Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Edible Insects as a Source of Dietary Protein for Companion Animals – Perspectives and Possibilities

Altmetrics

Downloads

277

Views

223

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

31 December 2023

Posted:

02 January 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The incidence of chronic enteropathies (CE), in particular food-responsive enteropathies (FRE) in dogs, is on the rise in veterinary practice. The symptoms of these digestive disorders cannot be alleviated with the use of commercial hypoallergenic feeds. The applicability of novel substrates in hypoallergenic dog feeds is limited, and edible insects could pose a viable alternative. Insects have a high nutritional value, and their potential can be harnessed to design personalized nutrition strategies. However, the use of insects in animal feeds should be rigorously tested. The aim of this study was to analyze the applicability of edible insects as a source of dietary protein for companion animals, including the current and future prospects. Canine food formulas should be evaluated in a clinical setting. The role edible insects in pet diets and the efficacy of this substrate in animal nutrition should be examined in advanced clinical trials in gastroenterology, histology, immunology, and microbiology. These efforts are required to guarantee the safety and efficacy of innovative insect-based feeds and to increase their popularity among veterinary practitioners, pet food producers, and animal owners.
Keywords: 
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences  -   Animal Science, Veterinary Science and Zoology

1. Introduction

Companion animals represent a significant proportion of veterinary patients. The European pet food market is valued at EUR 21 billion [1], and the value of products and services for companion animals has been estimated at EUR 19 billion. The pet food industry has been growing at an annual rate of 2.6%. In Europe, the population of companion animals is estimated at 199 922 236, including 89 826 097 dogs and 110 096 139 cats [1]. Food formulas involving insects should be developed and thoroughly tested to evaluate the applicability of edible insects in pet nutrition. To overcome cultural and economic barriers, insect-based ingredients in feeds should not only have a high nutritional value, but should also deliver additional benefits such as hypoallergenic effects that have been reliably confirmed by research. Statistical and veterinary data suggest that the incidence of chronic enteropathies (CE) including food-responsive enteropathies (FRE) a is considered as a frequent cause of presentation to the veterinarian [2,3,4] possibly to a deterioration in the quality of commercial feeds, or developing better diagnostic methods. Edible insects have recently emerged as one of the most innovative dietary substrates in human and animal nutrition [5,6]. According to many researchers, the “six-legged livestock” constitutes a milestone in the diversification of protein sources and contributes to global food security [7]. The use of insect protein in pet nutrition should be evaluated in extensive clinical trials. Insects from sustainable farming systems are particularly desirable in the production of innovative feeds. Insect-based pet food fulfills the requirements for three out of the five types of innovations distinguished by Schumpeter [8]: a new good, a new market, and a new source of supply of raw materials. Innovative food formulas incorporating insect protein can be developed for use in the veterinary sector. These solutions can be applied in veterinary practice to design therapeutic diets for companion animals. However, novel feed ingredients have to be rigorously tested to determine their efficacy and safety. Feeds containing insect protein offer a particularly interesting alternative for veterinary medicine. In Europe currently, it has been proposed that all insects recognized as “Novel Food” could be included as a component of pet food [9,10]. These include: Black Soldier fly (Hermetia illucens), House cricket (Acheta domesticus), House fly (Musca domestica), Jamaican field cricket (Gryllus assimilis), Lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus), Locust (Locusta migratoria), Tropical house cricket (Gryllodes sigillatus) and yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor). Currently, the first two species are most commonly used [11,12,13].

