Debate on food, free range and egg quality...

[Perris]

Better source:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003257911930906X
(that's the meal, with moisture content reduced from about 60% to just 4%). At those levels, dry matter about 95%, crude protein about 52% (as fed), neutral plus acid detergent fiber around 21% (as fed), and fat around 28% (as fed).

Fresh Mealworms (per feedipedia) are here. We are using that source for the complete A A profile (keep in mind, these are averages with a very small sample size, some variation to be expected)

The four key are:
Met 1.5% of protein (range of 1.3 - 2.0)
Lys 5.4 % of protein (range of 4.6 - 6.1)
Thre 4.0 % of (3.5-4.4)
Tryp 0.6% of (0.0-0.9)

Sadly, we are suffering some imperfect sources, and I'm not sure how long the break in the rain will last. So I don't have time to search better, but I hope you can follow along.

Now, once again from feedipedia, here are earthworms. (meal, that is, dried) Again, averages. 90% dry matter, 57% protein as % dry matter, 9% fat as % dry matter, NDF + ADF 19.4% as % of dry matter. Dry matter was 90%, so "as fed" (the numbers used in the study above) the dried Earthowrms are around 51% protein, 8% fat, 17% fiber - apart from the much lower fat numbers, that's pretty comparable.

As to the protein itself, lets look at its AA makeup. Same four
Met 1.8% (1.5-2.7 range)
Lys 7.0% (5.4-8.5 range)
Thre 4.1% (2.3-5.5 range)
Tryp 1.0% (0.6-1.3 range)

The variation in the tested earthworm samples is greater (except in Tryp), and we are suffering from small sample sizes in every case with just a handful of data sets averaged together from various studies), but I would judge those similar, with a nod to earthworms as the superior source (if Met, Lys, or lower associated total fat are your measures).

and because the rain is holding off, here's dried BSFL (since they've been mentioned), again feedipedia (and again, averages, small sample sizes) for those interested. I'll do the math for "as fed".

Approx 38% protein, 24% fat (they only listed crude fiber, not ADF and NDF, so no direct comparisons). AAs as percent of total protein:
Met 2.1% (1.7-2.4)
Lys 6.6% (6.0-8.0)
Thre 3.7% (1.3-4.8) Huge variation!
Tryp 0.5% (only one sample)

Of the three, the BSFL due to its significantly average lower protein and high fat, together with a not markedly superior AA ratio, would be my third choice in a perfect world. Earthworms my preference, as the lowest fat source of the three. As already established, its not a perfect world, earthworms don't work for me, but from a protein perspective, and a fiber perspective, I'd certainly view them as comparable to mealworms. Certainly more comparable than between certain grains or various seeds.

YMMV

again you have dealt with the issue by changing the subject from what I am talking about, LIVE mealworms, to what you want to talk about, dried mealworms. It is not a better source if it deals with a different thing!

 

[U_Stormcrow]

again you have dealt with the issue by changing the subject from what I am talking about, LIVE mealworms, to what you want to talk about, dried mealworms.

ADD More water. Fixed it for you. AA ratio remains the same w/i the protein. I used dried numbers because they were readily accessible on the same source - so as not to be accused of cherry picking data sets. As I mentioned, imperfect sources.

Live mealworms are about 60% water.
Live earthworms are about 80% water, which mitigates their higher overall values in certain AAs, and reduces the benefit of their lower total fat.

 

[Perris]

Better source:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003257911930906X
(that's the meal, with moisture content reduced from about 60% to just 4%). At those levels, dry matter about 95%, crude protein about 52% (as fed), neutral plus acid detergent fiber around 21% (as fed), and fat around 28% (as fed).

Fresh Mealworms (per feedipedia) are here. We are using that source for the complete A A profile (keep in mind, these are averages with a very small sample size, some variation to be expected)

The four key are:
Met 1.5% of protein (range of 1.3 - 2.0)
Lys 5.4 % of protein (range of 4.6 - 6.1)
Thre 4.0 % of (3.5-4.4)
Tryp 0.6% of (0.0-0.9)

Sadly, we are suffering some imperfect sources, and I'm not sure how long the break in the rain will last. So I don't have time to search better, but I hope you can follow along.

Now, once again from feedipedia, here are earthworms. (meal, that is, dried) Again, averages. 90% dry matter, 57% protein as % dry matter, 9% fat as % dry matter, NDF + ADF 19.4% as % of dry matter. Dry matter was 90%, so "as fed" (the numbers used in the study above) the dried Earthowrms are around 51% protein, 8% fat, 17% fiber - apart from the much lower fat numbers, that's pretty comparable.

As to the protein itself, lets look at its AA makeup. Same four
Met 1.8% (1.5-2.7 range)
Lys 7.0% (5.4-8.5 range)
Thre 4.1% (2.3-5.5 range)
Tryp 1.0% (0.6-1.3 range)

The variation in the tested earthworm samples is greater (except in Tryp), and we are suffering from small sample sizes in every case with just a handful of data sets averaged together from various studies), but I would judge those similar, with a nod to earthworms as the superior source (if Met, Lys, or lower associated total fat are your measures).

and because the rain is holding off, here's dried BSFL (since they've been mentioned), again feedipedia (and again, averages, small sample sizes) for those interested. I'll do the math for "as fed".

