Evaluating the growth and cost–benefit analysis of feeding improved indigenous chicken with diets containing black soldier fly larva meal

The high cost of feed has been the major hindrance to a hindrance to the growth, sustainability, profitability, and expansion of poultry production. Black soldier fly larva (BSFL) meal is one of the most promising alternative protein sources widely accepted globally. This study evaluated the growth performance of improved indigenous chicken (IIC)-fed diets containing different inclusion levels of BSFL meals. The BSFL meal inclusion rates included 0% (Diet0), 5% (Diet1), 10% (Diet2), 15% (Diet3), and 20% (Diet4) as replacement to the expensive fish meal in chick and grower diets. Our results showed that diet significantly affected the average daily feed intake, feed conversion ratio, and average daily weight gain of the chicks. The average daily weight gain and feed conversion ratio, except average daily feed intake of the growers, was not significantly affected by diets. The gross profit margin, cost–benefit ratio, and return on investment of feeding birds with BSFL meal varied significantly. The highest cost–benefit ratio of 2.12 was recorded for birds fed on Diet4. Our findings demonstrate that insect-based feeds can successfully and cost-effectively replace fish meal up to 20% without compromising the growth performance of the birds. Therefore, BSFL meal could be incorporated as an essential part of poultry feed production for IIC, potentially reducing the total feed cost while maintaining optimal production and reducing the cost of meat and egg products.

Introduction

The livestock sector continues to experience increasing pressure to meet the rising demand for high-value animal protein. The demand for animal products is expected to double in developing countries by 2030, and poultry meat and eggs are among the most widely consumed high-value animal proteins at the global level (1). According to a report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2), poultry products account for approximately 45% of animal protein needs required in the next decade. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the consumption of poultry products continues to expand faster than other meat products, making poultry the fastest-growing agricultural subsectors. This is attributed to rapid population growth, urbanization, and greater purchasing power (3).

According to Wong et al. (4), the largest number of households across the world mainly rears indigenous chicken and, in some cases, crossbred species. In developing countries, about 80% of rural households keep poultry, predominantly raising improved indigenous chicken (IIC), which contributes to over 30% of the total white meat consumed globally (5). The IIC breeds are distributed extensively in Africa compared to other livestock species and represents over 70% of the total chicken population. They play a significant role in income generation and livelihoods improvement, particularly in vulnerable communities with over 80% of smallholder farmers. The chickens are hardy and capable capable of thriving in harsh environmental conditions like droughts and poor husbandry practices (6, 7).

In Kenya, the IIC subsector has been identified as an essential poverty eradication tool for rural households (8) and they account for over 80% of the poultry population (9), making them vital in improving food security for smallholder farmers and diversifying agricultural production (10). According to reports from the United States Agency for International Development (11) and Mengesha (12), the increase in health-conscious consumers, greater purchasing power, and urbanization have contributed to a significant rise in the demand for free-ranged IIC products in the country. Therefore, they are an essential source of affordable poultry products for rural households accounting for about 50% of eggs and meat products (13, 14). Nevertheless, IIC production has continued to be characterized by low productivity despite the presence of many research and development initiatives in the country with focus on improving chicken breeds, development of low-cost high-value feed supplementation, and better management practices (13, 14). Although many studies have worked on locally available and affordable feed resources to address poor nutrition in IIC productivity, adoption and sustainability of these interventions have been poor (13, 15).

The high cost of formulated feeds remains one of the most significant challenges in IIC production since feeds account for roughly 70% of total production costs (6). It is due to the scarcity and high cost of feed resources that the IIC sector has not attained its full potential (16, 17). Therefore, the supply of protein sources, mostly fish meal and soybean meal in the poultry feed industry, continues to decline drastically, thus impeding the growth of smallholder poultry production in Kenya and other developing countries (18). This has pushed many government to search for alternative protein ingredients that can economically supplement conventional protein ingredients used in feed formulation without adverse effects on the health and performance of the birds to address the inadequate supply in the animal feed industry.

