4.4 Article

Can dried mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) larvae replace fish meal in weaned pigs?

期刊

LIVESTOCK SCIENCE
卷 239, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104103

关键词

Dried mealworm; Growth performance; Nutrient digestibility; Weaned pigs

资金

  1. Bio-industry Technology Development Program through the Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (iPET) [315021-04]
  2. KRIBB Research Initiative Program, Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was conducted to determine the influence of substitution of fish meal with dried mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) larvae on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profiles and fecal noxious gas emission in weaned pigs. A total of 240 crossbred weaned pigs [(Yorkshire x Landrace) x Duroc] at 22 d of age with an average body weight (BW) of 6.90 +/- 0.03 kg were randomly allocated into 3 treatments with 8 replicates per treatment and 10 pigs per replicate (pen) according to BW. Dietary treatments included: 1) CON, basal diet with 2% fish meal; 2) T1, basal diet with 1% fish meal and 1% dried mealworm (Tenebrio molitor); T2, basal diet with 2% dried mealworm (Tenebrio molitor). During d 0-7, weaned pigs fed T2 diet had higher (P < 0.05) feed-to-gain ratio (F/G) than those fed CON and T1 diets. During d 8-21, feeding T1 diet decreased (P < 0.05) average daily gain (ADG) compared with CON diet and a quadratic effect on F/G was observed (P < 0.05). During d 0-35, ADG and final BW in T1 treatment was lower (P 0.05) than that in CON. The apparent total tract digestibility of nitrogen in T1 treatment was lower compared with CON. Dietary treatments did not affect (P 0.05) red blood cells, white blood cells, lymphocyte, total protein, blood urea nitrogen, insulin-like growth factor or immunoglobulin G and fecal ammonia, hydrogen sulfide or total mercaptans emission. Taken together, the dried mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) larvae did not outperform the fish meal in this study.

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

4.4
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