The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Potential of mealworm (Tenebrio molitor ) as an alternative protein source in practical diets for African catfish, Clarias gariepinus: Mealworm as a protein source for catfish
Abstract
Two separate 7-week feeding trials were conducted to evaluate the use of mealworm, Tenebrio molitor, as an alternative protein source for African catfish, Clarias gariepinus. In Experiment 1, six isonitrogenous (40% crude protein) and isoenergetic (14.64 kJ g−1) practical diets were formulated. The fish meal component of the diets was progressively substituted at 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% with mealworm meal. The experimental diets were fed to triplicate groups of catfish fingerlings (mean initial weight of 5.1 ± 0.2 g) at 4% body weight day−1. Growth performance and feed utilization efficiency of catfish fed diets with up to 40% replacement of fish meal with worm meal were not significantly different (P > 0.05) compared to fish fed the control diet without any worm meal. Catfish fed diets with up to 80% replacement of fish meal with the worm meal still displayed good growth and feed utilization efficiency. In Experiment 2, the nutritive value of mealworms was compared with a commercial catfish pellet. Three dietary treatments consisting of fish fed catfish pellets only, catfish pellets and mealworms, and mealworms only were tested. Catfish fed solely on mealworms displayed a slight depression in growth performance but when fed in combination with the catfish pellets grew as well or better than fish fed the commercial catfish pellet only. In both experiments, mealworms, whether used as such or transformed into a dry meal, were found to be highly palatable to the African catfish. Catfish fed mealworm-based diets also tend to have significantly higher lipids in their carcass. Results indicate that mealworm was an acceptable alternative protein source for the African catfish.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
State of the art on use of insects as animal feed.
Makkar, H. P. S., Tran, G., Heuzé, V., & Ankers, P. (2014) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.07.008 · Cited by 1,846
Conversion of organic material by black soldier fly larvae: establishing optimal feeding rates
Diener, S., Zurbrügg, C., & Tockner, K. (2009) · Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · doi:10.1177/0734242x09103838 · Cited by 820
EFSA Scientific Committee (2015) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4257 · Cited by 804
Edible insects are the future?
van Huis, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the Nutrition Society · doi:10.1017/s0029665116000069 · Cited by 363
Insect meals in fish nutrition
Nogales‐Mérida, S., Gobbi, P., Józefiak, D., Mazurkiewicz, J., Dudek, K., Rawski, M., Kierończyk, B., & Józefiak, A. (2019) · Reviews in Aquaculture · doi:10.1111/raq.12281 · Cited by 361
Metadata
- Authors
- Ng, W.-K., Liew, F.-L., Ang, L.-P., & Wong, K.-W.
- Venue
- Aquaculture Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-12
- Volume
- 32
- Pages
- 273-280
- ISSN
- 1355-557X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2014596313
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Potential of mealworm (Tenebrio molitor ) as an alternative protein source in practical diets for African catfish, Clarias gariepinus: Mealworm as a protein source for catfish. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1355-557x.2001.00024.x
- The paper
- Ng, W.-K., Liew, F.-L., Ang, L.-P., & Wong, K.-W. (2001). Potential of mealworm (Tenebrio molitor ) as an alternative protein source in practical diets for African catfish, Clarias gariepinus: Mealworm as a protein source for catfish. Aquaculture Research. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1355-557x.2001.00024.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.