4.7 Article

Effects of dietary replacement of fishmeal by mealworm meal on muscle quality of farmed shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei

Journal

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 102, Issue -, Pages 445-450

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.017

Keywords

Pacific white shrimp; Insect meal; Proteins; Fatty acids; Colour; Firmness

Funding

  1. CNPq (National Council of Scientific and Technological Development, Brazil) [471491-2012-8]
  2. CAPES (Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the muscle quality of the shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei fed on a diet containing different proportions of mealworm meal (MW) (0, 25, 50, 75 and 100%) as a substitute for fishmeal, which is the normal diet used in shrimp commercial production. The proximate composition, fatty acid profile, colour and texture of the shrimps were evaluated. Moisture, protein, and ash content of shrimp muscle were not significantly altered when fishmeal was replaced by MW (p > 0.05). However, the replacement resulted in a linear increase in lipid content (p < 0.05). The fatty acid composition of the experimental diets directly mirrored the fatty acid composition of shrimp muscle. The absence of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in MW composition resulted in a linear decrease in eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic fatty acids in shrimp muscle with increasing levels of MW in the diet. The n - 3/n - 6 ratio ranged from 0.50 to 0.67. Colour and firmness were unchanged between the treatments. Although the use of MW as a fishmeal substitute in L. vannamei diets has affected the lipid and fatty acid composition of shrimp muscle, from a human nutritional perspective, the lipid content of the shrimps is considered low and the n - 3/n - 6 ratio remained within the human dietary requirements. Therefore the use of a mealworm diet for shrimp production is a viable alternative to increasingly expensive fishmeal based diets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available