scale were discussed.

Potential farming of termites, locusts and mopane worms

Edible insects could be acquired through harvesting, semi-domestication and indoor farming [10, 32]. Because insect harvesting is considered unsustainable as it tampers with the ecological food chain and biodiversity [32]. The indoor farming has been reported to provide quicker breeding cycles and a better return on investment. It also requires less space with limited barriers to enter the insect market [35, 36]. However, for successful rearing of insects, proper growth and a high reproductive potential play a significant role in identifying the type of edible insects suitable rearing on a large scale [37]. For instance, yellow mealworm and black soldier fly are the most popularly farmed insects since they can be easily multiplied rapidly and produced in large quantities [33]. The maggots from black soldier fly are available throughout the year and could be harvested after two to four weeks on a commercial scale [1, 17, 18, 22]. Again, they could turn food substrates, including organic by-products into high quality protein [38]. However, the larvae from commercially farmed insects are highly sensitive to the type of food substrates they consume and other factors, such as temperature, light and humidity, which significantly influences the successful rearing of edible insects in terms of growth and performance [39]. For instance, Johnsen et al. [33], observed that relative humidity below 48% could result in a high mortality rate of maggots just before the harvesting phase when reared on a large scale.

Hence, the recent research studies are closely monitoring the possibility of utilising swarming insects such as termite alates, locusts and mopane worms. These seasonal edible insects are endemic to Southern African soils. They have been shown to thrive well in a warm environment which enables them to grow and multiply rapidly, resulting in outbreaks [40]. As shown in Fig. 1, a small colony could produce large quantities of eggs that will yield more insects at the harvesting phase. Hence, they could potentially be explored as additional insect species to conventional insects reared or farmed on a large scale. The commercial rearing of these insects as feed ingredient could also play an important role in helping to reduce feed costs. However, it is critical to take into consideration factors including infrastructure, processing method, storage, marketing and distribution, laws and regulations as well as operational costs including food substrates, electricity and labour when rearing insects from egg to harvesting stage [17, 32, 34, 37, 41, 42, 66].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Reproductive potential of selected insect species (Source: Microsoft bing: https://www.bing.com/images/search?)

Full size image

Food substrates for edible insects

According to Rumbos et al. [11], the type of food substrates used to farm insects highly influences their reproductive ability and nutritional composition. Subsequently, affecting their colour, taste and palatability as animal feed. In general, farmed insect species at different stages of development require different feed substrates in varying quantities until the harvesting phase [17]. As shown in Fig. 2, the common edible insects are harvested at different growth stages, in which the earliest and latest harvest could be made in just 14 and 82 days, respectively. Their survival rate highly depends on the type of food substrate they consume [42]. For instance, it takes only two weeks to harvest palm weevil larvae when fed fruit waste of banana and pineapple and millet waste [43]. However, fly maggots could be reared on organic waste materials, livestock manure and other feed substrates, such as fermented palm kernel meal, subsequently converting the substrates into high quality nutrients [43]. Yellow mealworms, on the other hand, require dried and cooked waste materials from fruits, vegetables, and cereals. Moreover, they could also be fed wheat bran or flour supplemented with soybean flour, skimmed milk powder and yeast [40, 44]. Again, crickets reared under an adult production system consume a mixed diet of vegetables and grains [28]. The waste materials excreted by farmed insects could be used as a biofertilizer to help boost the fertility of arable soils since the waste is mainly rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium [45].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Growth period of common edible insects until harvesting phase. [Source: [12, 42]]

Full size image

As shown in Table 1, winged termites, locusts and mopane worms could potentially be reared on similar substrates similar to commercially farmed insects, with the exception of livestock manure. However, mopane worms strictly require plant residues, especially mopane leaves as their main food source [22]. It has been reported that the consumption of unwanted food substrates could significantly influence nutrient availability in edible insects since not all feed substrates are suitable or permitted to be consumed by reared insects [46]. It is, therefore, not advisable to feed insects undesirable food substrates or even commercial diets or livestock feed ingredients since it will initiate competition of food between insects and livestock. Hence, knowledge about the various substrates required by each insect species is highly required [17]. Factors such as stage of development, mating season, and processing methods, and environmental factors like temperature, light, and humidity indirectly affects food substrates utilisation by farmed insects [19, 39].

