Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".