There is emerging global interest in the use of insect protein as a potential alternative source to replace expensive conventional major protein sources, particularly fish meal (FM) and soybean meal in animal feeds (19). This is because the crude protein (CP) content of insect meals has been demonstrated to range between 35 and 77, with 33%–36% of lipid content (20–24). Furthermore, insects have been shown to have good balance of amino acids with high levels of digestibility and palatability (235,266). The development of innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly options such as farming of black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) on organic waste and recycling the waste into high-quality nutrient-rich biomass is increasingly being considered as an attractive, viable, and sustainable alternative source of protein (38%–62% CP) to substitute animal- and plant-based sources in animal feeds [20, 18, 27,278,299,30,25,332). Several studies have also reported that the crude fat content of BSFL meal ranges between 18% and 42% (33, 344). However, the nutritional profile of BSFL meal has been demonstrated to vary considerably depending on the rearing substrates (26, 355, 366, 377, 388, 399 ).

The use of BSFL meal as an alternative to fish meal or soybean meal in poultry, pig, and fish feeds has been advocated worldwide (27) and provides opportunities from income generation (28, 29). Therefore, BSFL meal could be a valuable and affordable source of protein feed ingredient in IIC diets (30, 31), although research attention is highly limited. Therefore, this study evaluates for the first time the effects of diets containing full-fat BSFL meal at different inclusion levels on the growth, and economic performance of Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) improved indigenous chicken breed.

Materials and methods

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for the study was provided by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO)-Veterinary Science Research Institute (VSRI), approval Code No. KALROVSRI/IACUC019/30082019.

Experimental facility

The feeding trials were conducted at the KALRO, Non-Ruminant Research Centre, in Naivasha, Nakuru County. The research station is located about 76 km from Nairobi, 71 km from Nakuru, and the GPS coordinates 00 43′ 0.0120″ S and 360 26′ 9.2760″ E, latitude -0.71667, longitude 36.43591, altitude 1915 M.

Experimental feed formulation

The full-fat black soldier fly larva (BSFL) meal was obtained from the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Nairobi, Kenya. The proximate and amino acid composition of the BSFL meal was analyzed according to the methods described by Chia et al. (32). Based on the nutritional profile of the BSFL meal, the other raw materials were integrated to formulate a diet that meets nutritional requirements of the starter and grower chicken according to the National Research Council (NRC) standards for improved indigenous chicken (IIC). The diets for the starters was constituted to have at least 2,800 kcal ME/kg and 18% crude protein (CP), while that of the grower had 2,550 kcal ME/kg and 15% CP. The diets were designated as 0% BSFL meal (Diet0), 5% BSFL meal (Diet1), 10% BSFL meal (Diet2), 15% BSFL meal (Diet3), and 20% BSFL meal (Diet4) inclusion levels (Table 1). The NRC feeding standards were used to estimate the chemical composition of the ingredients before the preparation of the feeding trials diets.

TABLE 1

Table 1 Ingredients used in the formulation of the experimental diets for improved indigenous starter and grower chickens.

Experimental birds, housing, and feeding trials

Three hundred and fifteen (315) mixed-sex 1-day-old KALRO-improved indigenous (called Kienyeji in local language) chickens were sourced from the KALRO Naivasha station. They were placed in a round deep litter brooder prepared at the poultry house, which was fitted with infrared bulbs (250 W) to provide heat during the brooding period. The birds were kept in the brooder for 7 days to acclimatize. Thereafter, the birds were weighed and distributed randomly to the 45 cages (experimental units). A round 4-l drinker and plastic tube feeder measuring 0.73-m length by 0.26-m width by 0.48-m height was provided for each experimental unit.

The 63 birds in each experimental units were randomly assigned to one of the five dietary treatments. For the starter phase, the experimental starter diet was provided ad libitum for a period of 8 weeks. Thereafter, the experimental birds were provided a grower diet between the 9th and 18th weeks of age, which comprises the growing phase. Standard health and biosecurity measures were observed to forestall any disease outbreak. All birds were kept under similar conditions and allowed ad libitum access to feed and water throughout the experiment. Each experimental setup was replicated nine times.

At the commencement of the experiments, diets designated for the starter and grower chickens were subjected to proximate analysis to determine the crude protein, fat, crude fiber, and ash contents using the standard methods outlined by AOAC (2012) (33). Feed intake, body weight gain, and survival rates were additional parameters assessed. The birds were weighed after 7 days of acclimatization and then every other week throughout the entire experiments. Birds in each experimental unit were weighed together in a plastic bucket. Feed was weighed and allocated to each experimental unit at the beginning of the 2nd week and increased gradually based on the consumption rate of the growing birds. Experimental birds were allowed ad libitum access to feed and water throughout the experiment. Feed offered to the birds and unconsumed portions were weighed daily using a digital platform weighing scale (XK3190-A12, >300 kg, Gromy Scale Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China) to calculate the average daily feed intake (ADFI). Total body weight gain and feed consumed were used to calculate the feed conversion ratio (FCR) for each dietary treatment according to the method described by Sumbule et al. (34).

Cost–benefit analysis of birds fed on different diets with BSFL meals

The key parameters, which included cost–benefit analysis (CBA) and return on investment (RoI) (35), were used to evaluate the economic implication of replacing fish meal in chicken diets with BSFL meal. The cost–benefit ratio (CBR), as an indicator in CBA, was used to summarize the economic value of replacing fish meal with BSFL meal in the diets. Feed costs were calculated from the ingredient prices based on quantities of each item incorporated in the dietary treatments. A CBR value greater than 1 suggests that the benefits of the production exceeded the production costs and vice versa. RoI is a measure of gain/loss generated from an investment relative to the money invested. The higher the RoI value, the better the returns of the project under consideration (35). The gross profit, gross profit margin, cost–benefit ratio (CBR), and return on investment (RoI) were used to determine the economic performance.

The following formulas were used.

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Gross profit}= \text{Sale of bird}-\text{Total Production Cost}\\ \text{Gross profit margin}=(\text{Sale of bird}-\text{Total Production Cost})÷ \text{Sales of bird}\\ \text{CBR}=\text{Total Production Cost}÷\text{Sale of bird}\\ \text{RoI}=(\text{Gross Profit} ÷\mathrm{ Total Production Cost})\times 100\%\end{array}$$

Statistical analysis

The data analysis was done using Statistical Analysis System (SAS, version 9.1). Data were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine the effect of the different diets on performance parameters. Bon-Tukey was applied to differentiate the statistically different means at a p< 0.05 level of significance. The cages represented the experimental units.

Results and discussion

Composition of the BSFL meal for feed formulation

The CP and crude fat values of BSFL meal were 43.2 and 29.4%, respectively (Table 2). The results obtained in this study are in agreement with those reported by Cummins et al. (36), who reported that BSFL meal contains a high level of protein, with the amino acid profile similar to fish meal and other nutrients that make it a well-balanced feed. The crude fat content of BSFL meal in the present study was higher than the fat contents of fish meal and BSFL meal as reported by Barroso et al. (37) where values ranged 15.6%–18.0%, but it was similar to the values observed by Zulkifli et al. (38) that ranged between 26% and 38%. Interestingly, previous documented information revealed that the yield quantity and quality of BSFL fat depend on the stage of development of the insect and also the processing method (39). The developmental stages of the BSFL can be one of the factors that affect the lipid quantity. According to several authors, high lipid levels can be observed to increase toward the 5th-instar larval stages of the insect due to the metabolic turnover that takes place during the process of metamorphosis (40).

TABLE 2

Table 2 Proximate and amino acid composition of BSFL meal for feed formulation.

The ash content of BSFL meal was higher than that observed by Zulkifli et al. (38) and Barroso et al. (37). The fiber content recorded was 21.3%, which is 2.4-fold higher compared to that reported by Zulkifli et al. (38). Crude fiber is a direct estimate of the amount of chitin present in the BSFL meal given that this polysaccharide is the most common form of fiber in insects (29). The crude fiber content in insects depends on the developmental life stage within the life cycle. These results are in agreement with those reported by Kramer and Koga (41), who found that as the larvae progress toward the pre-pupa stage and eventually the pupation stage, chitin content starts to increase significantly. Similarly, Soetemans et al. (42) have also observed this progressive change in chitin quantity and quality in BSFL meal, which will obviously influence the digestibility of the nutrients in animal feed. This explains why Fines and Holt (43) have always emphasized the importance of optimizing the amount of chitin in the feed according to chitinolytic activity in the gut of every given animal category and their ability to digest this substance in deciding the rate of inclusion.

