insects as sustainable feed ingredients - aspa 2017 laura_ insects... · insects as sustainable...
TRANSCRIPT
Insects as
sustainable feed
ingredients
Laura [email protected]
Commissione ASPAFonti proteiche innovative
FOOD
Edible species: 2037
2 billion people
Ketchup: 30 uova di insetto ogni 100 g
Mais in scatola: 2 larve di insetto ogni 100 g
Mirtilli:2 vermi ogni 100 bacche
Burro di arachidi: 50 frammenti di insetti ogni 100 g
Polvere di Curry: 100 frammenti di insetti ogni 100 g
Semi di sesamo: 5% di semi infestati
Caffè: 10% di chicchi infestasti
UTILI
“GIANIN”
1/3 produzione alimenti
naturali (impollinazione)
500 g/anno
FEED
Insects as Feed
• Insects = Mini-livestock = rearing animals
• Raw materials for feeds:• Fish• Poultry• Pigs
• Pet-food
EU produce only the 30% of the proteins for animalfeed (70% reliance from Brazil, Argentina, USA)
Animal feeds
2011: The EU Parliament adopted a resolution to address the EU’s protein deficit,stating that urgent action is needed to replace imported protein crops withalternative and additional European sources
26 mt = by-products derived fromvegetable oil production (mainly SBM)
Trend towards an increase of this deficit
The EU Protein Deficit
http://www.wri.org/publication/improving-aquaculture
aquaculture = 44.14% (73,8 mt)
Global production 2014 (capture + aquaculture): 168 mt
Growth aquaculture: increased demand for FM
168 mt
73,8 mt
?? 1
50
mt
Mo
re??
?
FAO (2014): 16,3 mt of wild caught fish processed into FM & FO
Animal feeds(fish – other livestock)
+ SBM and other protein sources
2050: meat (poultry / pork / bovine) and milk products will double while
fish products (aquaculture) will be triplicated
IFIF, 2014. http://www.ifif.org/pages/t/The+global+feed+industryFAO, 2011. World Livestock 2011 – Livestock in Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome
PROTEINS for FEED
ALTERNATIVES
Why
Insects
Nutritional value• Nutritional value variable:
• species, metamorphic stage (age), rearing substrate• processing technology (drying, defatting, …)
• high level of proteins (up to 70% DM)• rich in EAA (comparable to FM, better than SBM)• high energy (fat: 16,5 - 44% DM) (similar to veg – no PUFA)• micronutrients
• copper• iron• magnesium• manganese• phosphorous
• selenium• zinc• riboflavin• biotin
Insect chemical composition (%DM)
Hermetia illucens
Larva
Tenebrio molitor
Larva
Musca domestica
Larva
Pupa
http://www.feedipedia.org
42,1 7,0 26,0 20,6
48,1 5,1 40,0 3,1
50,4 13,8 18,9 10,1
70,8 15,7 15,5 7,7
5,8
• Mass production: fat extraction
Sustainability• Bio-converters: turning low value organic
side streams (waste, by-products, …) intoproteins
• Rapid growth, controlled reproduction, mass production
• Efficient FCR
• Part of livestock diets• Less land area needed
25 t/ha/8 – 10 days1000 t /ha/year125 - 150 t protein
25 t/ha/year0.9 t protein
ProteInsect, 2016
Dir. 2008/98/CE
Mass production
http://www.proteinsect.eu/index.php?id=35
FeedFoodAntimicrobial (Lauric acid)
Chitin• Water treatment• Chemical industry• pharmaceutic• …AMP
Research
FOOD
EU Waste & by-products
FAO (2011), Economist (2014)
Dir. 2008/98/CE
EU food waste
• €
• environment
• 89 mt / year (180 kg per capita)
• Expected to rise to 126 mt /y by 2020
• 1.4 billion tonnes of manure
+
Circular economy– zero waste
Compost+
http://agriprotein.com/about-us/
OUR OCEAN IMPACT OUR CARBON IMPACT OUR LANDFILL IMPACT
Where MagMeal™ is substituted for
fishmeal, every tonne used allows three
tonnes of fish to remain in our
oceans. At full capacity our Philippi
factory will produce enough MagMeal™
to substitute for 15 million wild caughtfish per year
Fishmeal is a carbon intensive feed
ingredient. The distance between the
trawlers that ply the Antarctic seas to
capture the fish, to its eventual point of
use in the USA, Europe and Asia is
typically 10,000 kilometers.
