Again, most often they scored in between superworms and crickets.įrom these scores, it becomes very obvious that they do not have "little nutritional value". Interestingly in these analysis, sometimes mealworms scored very close to superworms, and sometimes slightly lower, in disagreement with grubco's analysis. Also provided are a few different analysis, such as calories and mineral content and carbohydrates. Here we can see grubco's analysis along with analysis by argentina and reptile rooms forum which are not in agreement with some of the figures provided by grubco, presumably because the insects analyzed were fed a different diet. We can see a few other sources for comparison on this site here For fiber, superworms were significantly higher than crickets, and mealworms scored the least.ĭiet of the insect will significantly effect its nutritional quality and content. For fat, superworms scored the highest, then mealworms, then crickets. For most figures (moisture, protein, calcium and phosphorous) crickets scored the highest, then mealworms, with superworms scoring lowest. If we take a look at the nutritional analysis provided by grubco for their insects here we can make a few interesting observations.įirstly, that nutritional content in nearly all areas appears to be in the middle between crickets and superworms. I kinda feel like mealworms get a bad rap.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |