Notice bibliographique
Résumé
More than 20 years ago, during a visit at the Insectarium in Montréal, Québec, Canada, my children saw lollipops with insects. Not surprisingly, they got very excited and pled that their happiness depends completely on having one of these lollipops. So we, parents, gave in and bought them. A few months later, I found all the lollipops, still in their wrappings under piles of T-shirts in their drawers. This little story reflects well the Western attitude towards considering insects as a feed ingredient—curious but not so sure about eating it. Faced with the prospect of eating insects, we feel a bit of disdain or fear, not only due to the novelty of the ingredient per se but something more visceral, imprinted in our Western culture. Is it possible that our attitude is due to the fact that under most climates in the Northern latitudes for Europe and North America, an abundant, reliable supply of edible insects in the wild is rare? One should admit that mosquitoes, even if so “evilly” present under Northern latitudes, hardly fit the definition of “edible.” Could it be one of the reasons why over the centuries, insects were never considered as a reliable source of nutrients under our latitudes? However, nowadays, the concept of insects as mini-livestock is emerging but is still facing reluctance. The major goal of the present issue of Animal Frontiers is to provide knowledge. Being aware of the potential of insects as food or feed ingredients is the first step towards acceptability. Heather Looy and John R. Wood, from King's University in Edmonton, Canada, invite us to take the time to think about the reasons for the Western negative attitudes towards eating insects and, more importantly, about the consequences of these attitudes on worldwide sustainable food security (Looy and Wood, 2015). The article by John N. Kinyuru, Joseph Birundu Mogendi, Chris A. Riwa, and Nancy W. Ndung'u, from Kenya, illustrates well the knowledge available if we think outside the Western paradigm and learn from traditional cultural knowledge the importance of entomophagy in maintaining food security in many countries (Kinyuru et al., 2015). Accepting agricultural practices different from familiar practices and embracing the fact that edible insects can be a valuable asset can lead to development of new profitable markets. For example, harvesting grasshoppers (Sphenarium purpurascens) in Mexico rather than using insecticides can open new markets for farmers while offering traditional food to consumers in sufficient amounts to encourage commercial exploitation of insects. René Cerritos, from Mexico, and Maria Klewer, from Germany, show that traditional agricultural practices well adapted to a specific environment are compatible with modern sustainable agriculture and can provide considerable economic benefits (Cerritos and Klewer, 2015). Cricket (Acheta domestica) based lollipops. Photo by Giulia Tacchini. Colored aphids. Photo by Sanjay Acharya. For most of us, insects are a nuisance, and it is difficult to comprehend that they can be a significant source of nutrients. Birgit A. Rumpold and Oliver Schlüter, from the Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering, in Potsdam, Germany, describe the nutritional value of the most frequently consumed insect orders and species (Rumpold and Schlüter, 2015). Looking at these values, it appears amazing that such a source of nutrients was disdainfully disregarded for years. Nevertheless, as is also the case for more conventional food sources, large-scale production and consumption of insects also poses potential safety issues. The Italian team of Simone Belluco, Carmen Losasso, Michela Maggioletti, Cristiana C. Alonzi, Antonia Ricci, and Maurizio G. Paoletti explain these issues and suggest future research avenues to address them (Belluco et al., 2015). Most papers in this issue are dealing with insects as food. However, insects have also a huge potential as a significant source of nutrients in livestock diets, mostly as replacement of traditional sources of animal protein. Gilles Tran and Valérie Heuzé, from the Association Française de Zootechnie, Paris, France, and Harinder P.S. Makkar, from FAO, Rome, Italy, describe insect species that are the best candidates for inclusion in fish diets. The authors also listed the major obstacles to a large-scale utilization of insects in fish diets that need to be addressed (Tran et al., 2015). Teun Veldkamp and Guido Bosch, from Wageningen UR in The Netherlands, proposed a similar approach to study the advantages and the problems that must be overcome to allow development of large-scale use of insects as a feed ingredient in pig and poultry diets. Fried silkworms in China. Photo by Steven G. Johnson. Finally, for those who want to challenge their ability to adapt to change, this issue of the magazine provides some websites where you can find recipes to prepare insect dishes as well as a list of restaurants where you can test your ability to learn “true hospitality” as described by Looy and Wood (2015). My hope is that the knowledge provided in this issue of Animal Frontiers will raise your interest for insects as food or feed ingredients. I hope that rather than considering this topic as a mere curiosity or worse, viewing it with distaste or disdain, you will keep your eyes and your mind open for ideas and development of new sustainable production systems based on traditional cultural knowledge adapted to current and future global needs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,015 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».