2. Characteristics of the European pet food market

Around 38% of European households own companion animals, where 24% of pet owners have at least one dog, and 25% of households own at least one cat [1]. Due to social changes, cats and dogs are presently considered family members, rather than property [14,15]. Most dog and cat owners claim that their pets are integral members of their families [16,17]. These changes are particularly evident in households ran by Millennials (Generation Y) who largely drive the growth of the pet food market [15,18,19]. Approximately 82% of the surveyed Millennials claimed that pet ownership should come before parenthood because it better prepares them for starting a family [20,21]. Pets are anthropomorphized by 42% of Generation Y owners [22]. This demographic group is also more susceptible to social changes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic which increased the demand for pet products [17]. Around 7% of Millennials and 26% of Generation Z have adopted a pet during the COVID-19 pandemic [22,23]. Millennials also spend more on pet food than any other generation. In 2020, 49% of Millennials purchased special food treats, and 30% bought high-end pet food over six months [22]. Only 9% of the respondents admitted to buying poor-quality pet food [22]. In Millennial-run households, spending on dogs increased 3.5-fold during the pandemic, which clearly indicates that Generation Y is the target market for insect-based pet food. Generations Y and Z have a greater interest in edible insects than other consumers [24,25,26], which is another important consideration. Research has demonstrated that the acceptance of entomophagy is much higher in these generations [27,28]. This observation can exert a synergistic effect on the use of edible insects in dog nutrition. The above generations are characterized by the highest levels of consumer innovativeness [29] and are likely to spend more on innovative products [30].
Insect-based feeds may also attract the interest of consumers whose pets suffer from FRE. Currently, it is difficult to determine the exact prevalence of FRE in dogs. According to estimates, 17–48% of dogs are allergic to at least one food ingredient [2,31,32], which suggests that approximately 34 million of dogs in Europe could benefit from insect-based nutrition. However, these calculations are hypothetical because Dandrieux and Mansfield [3] indicate that there is currently a lack of studies to determine the true prevalence of CE either at the level of general practice or referral. Pet owners are becoming increasingly aware that commercial pet food is not highly effective in alleviating the symptoms of FRE, which prompts them to search for innovative solutions with the assistance of veterinary practitioners. According to Woodmansey [33], the demand for hypoallergenic dog food has increased by around 75% since 2016. The popularity of premium, light, and prescription pet food is on the rise [34]. Insect-based food can cater to this demand. Innovative solutions have also attracted the interest of pet food manufacturers who have recognized the potential of edible insects in pet nutrition [35,36]. Market research has demonstrated that a growing number of pet food producers show an interest in edible insects [37,38].
The popularity of the proposed solutions is likely to increase in the insect industry. Approximately 78% of insect producers in the EU regard insect-based feed as a promising trend in animal rearing [39]. Current trends in agriculture indicate that insect farming will evolve into a novel segment of the farming industry [35]. Edible insects should be promoted as a viable alternative in the pet food sector to promote the development of a dedicated insect market and generate stable revenues for the new sector. Insect-based pet food is also likely to attract the interest of veterinary practitioners whose opinions on innovative nutritional solutions tend to be disregarded. Veterinarians could have an interest in the results of research evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of insect-based food and the implementation of pet food formulas addressed specifically to companion animals suffering from certain pathological conditions [40,41]. According to the available information, none of the currently marketed brands of insect-based pet food has been clinically approved.