The amino acid composition of BSFL meal in the present study was similar to that reported by Cummins et al. (36) and Zulkifli et al. (38). Leucine, lysine, arginine, and valine were among the highest in essential amino acids in BSFL meal, which is in line with the results demonstrated by St-Hilaire et al. (44). The values of the non-essential amino acids obtained were also comparable to the values presented by St-Hilaire et al. (44). Our findings are consistent with the amino acid profile of three different sources of BSFL meals, which are quite similar to fish meal (45) known as the protein with the best amino acid profile for both human and animal nutrition. Similarly, Barroso et al. (37) further supported our observations and reported that the amino acid profiles of H. illucens and other Dipteran larvae like house fly (Musca domestica) were better sources than the soybean meal, which could be used as a suitable replacement of fish meal in animal feed formulation.

Currently, the use of BSFL meal is receiving more attention in the poultry feed industry as an effort to reduce dependency on fish meal or soya bean for protein and oil. In this study, the CP content of the starter diet varied considerably across the diet types with Diet0 containing fish meal recording the highest CP value of 20.8%. The CP of the four poultry diets with BSFL meal had values ranging between 14.2% and 17.4%. For the chicken grower diets, the CP values ranged between 11.3% and 13.2% (Table 3).

TABLE 3

Table 3 Chemical composition of starter and grower chicken diets.

This significant variability in the CP content of the various diet types can be attributed to the processing and inability of the full-fat BSFL meal to mix properly during the compounded feed formulation process. This is a shortcoming in the present study that needs further research attention for effective feed formulations. However, no studies are currently available on these aspects for improved indigenous chicken feeds integrated with BSFL meal. In relation to the nutritive profile, BSFL meal has been reported to contain large amounts of lipids, which might present an extreme challenge during mixing with other feed ingredients (46). Thus, increasing inclusion levels may negatively affect the consistency of the finished product and the feed conversion ratio of the birds (46). This suggests that low inclusion levels (50 or 100 g/kg) or the use of defatted BSFL meal may be a more suitable option. On the other hand, there is a lack of scientific information about the impact of the use of defatted BSFL meal on poultry feed formulation and quality. This is further supported by Zheng et al. (47) who reported that the defatting process results in insect meals with larger protein values and reduces the risk of lipid oxidation, allowing for a longer shelf life of the product.

There was a significant effect on the feed intake, final body weight, and feed conversion ratio when the starter chicken were fed a diet with a full-fat BSFL meal (Table 4). Birds fed Diet1 had the highest ADFI, although no significant differences were observed between Diet1, Diet2, and Diet3. Starter chicken provided Diet0 showed a significantly higher average daily weight gain (ADWG) when compared to other dietary treatment. The FCR among starter birds fed Diet0 and Diet2 as well as Diet3 and Diet4 was not significantly different (Table 4). However, the FCR of the grower birds did not vary across the various diets. These results of FCR are in agreement with those reported by Dabbou et al. (48) and de Souza et al. (49) for broiler chicken and Al-Qazzaz et al. (50) for layer chickens. Contrarily, Mat et al. (51) observed a lower FCR following higher inclusion levels of defatted BSFL meal in broiler starter diets. The BSFL meal-based feeds showed no significant effect on the final body weight and FCR when birds were fed the various diet types during the growing phase. There was a significant treatment effect on feed intake for grower chicken fed the various diets. The feed intake for birds fed Diet0, Diet1, Diet2, and Diet3 was not significantly different (Table 4). The daily weight gain and FCR of birds fed the various diets did not vary significantly. These findings were similar to those reported by Mohammed et al. (52) and Choi et al. (53), who reported that the body weight gain and FCR of broiler chicken fed insect-based diets was not adversely affected. Mohammed et al. (52) demonstrated that the use of BSFL meal to replace FM up to 33.3% in broiler finisher diets did not significantly affect body weight gain. On the other hand, heavier body weights of birds fed dietary treatments containing BSFL meal showed no significant effect on daily weight gain and FCR in local poultry breed (54). The study results also support the recommendations by Gasco et al. (45) and Mahmud et al. (55), who advocated for the use insect meals as a suitable alternative to conventional protein resources, with no significant effect on poultry performance.

TABLE 4

Table 4 Growth performance of starters and growers fed on diets containing BSFL meal.

Economic performance

Our results revealed a significant treatment effect on the cost of feed consumed during the starter and grower chicken feeding phases (Table 5). Birds fed on Diet4 had the lowest cost of feed consumed at the starter and grower phases.