Table 1 Food substrates suitable for termites, locusts and mopane worms
Full size table

Supplementation of selected insects in animal diets

Although there is little or no information on commercial farming of selected swarming insects (termites, locusts and mopane worms), Table 2 shows recent literature reported on partial or complete inclusion these swarming insects in livestock diets as a replacement for fishmeal or soybean meal. Based on the reported findings, both conventional insects and swarming insects as potential alternatives appears to produce similar results when included in animal diets, especially poultry species in particular. Thus, the selected swarming insects could successfully be included in diets to replace CPS at different levels without any adverse effect on their production parameters. Kenis et al. [1] also observed a nonsignificant difference in the growth and survival of chicks when utilising termite meal in comparison with conventional feedstuffs. Similar to commercially reared insects, their nutritional value has also been reported to be comparable to that of CPS [1, 20, 48]. In addition, Selaledi et al. [38] further reported that edible insects, including termites, locusts and mopane worms contain high quality protein, fats and essential minerals required for the proper growth and health of livestock. Hence, they could be potentially reared in large quantities for animal feeding. However, it has been reported that excess inclusion levels could significantly reduce performance due to an accumulation of fats and antinutritional factors such as chitin found in exoskeletons of insects [39]. Nevertheless, various processing methods including oil extraction, drying, boiling and degutting could aid in improving nutrient quality and availability of selected swarming insects when farmed in large quantities. Hence, there is a need for the commercial production of termites, locusts and mopane on a large scale. In addition, more studies and experimental trials in various countries are still required to support the available literature.

Table 2 Comparison between commonly farmed and other selected insects used for livestock and aquaculture feed based on the processing techniques inclusion levels, and performance
Full size table

Economic cost–benefit analysis of common edible insects

From an economic perspective, the utilisation of insects and insect meals continue to expand and become more popular in the animal feed industry. As shown in Table 3, insect-based diets are considered to have a higher benefit − cost ratio with better return on investment when substituting CPS of up to 100% replacement level. Similarly, Roffeis et al. [49], Sumbule et al. [13] and Zewdu et al. [45] reported that insect-based diets could be economically beneficial when replacing fishmeal and soybean meal in animal diets since they could be included in less quantities and still provide more digestible protein as compared to CPS [48]. Black soldier fly is currently the most popular farmed insect produced in large quantities as a protein source for fish, poultry, pets and other livestock species (Fig. 3). Hence, there is a need to expand the insect farming industry to increase supply for animal feed through the introduction of other rapidly growing insects to meet insect demand, increase profitability and minimise the costs of insect-based diets [41]. However, the production capacity of farmed insects still limited by high production costs and increased market prices (Fig. 4), which consequently threatens the sustainability utilising commercial edible insects mainly black soldier fly and yellow mealworm in animal diets [15]. Edible insects prices are expected to become even more competitive in the next coming years due to a high insect demand with limited supplies because of fewer insect-producing farmers [12]. Similar to CPS, as high protein demand and human-to-animal competition continues to elevate their prices [9]. According to Roffeis et al. [49], the factors driving the economic performance of insect-based diets are costs mainly associated with labour and food substrates required for insect farming. In addition, the rearing systems used by insect biotechnology companies or farms require expensive equipment such as oil extraction machines, incubators, proper storage, and special diets for successful rearing [17, 37].

