Nutritional Characteristics of Selected Insects in Uganda for Use as Alternative Protein Sources in Food and Feed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insects are potential ingredients for animal feed and human food. Their suitability may be influenced by species and nutritional value. This study was aimed at determining the nutritional profile of four insects: Dipterans; black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens Linnaeus) family stratiomyidae and blue calliphora flies (Calliphora vomitoria Linnaeus) family Calliphoridae; and orthopterans; crickets (Acheta domesticus Linnaeus) family Gryllidae and grasshoppers (Ruspolia nitidula Linnaeus) family Tettigoniidae to establish their potential as alternative protein sources for animals (fish and poultry) and humans. Gross energy, crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, carbohydrates, and total ash were in the ranges of 2028.11-2551.61 kJ/100 g, 44.31-64.90, 0.61-46.29, 5.075-16.61, 3.43-12.27, and 3.23-8.74 g/100 g, respectively. Hermetia illucens had the highest energy and ash content; C. vomitoria were highest in protein and fiber content, R. nitidula were highest in fat, whereas A. domesticus had the highest carbohydrate content. All insects had essential amino acids required for poultry, fish, and human nutrition. The arginine to lysine ratios of H. illucens, C. vomitoria, A. domesticus, and R. nitidula were 1.45, 1.06, 1.06, and 1.45, respectively. The fatty acids comprised of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and saturated fatty acids (SFAs). Palmitic acid (23.6-38.8 g/100 g of total fat) was the most abundant SFA, exception R. nitidula with 14 g/100 g stearic acid. Linoleic acid (190-1,723 mg/100 g) and linolenic acid (650-1,903 mg/100 g) were the most abundant PUFAs. Only C. vomitoria had docosahexaenoic acid. The study indicates that the insects studied are rich in crude protein and other nutrients and can potentially be used for human and animal (fish and poultry) feeding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".