TABLE 5

Table 5 Economic analysis on using BSFL meal in IIC diets.

The highest gross profit margin was recorded when birds were fed on Diet4, although this varied considerably across the different dietary treatments with insect-based meals. The CBR and RoI did not vary significantly when birds were fed on Diet0, Diet1, and Diet2. The lowest marginal rate of return (–14.24%) (Table 6) was recorded when farmers change from Diet3 to Diet4, which was below a minimum return of 100% (Figure 1). This indicated that for every US $1/bird invested, the farmer would recover US$1/bird and lose US$0.14/bird in terms of net benefits. This implies that farmers changing the feeding regime from Diet4 to Diet1 would lead to a loss of net benefits. These findings are similar to that reported by Onsongo et al. (35) who reported that the cost of feed consumed by the birds reduces with increasing inclusion levels of BSFL meal as a replacement of conventional fish-meal sources in broiler diets. Similarly, the inclusion of BSFL meal in layer starter and grower diets also demonstrated economic viability of insect-based feeds (56), which might be attributed to reduced cost of feeds with 100% substitution of the expensive fish meal with BSFL meal (35, 56). According to Chia et al. (32), there is improved economic performance with increased integration of higher inclusion levels of BSFL meals, which demonstrates sustainability and viability of BSFL meal as a promising alternative protein source to close the nutrient gap in the animal feed industry (57).

TABLE 6

Table 6 Marginal and gross margin analysis (US$/bird) of insect-based feeds.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1 The marginal rate of return (%) of diets containing different fish-meal substitution levels with BSFL meal and conventional feeds. BSFL meal inclusion rates were: 0% (Diet₀), 5% (Diet₁), 10% (Diet₂), 15% (Diet₃), and 20% (Diet₄) to replace fish meal.

Conclusion

Overall, the present study has provided new data and knowledge on the potential use of a new sustainable feedstuff for improved indigenous chickens. The main findings of the current research suggest that full-fat BSFL meal can be used to up to 20% level of inclusion in starter and grower chicken diets, without detrimental effects on growth performance. Remarkable differences in the feed intake and FCR were found in relation to the different diet types with varying nutritional profiles. On this background, BSFL meal can be considered as a suitable and affordable alternative protein feed resource for IIC diets. However, important efforts should be made to evaluate new processing techniques such as defatting of the BSFL meal, which is capable of improving the protein profile of larvae, thus potentially counteracting the negative effects on the nutritional value, perceived healthiness, and economic benefits of the poultry meat. Defatted BSFL meal will also reduce the risk of lipid oxidation, allowing for a longer shelf life and proper mixing of the product for optimal feed formulation. These defatted BSFL meal or oils should also be evaluated from a safety point of view, as new evidence on their safety could be adopted to reduce the potential toxicity of the meal.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

This study was reviewed and approved by Ethical approval for the study was provided by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO)-Veterinary Science Research Institute (VSRI); approval Code No.: KALROVSRI/IACUC019/30082019. Written informed consent was obtained from the owners for the participation of their animals in this study.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, MW, IO, LK, AW, and CT. Methodology, MW, IO, LK, and CT. Software, IO. Validation, MW, IO, LK, AW, and CT. Formal analysis, MW, IO, LK, AW, and CT. Investigation, MW, IO, LK, AW, and CT. Resources, CT. Data curation, MW, IO, LK, AW, and CT. Writing—original draft preparation, MW, IO, BM, SS, LK, AW, and CT. Writing—review and editing, MW, IO, LK, AW, and CT. Visualization, MW, IO, LK, AW, and CT. Supervision, IO, LK, and AW. Project administration, CT. Funding acquisition, CT. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) (ProteinAfrica – Grant No: LS/2020/154), the Rockefeller Foundation (WAVE-IN—Grant No.: 2021 FOD 030), Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Section for research, innovation, and higher education grant number (Grant No.: RAF–3058 KEN–18/0005) (CAP–Africa), the Curt Bergfors Foundation Food Planet Prize Award, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC); the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; and the Government of the Republic of Kenya. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Therefore, the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the donors.

Acknowledgments

The support and commitment from the technical staff of icipe and KALRO, Naivasha, is highly appreciated.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. Vasileska A, Rechkoska G. Global and regional food consumption patterns and trends. World Health Organ (2012) 44:363–9. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.040

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2018-2027. Paris, France:OECD Publishing (2018).