Table 3 Economic efficiency of insect meals as feed for animals
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Protein meal production output for black soldier fly in 2019 [Source: [12]

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Prices and protein yield of edible insects and conventional protein sources. (Sources: [12, 32, 50, 54, 61,62,63,64,65])

Full size image

Therefore, knowledge about the protein yield (benefit) and sales prices (costs) are crucial in determining the cost-effectiveness of various edible insects compared to CPS [50]. The high costs of CPS, mainly fishmeal and soybean meal, and their negative impact on the environment has been widely documented [6, 51,52,53,54]. Based on recent data as shown in Fig. 4, edible insects appears to contain higher protein content than CPS in terms of protein yield, indicating that less quantity of insects could substitute higher amount of CPS in livestock diets. For instance, 1 kg of fish meal in diets could be substituted by 0.76, 0.81, 0.85, 0.91 and 0.95 kg of crickets (75% CP), termites/silkworms (70% CP), BSFs (66% CP), locusts/yellow mealworms (60% CP) and mopane worms (56% CP) whereas, 0.74, 0.79, 0.83, 0.89 and 0.93 kg of the same insect species, respectively, could be used to replace 1 kg of soybean meal (49%CP) in animal diets. Thus, insects-based diets would be more beneficial for animal producing farmers in terms of protein yield. Nonetheless, edible insects have remarkably higher prices ($ per kg) than traditional diets with CPS (Fig. 4), however, insect prices vary from one country to another depending on the demand and availability [12]. This recent gradual increase in prices may be due to a global increase in demand for edible insects with less supplies and limited insect producers as food and feed [4, 5, 8, 10, 11]. Moreover, the rise in import and export of edible insects between neighbouring countries, particularly in Africa, may also be the cause of elevated insect demand [55].

According to Fig. 1, black soldier fly larvae are currently the most expensive insects in $ per kg although they are currently the most preferred insects as feed for animals [14]. This may have a significant influence on the total costs of incorporating various insect meals in animal diets regardless of their nutritional and environmental benefits. Although all edible insects reported in Fig. 1 contained almost similar protein content, other potential alternatives including termites, locusts and mopane worms have lower prices per kg than conventionally farmed insects, especially black soldier fly and yellow mealworm. Similar to CPS and conventional insects, the protein content from swarming insects could be effectively utilised by livestock, mainly poultry, pigs and fish, to yield protein-rich meat for human consumption. Hence, the information on price differentials could prove to be very useful to livestock farmers when estimating the profitability of incorporating any type of edible insect species in animal diets to avoid operating at a loss [34].

Conclusion

The need for sustainable production of insects as animal feed to gradually substitute CPS is one of the main priorities of the insect farming industry since CPS production have negative impact on the environment and are responsible for a large proportion of the costs of feeds for livestock and aquaculture. Although the current prices of conventional edible insects and still high compared to CPS, expanding the insect farming industry through the addition of swarming insects with strategic breeding and better processing techniques will increase the quantity supply and improve affordability of edible insects in the market. This is because their sales prices per kilograms are more reasonable compared with high protein yield compared to conventional insects such as black soldier flies and yellow mealworms. In conclusion, breeding and mass production of swarming edible insects such as winged termites, migratory locusts and mopane worms could, therefore, improve the sustainability of insect farming and reduce total costs of utilising insect meals in animal diets. This could be highly beneficial to farmers, biotechnological and animal feed companies interested in insect rearing and production of insect-based diets to maximize production at reduced costs. However, further research is recommended on total operational costs and suitable food substrates required for optimal production of swarming insects as food and feed. Again, thorough research on comparison of insect based diets and other commercial diets in terms of cost benefits analysis is also recommended to make proper conclusions on farming and utilisation of edible insects in animal production industry.

Availability of data and materials

The data used in this review paper was acquired from recently published scientific literature in different journals. This was done using electronic databases including Google Scholar, Research Gate, and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). In addition, other citations included in the manuscripts were used to further search relevant literature related to the topic of interest.

References

  1. Kenis M, Koné N, Chrysostome CAAM, Devic E, Koko GKD, Clottey VA, Nacambo S, Mensah GA. Insects used for animal feed in West Africa. Entomologia. 2014. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.4081/entomologia.2014.218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Moruzzo R, Mancini S, Guidi A. Edible insects and sustainable development goals. Insects. 2021;12(6):557. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects12060557.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sergei S, Finger R. Effects of drought on hay and feed grain prices. Environ Res Lett. 2020;15(3):034014. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1088/1748-9326/ab68ab.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nogales-Merida S, Gobbi P, Józefiak D, Mazurkiewicz J, Dudek K, Rawski M, Kierończyk B, Józefiak A. Insect meals in fish nutrition. Rev Aquac. 2019;11(4):1080–103. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/raq.12281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tilami SK, Turek J, Červený D, Lepič P, Kozák P, Burkina V, Sakalli S, Tomčala A, Sampels S, Mráz J. Insect meal as a partial replacement for fish meal in a formulated diet for perch Perca fluviatilis. Turk J Fish Aquat Sci. 2020;20(12):867–78. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.4194/1303-2712-v20_12_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Veldkamp T, Bosch G. Insects: a protein-rich feed ingredient in pig and poultry diets. Anim Front. 2015;5(2):45–50.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Thirumalaisamy G, Muralidharan J, Senthilkumar S, Sayee RH, Priyadharsini M. Cost-effective feeding of poultry. Int J Sci Environ Technol. 2016;5(6):3997–4005. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13116074.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Huis A, Oonincx DGAB. The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2017. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s13593-017-0452-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sogari G, Mora C, Menozzi D. Edible insects in the food sector methods current applications and perspectives. Berlin: Springer Nature; 2019. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/978-3-030-22522-3.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Madau FA, Arru B, Furesi R, Pulina P. Insect farming for feed and food production from a circular business model perspective. Sustainability. 2020;12(13):5418. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12135418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rumbos CI, Karapanagiotidis IT, Mente E, Psofakis P, Athanassiou CG. Evaluation of various commodities for the development of the yellow mealworm, Tenebrio molitor. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):11224. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1038/s41598-020-67363-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Verner D, Roos N, Halloran A, Surabian G, Ashwill M, Vellani S, Konishi Y. Insect and hydroponic farming in Africa: the new circular food economy. World Bank Publ. 2021. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1596/978-1-4648-1766-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sumbule EK, Ambula MK, Osuga IM, Changeh JG, Mwangi DM, Subramanian S, Tanga CM. Cost-effectiveness of black soldier fly larvae meal as substitute of fishmeal in diets for layer chicks and growers. Sustainability. 2021;13(11):6074. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13116074.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. dos Santos DKM, de Freitas OR, Oishi CA, da Fonseca FAL, Parisi G, Uribe GL. Full-fat black soldier fly larvae meal in diet for tambaqui, colossoma macropomum: digestibility, growth performance and economic analysis of feeds. Animals. 2023;13(3):360. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani13030360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Arru B, Furesi R, Gasco L, Madau FA, Pulina P. The introduction of insect meal into fish diet: the first economic analysis on European sea bass farming. Sustainability. 2019;11(6):1697. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11061697.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jordan HR, Tomberlin JK. Microbial influence on reproduction, conversion, and growth of mass-produced insects. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2021;48:57–63. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.cois.2021.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pinotti L, Ottoboni M. Substrate as insect feed for bio-mass production. J Insects Food Feed. 2021;7(5):585–96. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3920/JIFF2020.0110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Khan S, Khan RU, Alam W, Sultan A. Evaluating the nutritive profile of three insect meals and their effects to replace soya bean in broiler diet. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2018;102(2):e662–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/jpn.12809.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Koutsos EA, Patterson PH, Livingston KA, Freel TA. The role of insects for poultry feed: present and future perspective In Mass Production of Beneficial Organisms. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2023. p. 493–509. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/B978-0-12-822106-8.00002-6.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Nginya ES, Ondiek JO, King’ori AM, Nduko JM. Evaluation of grasshoppers as a protein source for improved indigenous chicken growers. LRRD. 2019; 31(1). http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd31/1/shilo31002.html

