4.5 Article

Habitat-centric versus species-centric approaches to edible insects for food and feed

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN INSECT SCIENCE
卷 48, 期 -, 页码 37-43

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cois.2021.09.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative [2019-67030-28997]
  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service [FX20TA-10960R003]
  3. University of Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences , Innovation Venture Investment Project [2144556]
  4. University of Arizona Center for Insect Science [2146220]
  5. University of Arizona Green Fund [19.24P, 20.19P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current edible insect industry uses a species-centric approach and a habitat-centric approach, each focusing on different issues and offering unique advantages. Future development of the edible insect industry is likely to involve a combination of these two approaches.
The current paradigm of the edible insects for food and feed industry uses a species-centric approach in which an insect species is chosen first and development of rearing practices follows. The goal is to optimize production to maximize the yield of that species in that facility. In contrast, the habitat-centric approach first chooses a habitat, either natural or artificial, then develops harvesting or rearing protocols within that habitat. The goal of this approach is to maximize the yield derived from that habitat. The habitat-centric approach eliminates potential threats from invasive species, and can repurpose local food and agricultural waste into protein derived from local insect species. This approach can increase food security by increasing the diversity of insects that are mass-produced. The species-centric and habitat-centric approaches address different issues and offer advantages in different situations. Further development of the edible insect industry will likely use a combination of both approaches.

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

4.5
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