Google Scholar

3. Mottet A, Tempio G. Global poultry production: Current state and future outlook and challenges. World's Poultry Sci J (2017) 73(2):245–56. doi: 10.1017/S0043933917000071

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Wong J, de Bruyn J, Bagnol B, Grieve H, Li M, Pym R, et al. Small-scale poultry and food security in resource-poor settings: A review. Global Food Secur (2017) 15:43–52. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.04.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. FAO (Food and Agriulture Organization of the United Nations). Small livestock, big impact. Rome, Italy:Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2012).

Google Scholar

6. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Small livestock, big impacts (2011) (Accessed 23 September, 2021).

Google Scholar

7. Padhi M. Importance of indigenous breeds of chicken for rural economy and their improvements for higher production performance. Scientifica (2016) 2016(6):1–91–9. doi: 10.1155/2016/2604685

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MoLFD). Animal production annual report. Nairobi: Government Press (2011).

Google Scholar

9. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. The 2009 kenya population and housing census. Nairobi, Kenya:Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2009).

Google Scholar

10. Nabarro D, Wannous C. The potential contribution of livestock to food and nutrition security: the application of the one health approach in livestock policy and practice. Rev Scientifique Et Technique L'oie (2014) 33(2):475–85. doi: 10.20506/rst.33.2.2292

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. United State Agency for International Development. Value chain analysis of poultry, in: Partnership for safe poultry in Kenya (PSPK) program (2010). Available at: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnadu078.pdf (Accessed 23 September, 2021).

Google Scholar

12. Mengesha M. Indigenous chicken production & innate characteristics. Asian J Poultry Sci (2012) 6(2):56–64. doi: 10.3923/ajpsaj.2012.56.64

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Kingori A, Wachira A, Tuitoek J. Indigenous chicken production in Kenya: A review. Int J Poultry Sci (2010) 9(4):309–16. doi: 10.3923/ijps.2010.309.316

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Bett H, Musyoka M, Peters K, Bokelmann W. Demand for meat in the rural and urban areas of Kenya: A focus on the indigenous chicken. Economics Res Int (2012) 2012:1–10. doi: 10.1155/2012/401472

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. King'ori AM. The protein and energy requirements of indigenous chickens (Gallus domesticus) of Kenya. Kenya: Egerton University (2004). Doctoral Dissertation.

Google Scholar

16. Khobondo J, Okeno T, Lihare G, Wasike C, Kahi A. The past, present and future genetic improvement of indigenous chicken of Kenya. Anim Genet Resources/Ressources Génétiques Animales/Recursos Genéticos Animales (2014) 55:125–35. doi: 10.1017/s2078633614000332

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Njuguna KC, Kabuage L, Bett E. Economic analysis of indigenous chicken production: The case of smallholder farmers in makueni and kakamega counties, Kenya. Int J Agric Ext Rural Dev (2017) 5(5):564–570.

Google Scholar

18. van Huis A. Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. Annu Rev Entomology (2013) 58(1):563–83. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153704

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. van Huis A, Dicke M, van Loon J. Insects to feed the world. J Insects as Food Feed (2015) 1(1):3–5. doi: 10.3920/jiff2015.x002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Makkar H, Tran G, Heuzé V, Ankers P. State-of-the-art on use of insects as animal feed. Anim Feed Sci Technol (2014) 197:1–33. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.07.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Józefiak D, Józefiak A, Kierończyk B, Rawski M, Świątkiewicz S, Długosz J, et al. 1. insects – a natural nutrient source for poultry – a review. Ann Of Anim Sci (2016) 16(2):297–313. doi: 10.1515/aoas-2016-0010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Hatab M, Ibrahim N, Sayed W, Sabic E. Potential value of using insect meal as an alternative protein source for Japanese quail diet. Braz J Of Poultry Sci (2020) 22(1):1–10. doi: 10.1590/1806-9061-2017-0700

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Liu C, Wang C, Yao H. Comprehensive resource utilization of waste using the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens (L.)) (Diptera: Stratiomyidae). Animals (19) 9(6):1–19. doi: 10.3390/ani9060349