MagMeal™ can be made where it is
needed and has an environmental cost
saving of $2,000 per tonne comparedto its Fishmeal alternative
OUR IMPACTOur business was created with a vision to recycle waste
nutrients and make protein at point of need, using local
waste at a global scale. Our mission is to reinvent our
unsustainable use of fishmeal and deliver naturalalternative ingredients that can start saving our seas.
The waste management chain is a
growing problem in many cities. Our new
standard 250 tonne per day waste bio
conversion factories will have a material
impact on local landfill sites. Each plant
will divert over 90,000 tonnes a year of
organic waste from stretched landfill
operations. We upcycle the nutrients in
organic food waste from our cities into
feed for growing larvae. Our industrial
facilities are typically much nearer cites,
cutting down transport costs. Reducing
organics to landfill will help stop the
degradation of aquifers and watertables through inevitable landfill leachate.
91000 ton organic waste / year 18125 ton wet larvae 5000 ton protein meal
http://agriprotein.com/our-impact-partners/
2017
http://agriprotein.com/our-products/
USA
EnviroFlight, LLC focus is on producing environmentally sustainable plant and animal feeds by processing waste distillers grains using black soldier fly larvae
fondata nel 2009
Substrates: traceable organics (grocery stores,food processors, stale dated includes fruits,
vegetables, bread, fish & seafood)
http://www.protix.eu/
http://www.ynsect.com2017: 300 t TM meal/year
Adresse: An der Birkenpfuhlheide 1015837 Baruth / Mark+49 (0) 33704 675 50
http://www.hermetia.de/
Insektenproteine auf der Basis von Fliegenlarven
sind hochproteinreich und erfüllen die
ernährungsphysiologischen Ansprüche karnivorer
(räuberischer) Fischarten, wie sie die meisten der
geschätzten Speisefische (Lachse, Steinbutt,
Forellen, Grouper, Snapper, Wolfsbarsch, Dorade,
Adlerfisch, Kabeljau etc.) darstellen. Auch für die
Geflügelzucht und die Schweinemast sind
Insektenproteine sehr gut geeignet. Die
stoffwechselphysiologische Eignung eines solchen
Proteins für Geflügel und Schweine steht außer
Frage. Auch für Vögel, Reptilien, Hunde und
Katzen sind diese Eiweiße, die reich an
essentiellen Aminosäuren sind, bestens geeignet.
Somit stellt ein Futtermittel auf der Basis von
Insektenlarven eine geradezu optimale Alternative
zum Fischmehl dar.
Stratio meal
55-65% PG
10-15% EE
INSECTA
LagunaLab
CIMI s.r.l.
EU legislation
Fish
Petfood
Others
Live larvae PATs Lipids Hydrolised proteins
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0893&from=EN
Tenebrio molitorDried and cooked wastematerials from fruits,vegetables, and cereals.
