4.2 Article

Nutritional and anti-nutritional composition of Oecophylla smaragdina (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Odontotermes sp (Isoptera: Termitidae): Two preferred edible insects of Arunachal Pradesh, India

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASIA-PACIFIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 711-720

出版社

KOREAN SOC APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.aspen.2016.07.001

关键词

Entomophagy; Insect resource; Food; Chemical composition; Ants; Termites

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Govt. of India [DBT-NER/Agri/24/2013]
  2. Department of Science and Technology (DST), Govt. of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nutritional potential of Oecophylla smaragdina and Odontotermes sp., two common species of insects used as food by tribal people of Arunachal Pradesh and elsewhere in India was assessed. O. smaragdina and Odontotermes sp. contained 55.28 and 33.67% protein, 14.99 and 50.93% fat, 19.84 and 6.30% fibre, 2.59 and 3.01% ash and 7.30 and 6.09% carbohydrates, respectively. The protein of both species involved 18 amino acids, including all of the essential ones with the exception of methionine, which satisfies the recommended level (score > 100). In O. smaragdina, the MUFA fraction (51.55%) dominated the lipids and was followed by SFA (40.26%) and PUFA (8.19%). In Odontotermes sp. SFAs (52.89%) were dominant, followed by MUFAs (44.52%) and PUFAs (2.59%). In both species iron, zinc and copper were the most abundant minerals and calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium were present in substantial amounts. Respective values for anti-nutrients like phytic acid and tannin (mg/100 g) were 171.0 and 496.67 for O. smaragdina and 141.23 and 615.0 for Odontotennes sp., values much lower than corresponding ones from some common foods of plant origin. The two insects, once under controlled cultivation, could be a good choice as a replacement for some vertebrate animal food products. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Korean Society of Applied Entomology, Taiwan Entomological Society and Malaysian Plant Protection Society.

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

4.2
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