Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35144685›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2022

Insects as alternative feed for ruminants: comparison of protein evaluation methods.

Pablo G Toral, Gonzalo Hervás, Mariana Gabriela González-Rosales, Alejandro G Mendoza, Lizbeth E Robles-Jiménez, Pilar Frutos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Heliyon · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Are insects a solution for feeding ruminants? Legislation, scientific evidence, and future challenges.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Pablo G ToralInstituto de Ganadería de Montaña (CSIC-University of León), Finca Marzanas s/n, 24346 Grulleros, León, Spain.
Gonzalo HervásInstituto de Ganadería de Montaña (CSIC-University of León), Finca Marzanas s/n, 24346 Grulleros, León, Spain.
Mariana Gabriela González-RosalesInstituto de Ganadería de Montaña (CSIC-University of León), Finca Marzanas s/n, 24346 Grulleros, León, Spain.
Alejandro G MendozaInstituto de Ganadería de Montaña (CSIC-University of León), Finca Marzanas s/n, 24346 Grulleros, León, Spain.
Lizbeth E Robles-JiménezInstituto de Ganadería de Montaña (CSIC-University of León), Finca Marzanas s/n, 24346 Grulleros, León, Spain.
Pilar FrutosInstituto de Ganadería de Montaña (CSIC-University of León), Finca Marzanas s/n, 24346 Grulleros, León, Spain. p.frutos@csic.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4919-5094
Instituto de Ganadería de Montaña · ESUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de México · MX

Funding

CSIC (Spanish National Research Council) PIE 202040E100European Social Fund RYC-2015-17230Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad RYC-2015-17230
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe high dependence of intensive ruminant production on soybean meal and the environmental impact of this crop encourage the search for alternative protein-rich feeds. The use of insects seems promising, but the extent of their ruminal protein degradation is largely unknown. This parameter has major influence not only on N utilization efficiency but also on the environmental burden of ruminant farming. In addition, although assessing ruminal N degradation represents a key first step to examine the potential of new feeds, it is a challenging task due to the lack of a reference method. This study was conducted to investigate the potential of 4 insects (Tenebrio molitor, Zophobas morio, Alphitobius diaperinus and Acheta domesticus) as alternative protein sources for ruminants, using 3 methodologies: 1) a regression technique based on the in vitro relationship between gas production and ammonia-N concentration; 2) a conventional in vitro technique of batch cultures of ruminal microorganisms, based on filtering the incubation residue through sintered glass crucibles; and 3) the in situ nylon bag technique. The in vitro intestinal digestibility of the non-degraded protein in the rumen was also determined. Soybean meal was used as a reference feedstuff.

resultsComparison of evaluation methods (regression, in vitro and in situ) did not allow to reliably select a single value of ruminal N degradation for the studied substrates, but all techniques seem to establish a similar ranking, with good correlations between methods, particularly between regression and in situ results. Regardless of the methodology, nitrogen from the 4 insects (with contents ranging from 81 to 112 g/kg of dry matter) did not show high ruminal degradation (41-76%), this value being always lower than that of soybean meal. Furthermore, the in vitro intestinal digestibility of non-degraded N was relatively high in all feeds (≥ 64%).

conclusionOverall, these results support the potential of the 4 studied insects as alternative feedstuffs for ruminants. Among them, T. molitor showed the lowest and greatest values of ruminal N degradation and intestinal digestibility, respectively, which would place it as probably the best option to replace dietary soybean meal and increase the sustainability of ruminant feeding.

Indexed as

In situIn vitroLivestockNitrogen degradationSheep

Identifiers

PMID35144685
PMCPMC8832790
OpenAlexW4211169163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.