  21. Anyiam PN, Nwuke CP, Adimuko GC, Nwamadi CP, Salvador EM, Ajibade GF, Maxwell EC. Inclusion of African winged termites (Macrotermes nigeriensis) improves the nutrients and quality of fermented cassava mahewu. Afr J Biotechnol. 2022;21(2):46–54. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5897/AJB2021.17444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moreki JC, Tiroesele B, Chiripasi SC. Prospects of utilizing insects as alternative sources of protein in poultry diets in Botswana: a review. J Anim Sci Adv. 2012;2(8):649–58.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bovera F, Piccolo G, Gasco L, Marono S, Loponte R, Vassalotti G, Mastellone V, Lombardi P, Attia YA, Nizza A. Yellow mealworm larvae (Tenebrio molitor, L.) as a possible alternative to soybean meal in broiler diets. Br Poult Sci. 2015;56(5):569–75. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/00071668.2015.1080815.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Agbanimu AB, Adeparusi EO. Growth performance and nutrient utilization of African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) juveniles fed varying inclusions of defatted African palm weevils (Rhynchophorus phoenicis) meal. Aquac Stud. 2020;20(2):073–9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.4314/bajopas.v3i1.58739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lange KW, Nakamura Y. Edible insects as future food: chances and challenges. J Future Foods. 2021;1(1):38–46. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jfutfo.2021.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Keil C, Grebenteuch S, Kröncke N, Kulow F, Pfeif S, Kanzler C, Haase H. Systematic studies on the antioxidant capacity and volatile compound profile of yellow mealworm larvae (T. molitor L.) under different drying regimes. Insects. 2022;13(2):166. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects13020166.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. El Hajj R, Mhemdi H, Besombes C, Lefrancois V, Allaf K, Vorobiev E. Instant controlled pressure-drop assisted pressing for defatting and dewatering of yellow mealworm larvae: process study and optimisation. J Insects Food Feed. 2023. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3920/JIFF2022.0062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahmed E, Nishida T. Optimal inclusion levels of cricket and silkworm as alternative ruminant feed: a study on their impacts on rumen fermentation and gas production. Sustainability. 2023;15(2):1415. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su15021415.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Abro Z, Kassie M, Tanga C, Beesigamukama D, Diiro G. Socio-economic and environmental implications of replacing conventional poultry feed with insect-based feed in Kenya. J Clean Prod. 2020;265:121871. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tanga C, Dorothy N. Final technical report: INSFEED2: insect feed for poultry, fish and pig production in Sub-Saharan Africa–phase 2. 2021. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/60979/IDL%20-%2060979.pdf.