Approx 38% protein, 24% fat (they only listed crude fiber, not ADF and NDF, so no direct comparisons). AAs as percent of total protein:
Met 2.1% (1.7-2.4)
Lys 6.6% (6.0-8.0)
Thre 3.7% (1.3-4.8) Huge variation!
Tryp 0.5% (only one sample)

Of the three, the BSFL due to its significantly average lower protein and high fat, together with a not markedly superior AA ratio, would be my third choice in a perfect world. Earthworms my preference, as the lowest fat source of the three. As already established, its not a perfect world, earthworms don't work for me, but from a protein perspective, and a fiber perspective, I'd certainly view them as comparable to mealworms. Certainly more comparable than between certain grains or various seeds.

YMMV

better than feedipedia is this https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/4/170

 

[U_Stormcrow]

better than feedipedia is this https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/4/170

Thank you, saving for later. Rain has stopped again - I need to gather todays's eggs. though it doesn't mention earthworm or lumbricina - and we both agree mealworms and BSFL aren't comparable. Still interested in the rest

 

[Perris]

ADD More water. Fixed it for you. AA ratio remains the same w/i the protein. I used dried numbers because they were readily accessible on the same source - so as not to be accused of cherry picking data sets. As I mentioned, imperfect sources.

Live mealworms are about 60% water.
Live earthworms are about 80% water, which mitigates their higher overall values in certain AAs, and reduces the benefit of their lower total fat.

so why do you present the things you are interested in in percentages to decimal points, giving such a spurious sense of precision and accuracy in what are really variable factors? The first thing anyone needs to know about mealworms is that they are what they eat. That's why dried mealworms from China are banned from the food chain in the UK. The simple diets given the lab specimens or the random and unknown diets of other of these tiny data sets are not discussed, yet have huge bearing on their nutritional profiles. You could at least stop pretending these are facts known to the nth degree with your e.g. 1.8%. You only acknowledge the variability where your source has it.

 

[3KillerBs]

that's a bit of a misrepresentation. The goal is at least 100 eggs per year (p.6), and the chief point of the pamphlet was that the average flock yield was depressed by a lot of poor performers (page 39 ff). That apart, on page 25 it states that "almost any hen, backed by decent breeding and intelligent management, can lay 144 eggs a year."

I fail to see where the phrase "at least" changes anything about what I said. My worst layer, of a breed not known for strong egg laying performance, laid more eggs than the 100-egg target.

Even the higher number of 144 eggs per year is PATHETIC compared to the modern production of a Leghorn hen and inferior to the 200+ eggs per year expected from a modern dual-purpose hen.

 

[Perris]

I fail to see where the phrase "at least" changes anything about what I said. My worst layer, of a breed not known for strong egg laying performance, laid more eggs than the 100-egg target.

Even the higher number of 144 eggs per year is PATHETIC compared to the modern production of a Leghorn hen and inferior to the 200+ eggs per year expected from a modern dual-purpose hen.

I think the difference between 100 and 144 is significant.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

so why do you present the things you are interested in in percentages to decimal points, giving such a spurious sense of precision and accuracy in what are really variable factors? The first thing anyone needs to know about mealworms is that they are what they eat. That's why dried mealworms from China are banned from the food chain in the UK. The simple diets given the lab specimens or the random and unknown diets of other of these tiny data sets are not discussed, yet have huge bearing on their nutritional profiles. You could at least stop pretending these are facts known to the nth degree with your e.g. 1.8%. You only acknowledge the variability where your source has it.

I REPEATEDLY acknowledged the potential concerns with the data sets, inlcuding sample size and variation between samples. In part to avoid the appearance of certainty to which you accuse me. Because their presence in any ingredient is necessarily small, with roughly a score of AAs being added to make the total protein content of a feed, rounding of small averages would only compound errors.

Regardless, absent assays of ingredients as they are used (or mixed) in making feed for the specific nutritional values in that particular batch or lot, averages based on (sometimes tiny) data sets are all we have to work from as points of comparison. Its a complaint I've made repeatedly, and one which those who miox feed commercially routinely point out whenever these exercises in comparative ingredient evaluations are undertaken.

If, as you claim, "The simple diets given the lab specimens or the random and unknown diets of other of these tiny data sets are not discussed, yet have huge bearing on their nutritional profiles." make even that data useless, then we may as well all stop pretending we can intelligently make any comparisons at all. Shrug our shoulders, embrace ignorance, and go home - the perfect being made the enemy of the good.

Feedipedia does, however, provide references for its sources, should you wish to individually look them up to see what might be mentioned re: diet, location, age of crop, etc

and [sidebar] yes, I have a bias towards dried ingredients - those being the way most will buy, store, and eventually mix (if they do) products used in feeding their birds. We all free choice water, its presence in our ingredients is important primarily for reducing their nutrient density, and their propensity for spoilage. [end sidebar]

 

[Perris]

the modern production of a Leghorn hen and inferior to the 200+ eggs per year expected from a modern dual-purpose hen.

interesting point. Do you keep records? Do you know how many each of your hens lay, and for how long they lay and how long they cease? And how old they each are?

 

[Perris]

Feedipedia does, however, provide references for its sources, should you wish to individually look them up to see what might be mentioned re: diet, location, age of crop, etc

I'm not knocking feedipedia; I think it's a very good resource, and the sources are great if a bit dated in many cases (they are revising lots of pages). But there are other good sources of nutritional profiles for food, and feed, e.g. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/ https://www.myfooddata.com/ (same data as above, but easier to use)
https://quadram.ac.uk/UKfoodcomposition/login-register/
https://www.feedtables.com/