40 – 90 weeks(Makkar et al., 2014)
(8-18 weeks; personal data)
Low in Ca (modulation throught substrate)
Hermetia illucens6 – 30 weeks
(Makkar et al., 2014)
Poultry, pig, and cattle manure,fish offal, carrion, …Coffee bean pulp, vegetables,organic by-products, …
Black soldier fly: from by-product to high qualityinsect protein
Organic side stream
(100%)
Larvae biomass
(25%)
Insect meal
(8.7%)
Defatted insect meal
(6.3%)
Oil (2.4%)
Entofood (2015)
Insects= Bioconverters
Musca domestica5 – 10 d / 45-50 d(optimal T° : 35°C)(Makkar et al., 2014)
All organic substrates
Mass production
http://www.proteinsect.eu/index.php?id=35
FeedFoodAntimicrobial (Lauric acid)
Chitina• Water treatment• Chemical industry• pharmaceutic• …AMP
Research
FOOD
Oil / Fat
Mass production
http://www.proteinsect.eu/index.php?id=35
FeedFoodAntimicrobial (Lauric acid)
Chitin• Water treatment• Chemical industry• pharmaceutic• …AMP
Research
FOOD
Food
Feed
Insects for poultry
• In substitution of SBM (GM) (FM)• Meal inclusion levels up to 30%
Live larvae• Rural poultry (Ghana): diet supplementation with 30-50 g/day MD larvae
• Improvement of growing and reproductive parameters• Laying hens: 20% larvae – 80% diet
ADC & Metabolizable energy
De Marco et al., 2015
Bovera et al., 2016
Larvae meal:
• Laying hens• MD: 5% inclusion (50% FM sub): no negative effects on egg production and
shell strength (!! 100% sub = decrease in egg production) (Agundabiade et al., 2007)
• HI: 17% inclusion (total SBM sub) (Marono et al., 2017)
• Better FCR but lower FI• Lower % of “L” class eggs
• HI: up to 24% inclusion (100% SBM sub) (Maurer et al., 2016)
• No differences for FI & egg production
Larvae meal:
• Broilers• MD:
• up to 25% of inclusion: no negative effects on WG, FI, FE (Pretorius, 2011)
• 0 – 5 – 10 – 15 – 20% inclusion (SBM substitution)• Linear increase of live weight (no increase of FI)• 10 – 15%: best results for performances & carcass traits
• HI: 0 – 10 – 15% inclusion (SBM substitution)• 10%: best results
• TM: 30% inclusion (Total substitution SBM):• No differences growth performances• No differences carcass traits & meat quality
• Turkey (MD)
• Barbary partridge (TM & HI)
• Quails (HI)
(Bovera et al., 2016)
(Hwangbo et al., 2009)
(Schiavone et al., submitted)
(Loponte et al., 2017)
(Zuidhof et al., 2003)
(Cullere et al., 2016)
• Proteins = insects
• Local business
• Waste into resources
Developing countriesSustainability
Process when breaded at 30°C
Day 0 2 5 15 Day
Day Development phase
0 Egg collection & transfer into the inoculation boxes
2 Eggs starting hatch
5 Transfer into the production bays
15 Harvesting
Ento Prise Ghana: project in Ghana West Africa, which targets the transformation of waste-streams into animal feed and biofertilizers - through BSF
25,3 kg fresh larvae (4,2 kg DM)50 kg bio fertiliser
• firs trials using insects: warm water species - herbivorous/omnivorous fish(cyprinids, tilapia and catfish)• Live larvae• Dried larvae• Larvae meal
• Sun dried• Oven dried• Full fat meal• Defatted meal
Insects for fish
Lock, Biancarosa & Gasco, 2017. Insects as raw materials in compound feed for aquaculture. In: Edible insects in Sustainable Food Systems (Springer – in press)
Henry, Gasco, Piccolo & Fountoulaki, 2015. Review on the use of insects in the diet of farmed fish: past and future. Anim Feed Sci Technol 203:1-22
Gasco et al., in press. Chemistry of Foods: Feeds for the Aquaculture Sector - Current Situation and Alternative Sources, SpringerBriefs in Molecular Science
• Recent research: carnivorous species (high commercial value)• Insect meal
• Full fat• Partially defatted• Highly defatted
Melotti et al., 1987 – Rivista Italiana di Piscicoltura e Ittiopatologia, XXII, 151-154
• Results impacted by:• the type of larva used (TM, HI, MD)• its condition (fresh or dried, whole, ground, defatted)• the method of nutrient isolation and processing (sun drying, thermal
treatments, lipid extraction methodologies)• the fish species object of the experimentation• the fish stage (larvae, fingerlings, growing)
Lock, Biancarosa & Gasco, 2017. Insects as raw materials in compound feed for aquaculture. In: Edible insects in Sustainable Food Systems (Springer – in press)
Henry, Gasco, Piccolo & Fountoulaki, 2015. Review on the use of insects in the diet of farmed fish: past and future. Anim Feed Sci Technol 203:1-22