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Franco A, Scieuzo C, Salvia R, Petrone AM, Tafi E, Moretta A, et al. Lipids from Hermetia illucens, an innovative and sustainable source. Sustainability (2021) 13(18):1–23. doi: 10.3390/su131810198

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Bava L, Jucker C, Gislon G, Lupi D, Savoldelli S, Zucali M, et al. Rearing of hermetia illucens on different organic by-products: influence on growth, waste reduction, and environmental impact. Animals (2019) 9(6):289. doi: 10.3390/ani9060289

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Scala A, Cammack JA, Salvia R, Scieuzo C, Franco A, Bufo SA, et al. Rearing substrate impacts growth and macronutrient composition of hermetia illucens (L.)(Diptera: Stratiomyidae) larvae produced at an industrial scale. Sci Rep (2020) 10(1):1–8. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76571-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Gałęcki R, Zielonka Ł., Zaspa M, Gołbiowska J, Bakuła T. Potential utilization of edible insects as an alternative source of protein in animal diets in Poland. Front In Sustain Food Syst (2021) 5:675796. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.675796

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Dobermann D, Swift JA, Field LM. Opportunities and hurdles of edible insects for food and feed. Nutr Bull (2017) 42(4):293–308. doi: 10.1111/nbu.12291

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

29. van Huis A, Itterbeeck J, Klunder H, Mertens E, Halloran A, Muir G, et al. Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security. FAO Forestry paper (2013) 171:187. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e00.htm

Google Scholar

30. Sogari G, Amato M, Biasato I, Chiesa S, Gasco L. The potential role of insects as feed: A multi-perspective review. Anim an Open Access J MDPI (2019) 9(4):119. doi: 10.3390/ani9040119

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Moyo S, Moyo B. Potential utilization of insect meal as livestock feed. In: Animal feed science and nutrition - production, health and environment. United Kingdom:IntechOpen (2022). doi: 10.5772/intechopen.101766

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Chia SY, Tanga CM, Osuga IM, Alaru AO, Mwangi DM, Githinji M, et al. Effect of dietary replacement of fishmeal by insect meal on growth performance, blood profiles and economics of growing pigs in Kenya. Animals (2019) 9:705. doi: 10.3390/ani9100705

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

33. AOAC. Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. 19th edition. Gaithersburg, Maryland, U.S.A: AOAC 54 International (2012).

Google Scholar

34. Sumbule E, Ambula M, Osuga I, Changeh J, Mwangi D, Subramanian S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of black soldier fly larvae meal as substitute of fishmeal in diets for layer chicks and growers. Sustainability (2021) 13(11):6074. doi: 10.3390/su13116074

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Onsongo V, Osuga I, Gachuiri C, Wachira A, Miano D, Tanga C, et al. Insects for income generation through animal feed: effect of dietary replacement of soybean and fish meal with black soldier fly meal on broiler growth and economic performance. J Of Economic Entomology (2018) 111(4):1966–73. doi: 10.1093/jee/toy118

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Cummins VC, Rawles SD, Thompson KR, Velasquez A, Kobayashi Y, Hager J, et al. Evaluation of black soldier fly (Hermetia ilucens) larvae meal as partial or total replacement of marine fish meal in practical diets for pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). Aquaculture. (2017) 743:337–44. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.02.022

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Barroso F, Haro C, Sánchez-Muros M, Venegas E, Martı´nez-Sa´nchez A, Pérez-Bañón C. The potential of various insect species for use as food for fish. Aquaculture (2014) 422–423:193–201. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.12.024

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Zulkifli NFNM, Seok-Kian AY, Seng LL, Mustafa S, Kim Y-S, Shapawi R. Nutritional value of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae processed by different methods. PloS One (2022) 17(2):e0263924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263924

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Aniebo AO, Owen OJ. Effects of age and method of drying on the proximate composition of housefly larvae (Musca domestica Linnaeus) meal (HFLM). Pakistan J Nutr (2010) 9:485–7. doi: 10.3923/pjn.2010.485.487

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Magalhães R, Sánchez-López A, Leal RS, Martı´nez-Llorens S, Oliva-Teles A, Peres H. Black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) pre-pupae meal as a fish meal replacement in diets for European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Aquaculture. (2017) 476:79–85. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.04.021