  31. Egonyu J, Subramanian S, Tanga CM, Dubois T, Ekesi S, Kelemu S. Global overview of locusts as food, feed and other uses. Glob. 2021;31:100574. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mnisi CM, Oyeagu CE, Ruzvidzo O. Mopane worm (Gonimbrasia belina Westwood) meal as a potential protein source for sustainable quail production: a review. Sustainability. 2022;14(9):5511. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14095511.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Johnsen NS, Andersen JL, Offenberg J. The effect of relative humidity on the survival and growth rate of the yellow mealworm larvae (Tenebrio molitor, Linnaeus 1758). J Insects Food Feed. 2021;7(3):311–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3920/JIFF2020.0068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Niyonsaba HH, Höhler J, Kooistra J, Van der Fels-Klerx HJ, Meuwissen MPM. Profitability of insect farms. J Insects Food Feed. 2021;7(5):923–34. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3920/JIFF2020.0087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Govorushko S. Global status of insects as food and feed source: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2019;91:436–45. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.032.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Reverberi M. Edible insects: cricket farming and processing as an emerging market. JIFF. 2020;6:211–20. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3920/JIFF2019.0052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ortiz JC, Ruiz AT, Morales-Ramos JA, Thomas M, Rojas MG, Tomberlin JK, Yi L, Han R, Giroud L, Jullien RL. Insect mass production technologies Insects as sustainable food ingredients. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2016. p. 153–201. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/B978-0-12-802856-8.00006-5.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Selaledi LA, Mbajiorgu CA, Mabelebele M. The use of yellow mealworm (T. molitor) as alternative source of protein in poultry diets: a review. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2020;52(1):7–16. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s11250-019-02033-7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Oonincx DGAB. Finke MD Nutritional value of insects and ways to manipulate their composition. J Insects Food Feed. 2021;7(5):639–59. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3920/JIFF2020.0050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Makkar HPS, Tranb G, Heuzéb V, Ankersa P. State-of-the-art on use of insects as animal feed. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2014;197:1–33. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.07.008.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Sengendo F, Subramanian S, Kidoido M, Chemurot M, Tanga C, Egonyu JP. Cost–benefit analysis of improved light trap for harvesting the edible grasshopper, Ruspolia differens (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): evidence from Uganda. Int J Trop Insect Sci. 2021;41:1913–21. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s42690-021-00505-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Toviho OA, Bársony P. Nutrient composition and growth of yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) at different ages and stages of the life cycle. Agriculture. 2022;12(11):1924. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture12111924.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Quayea B, Atuahene CC, Donkoh A, Adjei BM, Opoku O, Amankrah MA. Alternative feed resource for growing African palm weevil (Rhynchophorus phoenicis) larvae in commercial production. ASRJETS. 2018;48(1):36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Khan SH. Recent advances in role of insects as alternative protein source in poultry nutrition. J Appl Anim Res. 2018;46(1):1144–57. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/09712119.2018.1474743.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Zewdu A, Ibrahim N M, Kelvin M, Sevgan S, Chrysantus M T, Menale K. The potential economic benefits of insect-based feed in Uganda. 2022. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12562/1777.

