Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Flore (Florence Rese...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
addClaim

Consumers’ perception of insect meal as aquaculture feed ingredient

Authors: Giulia Secci; Leonardo Bruni; Giuliana Parisi;

Consumers’ perception of insect meal as aquaculture feed ingredient

Abstract

The recently adopted Regulation No 2017/893 authorizes the use of insect proteins originating from seven insect species [black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens), common housefly (Musca domestica), yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor), lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus), house cricket (Acheta domesticus), banded cricket (Gryllodes sigillatus) and field cricket (Gryllus assimilis)] in feed for aquaculture fish. To date, many researches have successfully demonstrated that insect meals (IM) can be used as feed ingredient for a variety of fresh and seawater species. However, alongside legislation and scientific knowledge, consumers show increasing interest towards animal breeding, especially for welfare and feeding items. For this reason, we decided to perform a survey (using google forms®) among Italian consumers, in order to understand their perception and acceptance of insects as alternative protein source for aquaculture species. Six hundred and seventy-eight answers were collected. Both males and females (47.8 and 52.2%, respectively) aged from 18 to 75 years attended the questionnaire. Firstly, people were asked for general information (gender, age, country, income) and their food attitudes; only people usually consuming fish flesh could proceed with the subsequent questions (96.5%). For 53% of the interviewees, fish, especially seawater species, represent an important food in their weekly diet, and almost 49% asserted to prefer a meal with fish rather than one without. Nevertheless, half of the people said that they are indecisive when buying fish due to allergy, heavy metals, geographical origin, pollutants, and sustainability of fishery supply chain. To the question “How do you feel knowing that fish eat insects in nature?” the majority answered not to feel nervous (97%), and only 62 people (less than 10%) assured that they would not accept IM as ingredient for aquafeed. Nineteen people (3%) were uncertain, basically because of their lack of knowledge, while the remaining participants affirmed that they would accept IM for feeding farmed fish. Finally, almost 78% believe that the use of IM is linked to the concept of “sustainability” mainly because its production does not directly exploit wild fish, is considered “natural”, and because people consider IM production an environmentally friendly activity. In conclusion, from the present survey it emerged that Italian consumers seem to be ready to accept insect meal as ingredient in aquafeed.

Country
Italy
Related Organizations
Keywords

insect meal, aquaculture, survey

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!