• Inclusion levels ranged from 8 to 50% - Substitution up to 100% FM
• Performances results are unequally and bad performances usually assigned to deficiency of somenutrients when high levels of inclusion were performed• Best results with de-fatted meals
• Palatability problems with high levels of HI inclusion
• Digestibility• Decrease with increase of insect meal inclusion• No differences (Magalhães et al., 2017)
• Body/fillet composition: controversial results
• No differences (Sánchez-Muros et al., 2015; Gasco et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2016; Iaconisi et al., 2017)
• decreased values of DM and EE with the inclusion of insect meals (Ogunjii et al., 2008b; Kroeckel et al., 2012;
Dong et al., 2013; Belforti et al., 2015)
• Change in CP content (Ng et al., 2001; Belforti et al., 2015)
• FA composition: dramatic influence of insect meal FA profile (decrease in EPA-DHA)
• Sensory analyses• if untrained panellist: no differences (Bondari and Sheppard, 1981; Sealey et al., 2011)
• If trained: differences perceived but not negative (Lock et al., 2016; Borgogno et al., 2017)
• Histology, health, welfare:
• very few information is available• First investigations on these aspects are promising (Ming et al., 2013; Lock et al., 2106; m )
Developing countriesSustainability
• Limited number of trials using insects• Low levels of inclusion (max 15%)
Insects for pigs
• Performances:• MD larvae meal:
• No negative effects on piglets growth and dvlpt (Bayandinaa e Inkina, 1980; Viroje e Malin, 1989)
• No negative effects on reproductive performances (Bayandinaa e Inkina, 1980)
• Decrease of diet ingestion with more than 10% MD inclusion (Adeniji, 2008)
• HI weaning pigs: good palatability (Newton et al., 1977)
• TM weaning pigs: increasing performances with increasing inclusion (Jin et al., 2016)
• HI weaning pigs: no differences in growing performances (Bressan et al., 2017)
• Digestibility:• Full fat HI meal in weaning pigs: Decrease in CUD of DM, CP, ash; Better CUD EE (Newton
et al., 1977)
• Partially de-fatted HI in weaning pigs: in vitro and in vivo trials (Caro et al., 2107; Bressan et al.,
2017; Bayandinaa e Inkina, 1980)
• TM weaning pigs: increase of CP & DM digestibility (Jin et al., 2016)
• Meat quality:• No differences in muscle composition (Bressan et al., 2017)
• Immuno response:• No differences in IgA & IgG (Jin et al., 2016)
Mass production
http://www.proteinsect.eu/index.php?id=35
FeedFoodAntimicrobial (Lauric acid)
Chitin• Water treatment• Chemical industry• pharmaceutic• …AMP
Research
FOOD
Chitin
Take home message• Insect meals = good alternative to conventional protein sources in feeds and can
provide an important contribution to the sustainable development of livestockindustry
• De-fattening process: increase meal protein content and increase shelf life• Oils: no EPA - DHA• Oils: composition specie specific
• TM: oleic & linoleic acids• HI: lauric acid• MD: palmitic, oleic & linoleic acids
• Oils: for animal feed (energy)• Biodisel• Other purposes (antimicrobial properties)
• Good protein content & AA profile
• High lipid (fat) content: influence on product quality & sensory properties
• Sustainability = use of waste – by-products as rearing substrate (low/no cost)
• Composition modulate thought substrate• FA (+ EPA – DHA)• Mineral (Ca)• Vitamins• …?
• Chitin• Poorly digestible• High levels: decrease digestibility• Low levels: immuno-stimulants, bacteriostatic, antifungal and
antimicrobial properties
• AMPs• Antibacterial• antifungal
Natural antibiotic or antifungal action (Zylowska et al., 2011; Yi et al., 2014)
Khoushab and Yamabhai, 2010; Vidanarachchi et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2012; Ratcliffe etal., 2014; Sanchez-Muros et al., 2014; Henry et al., 2015;Bovera et al., 2016; Faruck et al., 2016;
Rust, 2002; Sealey et al., 2011; Sanchez-Muros et al., 2014;Belforti et al., 2015; Henry et al., 2015; Gasco et al., 2016;Bovera et al., 2016; Piccolo et al., 2017
Sealey et al., 2011; Belforti et al., 2014
Anderson et al., 2000; Klasing et al., 2000; Oonincx & van der Poel, 2011.
Anderson et al., 2000; Klasing et al., 2000; Oonincx & van der Poel, 2011.
• EU reg.• Fish: allowed• Poultry and pigs: by 2020
• Price: to be reduced• automation / mechanization• Increase production• Substrate costs? (waste)
Any question?
Laura [email protected]