  46. Chinarak K, Chaijan M, Panpipat W. Farm-raised sago palm weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus) larvae: potential and challenges for promising source of nutrients. J Food Compost Anal. 2020;92:103542. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jfca.2020.103542.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Pélissié B, Piou C, Jourdan-Pineau H, Pages C, Blondin L, Chapuis MP. Extra molting and selection on nymphal growth in the desert locust. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5):e0155736. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1371/journal.pone.0155736.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Marareni M, Mnisi CM. Growth performance, serum biochemistry and meat quality traits of Jumbo quails fed with mopane worm (Imbrasia belina) meal-containing diets. Vet Anim Sci. 2020;10:100141. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.vas.2020.100141.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Roffeis M, Wakefield ME, Almeida J, Valada TRA, Devic E, Kenis M, Muys B. Life cycle cost assessment of insect-based feed production in West Africa. J Clean. 2018;199:792–806. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Maillard F, Macombe C, Aubin J, Romdhana H, Mezdour S. Mealworm larvae production systems: management scenarios. In: Halloran A, Flore R, Vantomme P, Roos N, editors. Edible insects in sustainable food systems. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 277–301.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Mulazzani L, Madau FA, Pulina P, Malorgio G. Acceptance of insect meal in aquaculture feeding: a stakeholder analysis for the Italian supply chains of trout and seabass. J World Aquac Soc. 2021;52(2):378–94. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/jwas.12766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vrabec V, Kulma M, Cocan D. Insects as an alternative protein source for animal feeding: a short review about chemical composition bulletin of the university of agricultural sciences veterinary medicine Cluj-Napoca. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2015;72(2):1–11. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.15835/buasvmcn-asb:11656.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Fisher HJ, Collins SA, Hanson C, Mason B, Colombo SM, Anderson DM. Black soldier fly larvae meal as a protein source in low fish meal diets for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquac. 2020;521:734–978. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.734978.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Nagappan S, Das P, AbdulQuadir M, Thaher M, Khan S, Mahata C, et al. Potential of microalgae as a sustainable feed ingredient for aquaculture. J Biotechnol. 2021;341:1–20. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2021.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. van Huis A, van Itterbeeck J, Klunder H, Mertens E, Halloran A, Vantomme P. Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2013. p. 187.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Onsongo VO, Osuga IM, Gachuiri CK, Wachira AM, Miano DM, Tanga CM, et al. Insects for income generation through animal feed: effect of dietary replacement of soybean and fish meal with black soldier fly meal on broiler growth and economic performance. J Econ Entomol. 2018;111(4):1966–73. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1093/jee/toy118.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Tavares MN, Pereira RT, Silva AL, Lemes LR, Menten JFM, Gameiro AH. Economic viability of insect meal as a novel ingredient in diets for broiler chickens. J Insects Food Feed. 2022;8(9):1015–25. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3920/JIFF2021.0179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kishawy AT, Mohammed HA, Zaglool AW, Attia MS, Hassan FA, Roushdy EM, Ibrahim D. Partial defatted black solider larvae meal as a promising strategy to replace fish meal protein in diet for Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus): performance, expression of protein and fat transporters, and cytokines related genes and economic efficiency. Aquac. 2022;555:738195. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738195.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Limbu SM, Shoko AP, Ulotu EE, Luvanga SA, Munyi FM, John JO, Opiyo MA. Black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens, L.) larvae meal improves growth performance, feed efficiency and economic returns of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus, L.) fry. Aquac Fish. 2022;2(3):167–78. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/aff2.48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Chia SY, Tanga CM, Osuga IM, Alaru AO, Mwangi DM, Githinji M, Dicke M. Effect of dietary replacement of fishmeal by insect meal on growth performance, blood profiles and economics of growing pigs in Kenya. Animals. 2019;9(10):705. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani9100705.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Seni A. Edible insects: future prospects for dietary regimen. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(8):1302–14. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.608.158.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Ahmad RS, Imran A, Hussain MB. Nutritional composition of meat. Meat Sci Nutr. 2018;61(105772):61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Anyuor S, Ayieko M, Amulen D. Commercialization of Alate termites (macrotermes sp.) to improve households’ livelihoods in Vihiga County, Kenya. African J Food Agric Nutr Dev. 2022;22(1):19326–38. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.18697/ajfand.106.21085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hlongwane ZT, Slotow R, Munyai TC. The role of edible insects in rural livelihoods, and identified challenges in Vhembe District, Limpopo, South Africa. Resources. 2021;10(12):123. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/resources10120123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Popescu A. Trends in pork market in the European Union and in its main producing countries in the period 2007–2018. Sci Papers Manag Econ Eng Agric Rural Develop. 2020;20(1):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Orinda M, Magara H, Ayieko M, Nyakeri E. GREEiNSECT Technical Brief#2 Report: Insect production systems for food and feed in Kenya. 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327573356

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank University of South Africa, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences for resources required to complete this paper.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of South Africa. This review did not receive any specific funding or grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agriculture and Animal Health, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Florida, 1710, South Africa

    Sekobane Daniel Kolobe, Tlou Grace Manyelo, Nthabiseng Amenda Sebola, Emmanuel Malematja & Mabelebele Monnye

Authors
  1. Sekobane Daniel Kolobe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tlou Grace Manyelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nthabiseng Amenda Sebola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emmanuel Malematja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mabelebele Monnye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SD; conceptualization and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. MM; was involved in reviewing and editing. TG, E and NA; were involved in critical revision and searching of relevant articles suitable for writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mabelebele Monnye.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kolobe, S.D., Manyelo, T.G., Sebola, N.A. et al. Prospects of rearing selected southern African swarming insects for animal feed: a review on insect farming and the economic value of edible insects. Agric & Food Secur 13, 6 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s40066-023-00457-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s40066-023-00457-x

Keywords

Agriculture & Food Security

ISSN: 2048-7010