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Kramer KJ, Koga D. Insect chitin. Insect Biochem (1986) 16(6):851–77. doi: 10.1016/0020-1790(86)90059-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Soetemans L, Uyttebroek M, Bastiaens L. Characteristics of chitin extracted from black soldier fly in different life stages. Int J Biol Macromolecules. (2020) 165:3206–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.11.041

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Fines BC, Holt GJ. Chitinase and apparent digestibility of chitin in the digestive tract of juvenile cobia, rachycentron canadum. Aquaculture (2010) 303:34–9. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.03.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

44. St-Hilaire S, Cranfill K, McGuire M, Mosley E, Tomberlin J, Newton L, et al. Fish offal recycling by the black soldier fly produces a foodstuff high in omega-3 fatty acids. J World Aquaculture Society. (2007) 38:309–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-7345.2007.00101.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Gasco Henry M L, Piccolo G, Fountoulaki E. Review on the use of insects in the diets of farmed fish: past and future. Anim Feed Sci Technology. (2015) 203:1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.03.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Schiavone A, De Marco M, Martínez S, Dabbou S, Renna M, Madrid J. Nutritional value of a partially defatted and a highly defatted black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens l.) meal for broiler chickens: apparent nutrient digestibility, apparent metabolizable energy and apparent ileal amino acid digestibility. J Anim Sci Biotechnol (2017) 8(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s40104-017-0181-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Zheng L, Hou Y, Li W, Yang S, Li Q, Yu Z. Exploring the potential of grease from yellow mealworm beetle (Tenebrio molitor) as a novel biodiesel feedstock. Appl Energy (2013) 101(2013):618–21. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.06.067

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Dabbou S, Gai F, Biasato I, Capucchio M, Biasibetti E, Dezzutto D, et al. Black soldier fly defatted meal as a dietary protein source for broiler chickens: Effects on growth performance, blood traits, gut morphology and histological features. J Of Anim Sci And Biotechnol (2018) 9(1):1–49. doi: 10.1186/s40104-018-0266-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

49. de Souza Vilela J, Andronicos N, Kolakshyapati M, Hilliar M, Sibanda T, Andrew N, et al. Black soldier fly larvae in broiler diets improve broiler performance and modulate the immune system. Anim Nutr (2021) 7(3):695–706. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2020.08.014

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Al-Qazzaz M, Ismail D, Akit H, Idris L. Effect of using insect larvae meal as a complete protein source on quality and productivity characteristics of laying hens. Rev Bras Zootecnia (2016) 45(9):518–23. doi: 10.1590/s1806-92902016000900003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Mat K, Abdul Kari Z, Rusli N, Rahman M, Che Harun H, Al-Amsyar S, et al. Effects of the inclusion of black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens) meal on growth performance and blood plasma constituents in broiler chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) production. Saudi J Biol Sci (2022) 29(2):809–15. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.10.027

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Mohammed A, Laryea TE, Ganiyu A, Adongo T. Effects of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae meal on the growth performance of broiler chickens. UDS Int J Dev (2017) 4(1):35–41. doi: 10.47740/155.UDSIJD6i

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Choi Y, Park K, Nam S, Jang B, Kim J, Kim D, et al. The effect on growth performance of chicken meat in broiler chicks by dietary supplementation of black soldier fly larvae, hermetia illucens (Diptera : Stratmyidae). Korean J Sericultural Sci (2013) 51(1):30–35. doi: 10.7852/jses.2013.51.1.30

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Moula N, Scippo M, Douny C, Degand G, Dawans E, Cabaraux J, et al. Performances of local poultry breed fed black soldier fly larvae reared on horse manure. Anim Nutr (2018) 4(1):73–8. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2017.10.002

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Mahmud A, Rahardja D, Bugiwati R, Sari D. The nutritional value of black soldier flies (Hermetia illucen) as poultry feed. IOP Conf Series: Earth Environ Sci (2020) 492(1):12129. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/492/1/012129

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Chia S, Tanga C, van Loon J, Dicke M. Insects for sustainable animal feed: inclusive business models involving smallholder farmers. Curr Opin In Environ Sustainability (2019) 41:23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.09.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Abro Z, Kassie M, Tanga C, Beesigamukama D, Diiro G. Socio-economic and environmental implications of replacing conventional poultry feed with insect-based feed in Kenya. J Of Cleaner Production (2020) 265:121871. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121871

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar