4.7 Article

Black Soldier Fly (Hermetia Illucens) as Dietary Source for Laying Quails: Live Performance, and Egg Physico-Chemical Quality, Sensory Profile and Storage Stability

期刊

ANIMALS
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ani9030115

关键词

black soldier fly; insect meal; alternative protein; animal feeding; quail; egg quality; nutritional composition; fatty acid profile; oxidation

资金

  1. University of Padova [2016-DOR1603318, 1098]
  2. PSR 2014-2020 misura 16.1.1 Project InsectFeedChick [DGR 1203/2016]
  3. Erasmus+/KA103 mobility funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insects are promising candidates as alternative sustainable sources of protein for poultry species. The present research studied the effect of a dietary inclusion of a defatted black soldier fly (BSF) larvae meal as an alternative protein source in the diets of laying quails, on productive performance, egg physicochemical quality, fatty acid profile, sensory traits and storage stability. A total of 225 laying quails were divided into 3 dietary groups (5 replicates/each). A conventional soybean meal-based diet was formulated (Control group), and two other diets were formulated including either 10% (BSF10) or 15% (BSF15) defatted BSF larvae meal. Laying quails showed satisfactory productive performance throughout the trial. BSF10 and BSF15 eggs had the highest shape index (p < 0.01), shell weight and percentage (p < 0.001) and the most intense yolk color (p < 0.001). Defatted BSF larvae meal increased the eggs' saturated fatty acid content (p < 0.001) to the detriment of the polyunsaturated fraction (p < 0.001). Overall the eggs' sensory profile was not affected by the dietary treatment, but BSF15 eggs had a higher feed off-flavor vs Control group (p < 0.05). At day 28 of storage, oxidative stability was higher in BSF10 vs. Control eggs (p < 0.01). Defatted BSF larvae meal can be considered a possible alternative ingredient to soybean meal in laying quail diets, up to the 15% inclusion level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据