3. Potential risks associated with insect-based pet food

There are many potential risks that could impede the implementation of pet food containing insect protein [42,43,44]. One of the most obvious dangers is that similar products could be formulated and developed by competitors [45,46]. Based on market observations, this risk has been evaluated as moderately high. The relevant threat could be minimized by developing transparent pricing policies, and/or introducing new marketing methods, and/or modifying food formulas in response to competitors’ actions. Dishonest competition [47,48], in particular efforts to discredit insect-based pet food, poses yet another threat. This risk can be regarded as high due to the potential conflict of interest. Companies manufacturing insect-based pet food can minimize the threat of disinformation and dishonest competition by providing consumers with reliable information about their products. The risk associated with dishonest competition can be mitigated through effective PR and marketing campaigns.
Legal and administrative risks [10] relating to sanitary and veterinary requirements for insect-based pet food have been evaluated as low. The laws governing the use of edible insects in food and feed are being gradually relaxed. However, to avoid legal and administrative violations, pet food producers should carefully analyze the applicable regulations before developing insect-based foods and placing them on the market. Legal provisions and sanitary requirements [49] regarding pet foods containing insects can change over time, but this risk has been evaluated as moderately low. To avoid such violations, manufacturers should regularly monitor legislative changes and industrial standards to ensure that pet food parameters are consistent with the regulations. Pet food manufacturers should comply with legal amendments and adapt their formulas and production lines accordingly, to the extent that is technically and financially feasible. Intellectual property protection poses yet another risk [50]. This threat can be regarded as moderate, but its significance could increase in the future. Counterfeit products could be placed on the market as insect-based pet foods become more popular and widely available. To avoid the legal risks associated with intellectual property infringement, the results of research and development, including the developed formulas, should be adequately protected. Companies producing insect-based pet foods should monitor technological progress on the market to mitigate the relevant risks. The following risk is closely associated with consumer innovativeness [51,52]. The specificity of the target market, consumer preferences, the extent to which a given product meets market needs [53,54], and the palatability of pet food [55] are the main concerns in this group of threats. The relevant risks have been evaluated as moderate. Representatives of potential target groups should be invited to participate in the development and implementation of innovative pet foods to minimize this risk. Pet owners’ opinions should be considered in the process of formulating innovative products. Valuable information can be also obtained from veterinary professionals [56]. This risk can be minimized by analyzing the causes of product failure, and the identified issues should be urgently resolved.
Some consumers may find it difficult to accept insect-based foods [57,58] The risk of neophobia and negative attitudes towards entomophagy are regarded as moderately high. To overcome these problems, the formulated pet foods should be characterized by very high quality, and their therapeutic properties should be backed by research. Pet foods with scientifically proven benefits are likely to mitigate negative attitudes towards innovative products for companion animals. This risk can be mitigated through marketing and educational activities, including effective communication campaigns to provide consumers with reliable information about the benefits and safety of insect-based foods, and to reduce susceptibility to disinformation. Technological problems can also undermine the popularity of insect-based pet food. There is a risk that the claims for hypoallergenic products are not substantiated [59,60]. This risk can be regarded as moderately high because few innovative pet formulations have been clinically tested. Moreover, production lines in pet food plants may require certain modifications to process insect protein [61,62,63,64]. Pet food producers work with similar substrates, and this risk has been evaluated as moderate. Insect-based substrates are abundant in fat and chitin, and they may not be adequately processed by conventional production lines. Therefore, to minimize this potential risks, a plant’s ability to process insects into food should be checked before launching production.
Qualitative defects in insect substrates pose an equally important problem [44,65,66]. This risk should be evaluated as moderately high because the nutrient composition and nutritional value of pet food substrates, in particularly insect-based substrates, can vary. Pet food manufacturers should work only with reliable suppliers, and all ingredients should be thoroughly checked before they reach the production process. The causes of qualitative defects should be identified, and the appropriate remedy measures should be implemented, for example by improving storage conditions, eliminating defects and defective substrate batches, or changing suppliers.

4. Discussion

Many consumers have equally negative attitudes towards insect-based foods for humans and companion animals [67]. Animal species of the family Canidae can be considered facultative insectivores [38,68]. Insects were not a major food source in the diets of ancient dogs, but entomophagy is observed in wolves and foxes [68,69]. According to veterinarians, the incidence of FRE is on the rise in companion animals [3,70]. Insects are a rich source of protein [71], and their potential can be harnessed to design personalized nutrition strategies. There is evidence to indicate that insect protein can enhance immune functions [72]. The presence of chitin in insect meals has been also found to reduce Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. counts [73], which suggests that insect-based food can limit the use of antibiotics in the treatment of CE. According to research, edible insects are also effective in modulating gut microbiota in animals [74,75].
The available brands of insect-based pet food are based on a limited number of insect species, including H. illucens and A. domesticus, whereas other insects are less widely utilized in the pet food industry. Other insect species are less popular because they grow at a slower rate and their production generates smaller profits. Diet plays a very important role in the treatment of many medical conditions [76]. Insects are frequently incorporated into premium foods for animals with specialist dietary requirements, including allergic reactions to conventional protein sources. This fits into the general trend on the dog food market [34,36]
Due to the growing popularity of edible insects, insect farming is likely to evolve into a novel agricultural sector [77], which implies that a market capable of meeting future demand for insect protein has to be created [35]. New pet food brands based on insect protein are likely to be introduced in the near future. Insect-based foods also offer a viable alternative to conventional meat-based products [78]. Many in vitro studies have demonstrated that insect protein has hypoallergenic, anti-inflammatory, or even therapeutic properties [79,80]. These findings suggest that insect protein is characterized by low allergenic potential. Based on these observations, pet food manufacturers rely on insects in the production of hypoallergenic food and specialty diets for dogs with FRE. However, the safety of insect-based food for non-livestock animals has not been sufficiently studied [44,81,82]. Therefore, feeding trials should not be conducted directly on dogs due to the possible adverse effects of the tested products. Unless properly studied, the claim that insects deliver benefits for dogs may mislead pet owners and exert adverse health effects in the long term. These risks could be exacerbated by the lack of certification requirements for hypoallergenic pet food.
Insects are highly suitable for dog nutrition on account of their high digestibility, high protein and fat content, low pH of the canine stomach, the length and function of the canine gastrointestinal tract which has evolved to digest meat, the absence of a direct connection between the cecum and the ileum in canine species, and high protein requirements of dogs [71,83,84,85,86]. However, insect-based diets could also have certain disadvantages. Above all, despite the fact that dogs genome contains chitinase protein-coding genes [87], the degradation of chitin in intestinal tract is low [85,88]. Carnivore parasites can use insects as intermediate hosts [89,90,91]. Edible insects are also a potential source of antinutritional factors [5,92]. Insect-based foods that are currently available on the market have not been scientifically evaluated. The efficacy of insect protein in the treatment of FRE has never been studied. The only insight that can be gleaned from the literature is that dogs may clinically express allergenic cross-reactivity with mealworm proteins [93].
The health implications of insect protein should be analyzed in clinical trials, and the results can be used to formulate safe and effective dog food. Clinical trials should be conducted on laboratory animals (such as rats) fed the tested food under controlled conditions. In the next stage, feeding trials should be performed in a real-world setting with the involvement of dogs that are fed by owners in the home environment. The following factors should be considered to determine the applicability of insect protein as a source of nutrition for companion animals: (1) the animals’ overall health (body mass, body condition score, diarrhea, behavior, blood morphology and biochemistry parameters); (2) gastrointestinal health (macroscopic changes in endoscopic evaluations, histological analyses, microbiome analyses); (3) immune health (cytokine analysis, cytometric analysis of lymphocyte subpopulations). The results of gastrological and histological tests can provide valuable information about the influence of insect protein on the canine digestive tract. The impact of insect-based food on the canine gut microbiome has been poorly investigated to date. Jarett et al. [94] found that diets containing cricket supported the same level of gut microbiome diversity as a standard healthy balanced diet. These results support crickets as a potential healthy, novel food ingredient for dogs [94]. Immunity tests should also be carried out to determine the effects of insect protein on gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), local inflammations, and the activity of the canine immune system. These tests could generate important insights because the immune system can play a role in FRE [95,96,97,98].
A large population study involving various breeds of dogs living in the domestic environment will pose the greatest challenge. Pet owners have different habits, and domesticated dogs are fed various diets and are kept under various sanitary conditions [99,100,101]. The progression and etiology of FRE can also differ across individual animals [70,97,102,103].
Various measures should be initiated to improve the wellbeing of pets affected by CE and FRE [76,103,104,105]. Innovative pet food can attract the interest of veterinary professionals, in particular gastroenterology specialists. The proposed initiatives will support the introduction of insect-based pet food to veterinary practice. Marketing campaigns targeting pet owners could increase the consumers’ interest in edible insects [106] and act a milestone in the development of innovative products containing insect protein, such as dietary supplements, prebiotics, and treats. Such measures will increase the demand for insect-based components and stimulate the development of the insect farming industry [36,77,107].

5. Future directions

The exploration of insect-based pet food opens up numerous opportunities and challenges in the realm of veterinary medicine, animal nutrition, and the pet food industry. The following key unanswered questions, challenges, and future directions were placed in Table 1.
Mentioned development directions will be critical for advancing the subdiscipline of insect-based pet food over the next 3-5 years. Through rigorous research, comprehensive testing, and strategic marketing efforts, insect-based pet food can emerge as a safe, effective, and sustainable option for companion animals, meeting the evolving needs and preferences of pet owners and promoting the growth of the insect farming industry.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, the safety of insect-based pet food has not been sufficiently investigated. There is some evidence to indicate that insect protein has low allergenic potential, and that it does not influence the canine immune system which plays an important role in the pathogenesis of FRE. The impact of insect-based foods on the gut microbiome and the histological structure of the digestive tract in companion animals remains unknown. For this reason, pet food formulas containing insects should be thoroughly analyzed to determine their efficacy and safety. The results can be used to substantiate product claims and to ensure that only tested and safe products are placed on the market.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.G. methodology, R.G.; software, R.G.; validation, R.G. and M.H.D.; formal analysis, R.G., M.H.D and E.K.; investigation, R.G.; resources, R.G; data curation, R.G.; writing—original draft preparation, R.G. and M.H.D; writing—review and editing, R.G.; visualization, R.G.; supervision, R.G.; project administration, R.G.; funding acquisition, R.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by a research project Lider XII entitled “Development of an insect protein food for companion animals with diet-dependent enteropathies”, financed by the National Center for Research and Development (NCBiR) (LIDER/5/0029/L-12/20/NCBR/2021). Publication was financially supported by the Minister of Science and Higher Education under the program entitled “Regional initiative of Excellence” for the years 2019–2022, Project No. 010/RID/2018/19, amount of funding PLN 12,000,000. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable

Acknowledgments

Not applicable

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fediaf Annual Report 2021. https://europeanpetfood.org/about/annual-report/(Accessed 20.01.2023).
  2. Chesney, C.J. Systematic review of evidence for the prevalence of food sensitivity in dogs. Vet. Rec., 2001, 148, 445–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dandrieux, J.R.S.; Mansfield, C.S. Chronic enteropathy in canines: prevalence, impact and management strategies. Veterinary Medicine: Research and Reports 2019, 203-14.
  4. Makielski, K.; Cullen, J.; O'Connor, A.; Jergens, A.E. Narrative review of therapies for chronic enteropathies in dogs and cats. . Vet. Intern. Med. 2019, 33, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rumpold, B.A; Schlüter, O.K. Nutritional composition and safety aspects of edible insects. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2013, 57, 802–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Patel, S.; Suleria, H.A.R.; Rauf, A. Edible insects as innovative foods: Nutritional and functional assessments. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 86, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kinyuru, J.N.; Ndung’u, N.W. Promoting edible insects in Kenya: historical, present and future perspectives towards establishment of a sustainable value chain. J. Insects as Food Feed. 2020, 6, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schumpeter, J.A. The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capita I, credit, interest, and the business cycle. 2017. Routledge.
  9. Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on Novel Foods, Amending Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Repealing Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1852/2001; European Union: Luxemburg, 2001.
  10. Żuk-Gołaszewska, K.; Gałęcki, R.; Obremski, K.; Smetana, S.; Figiel, S.; Gołaszewski, J. Edible Insect Farming in the Context of the EU Regulations and Marketing—An Overview. Insects 2022, 13, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kröger, S.; Heide, C.; Zentek, J. Evaluation of an extruded diet for adult dogs containing larvae meal from the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens). Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2020, 270, 114699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Abd El-Wahab, A.; Meyer, L.; Kölln, M.; Chuppava, B.; Wilke, V.; Visscher, C.; Kamphues, J. Insect larvae meal (Hermetia illucens) as a sustainable protein source of canine food and its impacts on nutrient digestibility and fecal quality. Animals 2021, 11, 2525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Areerat, S.; Chundang, P.; Lekcharoensuk, C.; Kovitvadhi, A. Possibility of using house cricket (Acheta domesticus) or mulberry silkworm (Bombyx mori) pupae meal to replace poultry meal in canine diets based on health and nutrient digestibility. Animals 2021, 11, 2680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hankin, S.J. Not a Living Room Sofa: Changing the Legal Status of Companion Animals. Faculty Scholarship 2007, 85. [Google Scholar]
  15. Forbes, S.L.; Trafford, S.; Surie, M. Pet humanisation: what is it and does it influence purchasing behaviour? J. Dairy Vet. Sci. 2018, 5(2), 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. McConnell, A.R.; Paige, L.E.; Humphrey, B.T. We are family: Viewing pets as family members improves wellbeing. Anthrozoös. 2019, 32, 459-470. [CrossRef]
  17. White, B.L. Insights-Driven Development of Humanized Foods for Pets. Meat and Muscle Biology 2023 6. [CrossRef]
  18. Lincoln, J. How do Millennial retail shopping habits for animal feed differ from that of other generations? Doctoral Dissertation 2018. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kucharska, B.; Malinowska, M. Trends in Y generation’s behaviour on the food market. Zeszyty Naukowe SGGW w Warszawie. Polityki Europejskie, Finanse i Marketing 2019, 22(71).
  20. Oakland Veterinary Referral Service Staff. The future is pets: why millennials have the top spot as pet owners. Published January 17, 2019. https://www.ovrs.com/blog/pet-owners/ (Accessed 15.12.2022). 17 January.
  21. Graham, T.M.; Milaney, K.J.; Adams, C.L.; Rock, M.J. Are millennials really picking pets over people? Taking a closer look at dog ownership in emerging adulthood. Can. J. Fam. Youth 2019, 11(1), 202-227.
  22. YPulse Survey. 76% of Millennials Are Pet Parents—Here’s What They’ve Been Buying for Them. Published August 24, 2020. https://www.ypulse.com/article/2020/08/24/76-of-millennials-are-pet-parents-heres-what-theyve-been-buying-for-them/. (Accessed 16.12.2022). 24 August.
  23. Beck, A.M.; Fine, A.H.; Coren, S.; King, E.; Feldman, S.; Braun, L. Why Do We Love the Pets We Have?: The Role of Animals and Family. In The Routledge International Handbook of Human-Animal Interactions and Anthrozoology; Routledge, Year; pp. 200-213.
  24. Dagevos, H. A literature review of consumer research on edible insects: recent evidence and new vistas from 2019 studies. J. Insects as Food Feed 2021, 7(3), 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Roux, C. La Generation Z et l’entomophagie en France. 2021.
  26. Schubiger, D. M. Enablers of entomophagy willingness to try for Generation Z consumers. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-9). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM) 2022.
  27. Taylor, K. 2019. Eating insects will soon go mainstream as bug protein is set to explode into an $8 billion business. Bussines Insider. Published January 25, 2019. https://www.businessinsider.com/eating-insects-set-to-become-8-billion-business-barclays-2019-6?IR=T. (Accessed 10.03.2022). 25 January.
  28. Fasanelli, R.; Galli, I.; Riverso, R.; Piscitelli, A. Social representations of insects as food: an explorative-comparative study among millennials and x-generation consumers. Insects. 2020, 11, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Formica, P. Stories of Innovation for the Millennial Generation: The Lynceus Long View. Springer, 2013.
  30. Drucker, P. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Routledge, 2014.
  31. Harvey, R.G. Food allergy and dietary intolerance in dogs: a report of 25 cases. J. Small Anim. Pract. 1993, 34, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Paterson, S. Food hypersensitivity in 20 dogs with skin and gastrointestinal signs. J. Small Anim. Pract. 1995, 36, 529–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Woodmansey, D. Database shows 75% rise in hypoallergenic food demand. 2018. Veterinary Times. https://www.vettimes.co.uk/news/database-shows-75-rise-in-hypoallergenic-food-demand/.
  34. Euromonitor. Premiumisation: How Value-Seeking Trends in the US Will Shape the Future of Pet Food. 2019. Available online: https://www.euromonitor.com/premiumisation-how-value-seeking-trends-in-the-us-will-shape-the-future-of-petfood/report (accessed on 4 May 2021).
  35. Gałęcki, R.; Zielonka, Ł.; Zasȩpa, M.; Gołȩbiowska, J.; Bakuła, T. Potential Utilization of Edible Insects as an Alternative Source of Protein in Animal Diets in Poland. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 675796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Valdés, F.; Villanueva, V.; Durán, E.; Campos, F.; Avendaño, C.; Sánchez, M.; Domingoz-Araujo, C.; Valenzuela, C. Insects as Feed for Companion and Exotic Pets: A Current Trend. Animals 2022, 12, 1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bae, S.; Lee, S.; Kim, J.; Hwang, Y. Analysis of consumer receptivity to pet food containing edible insects in South Korea. Korean J. Appl. Entomol. 2020, 59, 139–43. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kępińska-Pacelik, J.; Biel, W. Insects in Pet Food Industry—Hope or Threat? Animals 2022, 12, 1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF). The European Insect Sector Today: Challenges, Opportunities And Regulatory Landscape. (2018). IPIFF vision paper on the future of the insect sector towards 2030. IPIFF.
  40. Bosch, G.; Swanson, K.S. Effect of using insects as feed on animals: pet dogs and cats. J. Insects Food Feed 2021, 7, 795–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, K.I.; Chae, Y.; Yun, T.; Koo, Y.; Lee, D.; Kim, H.; So, K.M.; Cho, W.J.; Kim, H.J; Yang, M.P.; Kang, B.T. Clinical application of insect-based diet in canine allergic dermatitis. Korean J. Vet. Res. 2021, 61, e36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lange, K.W.; Nakamura, Y. Edible insects as future food: chances and challenges. J. Future Foods, 2021, 1, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. van Huis, A. Edible insects: Challenges and prospects. Entomol. Res. 2022, 52(4), 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gałęcki, R.; Bakuła, T.; Gołaszewski, J. Foodborne Diseases in the Edible Insect Industry in Europe—New Challenges and Old Problems. Foods 2023, 12, 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Hill, C.W. Establishing a standard: Competitive strategy and technological standards in winner-take-all industries. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 1997, 11(2), 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Smith, A.D. Competitive approaches to new product development: A comparison of successful organizations in an unstable economic environment. Team Perform. Manage. Int. J. 2011, 17(3/4), 124-145.
  47. Wolff, J. Unfair Competition by Truthful Disparagement. Yale LJ 1937, 47, 1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Suleman, S. Comparative Advertising, Disparagement and Trademark Infringement: An Interface. Disparagement and Trademark Infringement: An Interface 2011, 7.
  49. Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A.; Marimuthu, S.B.; Meijer, N. Regulations on insects as food and feed: a global comparison. J. Insects as Food Feed 2021, 7(5), 849–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Boldrin, M.; Levine, D. The case against intellectual property. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92(2), 209–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barrena, R.; Sánchez, M. Neophobia, personal consumer values and novel food acceptance. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27(1), 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Siddiqui, S.A.; Zannou, O.; Karim, I.; Kasmiati; Awad, N.M.H.; Gołaszewski, J.; Heinz, V.; Smetana, S. Avoiding Food Neophobia and Increasing Consumer Acceptance of New Food Trends—A Decade of Research. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10391. [CrossRef]
  53. Bloch, P.H. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. J. Mark. 1995, 59(3), 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Van Kleef, E.; Van Trijp, H.C.; Luning, P. Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques. Food Qual. Prefer. 2005, 16(3), 181–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Aldrich, G.C.; Koppel, K. Pet food palatability evaluation: a review of standard assay techniques and interpretation of results with a primary focus on limitations. Animals 2015, 5(1), 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Kulkov, I.; Barner-Rasmussen, W.; Ivanova-Gongne, M.; Tsvetkova, A.; Hellström, M.; Wikström, K. Innovations in veterinary markets: opinion leaders’ social capital. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2021, 36(13), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Deroy, O.; Reade, B.; Spence, C. The insectivore’s dilemma, and how to take the West out of it. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 44, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mancini, S.; Moruzzo, R.; Riccioli, F.; Paci, G. European consumers’ readiness to adopt insects as food. A review. Food Res. Int. 2019, 122, 661–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Olivry, T.; Bizikova, P. A systematic review of the evidence of reduced allergenicity and clinical benefit of food hydrolysates in dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions. Vet. Dermatol. 2010, 21(1), 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Jeromin, A. Food allergy: Fact versus fiction. Vet. Pract. News 2018. https://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/food-allergy-november-2018-2/ (Accessed 06.12.2023).
  61. Ortiz, J.C.; Ruiz, A.T.; Morales-Ramos, J.A.; Thomas, M.; Rojas, M.G.; Tomberlin, J.K.; YI, L.; Han, R.; Giroud, L.; Jullien, R.L. Insect mass production technologies. In Insects as Sustainable Food Ingredients; Academic Press, 2016; pp. 153-201.
  62. Dossey, A.T.; Tatum, J.T.; McGill, W.L. Modern insect-based food industry: current status, insect processing technology, and recommendations moving forward. In Insects as Sustainable Food Ingredients; Academic Press, 2016; pp. 113-152.
  63. Ojha, S.; Bußler, S.; Psarianos, M.; Rossi, G.; Schlüter, O.K. Edible insect processing pathways and implementation of emerging technologies. J. Insects as Food Feed 2021, 7(5), 877–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sindermann, D.; Heidhues, J.; Kirchner, S.; Stadermann, N.; Kühl, A. Industrial processing technologies for insect larvae. J. Insects as Food Feed 2021, 7(5), 857–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. EFSA Scientific Committee. Risk profile related to production and consumption of insects as food and feed. EFSA J. 2015, 13(10), 4257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Murefu, T.R.; Macheka, L.; Musundire, R.; Manditsera, F.A. Safety of wild harvested and reared edible insects: A review. Food Control 2019, 101, 209–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bakuła, T.; Gałęcki, R. Strategia wykorzystania owadów jako alternatywnych źródeł białka w żywieniu zwierząt oraz możliwości rozwoju jego produkcji na terytorium Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. (2021). ERZET. Olsztyn. ISBN 978-83-961897.
  68. Sheldon, J.W. Wild Dogs: The Natural History of the Nondomestic Canidae. Elsevier, 2013.
  69. Bueno, A.D. A, Motta-Junior, J.C. Food habits of two syntopic canids, the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) and the crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon thous), in southeastern Brazil. Rev. Chil. de Hist. Nat. 2004, 77, 5–14. [Google Scholar]
  70. Kawano, K.; Shimakura, H.; Nagata, N.; Masashi, Y.; Suto, A.; Suto, Y.; Uto, S.; Ueno, H.; Hasegawa, T.; Ushigusa, T.; Nagai, T.; Arawatari, Y.; Miyaji, K.; Ohmori, K.; Mizuno, T. Prevalence of food-responsive enteropathy among dogs with chronic enteropathy in Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2016, 15, 0457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hong, J.; Han, T.; Kim, Y.Y. Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor Larvae) as an alternative protein source for monogastric animal: A review. Animals. 2020, 10, 2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gasco, L.; Józefiak, A.; Henry, M. Beyond the protein concept: Health aspects of using edible insects on animals. J. Insects as Food Feed. 2021, 7, 715–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Islam, M.M.; Yang, C.J. Efficacy of mealworm and super mealworm larvae probiotics as an alternative to antibiotics challenged orally with Salmonella and E. coli infection in broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Stull, V.J.; Finer, E.; Bergmans, R.S.; Febvre, H.P.; Longhurst, C.; Manter, D.K.; Patz, J.A.; Weir, T.L. Impact of edible cricket consumption on gut microbiota in healthy adults, a double-blind, randomized crossover trial. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 10762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Panteli, N.; Mastoraki, M.; Lazarina, M.; Chatzifotis, S.; Mente, E.; Kormas, K.A.; Antonopoulou, E. Configuration of gut microbiota structure and potential functionality in two teleosts under the influence of dietary insect meals. Microorganisms. 2021, 9, 699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Tolbert, M.K.; Murphy, M.; Gaylord, L.; Witzel-Rollins, A. Dietary management of chronic enteropathy in dogs. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2022, 63, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Van Huis, A. Insects as food and feed, a new emerging agricultural sector: a review. J. Insects Food Feed. 2020, 6, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gallen, C.; Pantin-Sohier, G.; Oliveira, D. How can the design thinking process improve an innovative insect-based food experience? Int. J. Food Des. 2022, 7, 29–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zielińska, E.; Baraniak, B.; Karaś, M. Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of hydrolysates and peptide fractions obtained by enzymatic hydrolysis of selected heat-treated edible insects. Nutrients. 2017, 9, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nowakowski, A.C.; Miller, A.C.; Miller, M.E.; Xiao, H.; Wu, X. Potential health benefits of edible insects. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 3499–3508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Selaledi, L.; Mbajiorgu, C.A.; Mabelebele, M. The use of yellow mealworm (T. molitor) as alternative source of protein in poultry diets: a review. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2020, 52, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Jin, X.H.; Heo, P.S.; Hong, J.S.; Kim, N.J.; Kim, Y.Y. Supplementation of dried mealworm (Tenebrio molitor larva) on growth performance, nutrient digestibility and blood profiles in weaning pigs. Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 29, 979-86. [CrossRef]
  83. Simpson, J.W.; Anderson, R.S.; Markwell, P.J. Clinical nutrition of the dog and cat. Blackwell Sci. Publ. 1993. [Google Scholar]
  84. Smeets-Peeters, M.; Watson, T.; Minekus, M.; Havenaar, R. A review of the physiology of the canine digestive tract related to the development of in vitro systems. Nutr. Res. Rev. 1998, 11(1), 45–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Bosch, G.; Vervoort, J.J.M.; Hendriks, W.H. In vitro digestibility and fermentability of selected insects for dog foods. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 221, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bosch, G.; Zhang, S.; Oonincx, D.G.; Hendriks, W.H. Protein quality of insects as potential ingredients for dog and cat foods. J. Nutr. Sci. 2014, 3, e29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Bussink, A.P.; Speijer, D.; Aerts, J.M.; Boot, R.G. Evolution of mammalian chitinase (-like) members of family 18 glycosyl hydrolases. Genetics 2007, 177(2), 959–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Okamoto, Y.; Nose, M.; Miyatake, K.; Sekine, J.; Oura, R.; Shigemasa, Y.; Minami, S. Physical changes of chitin and chitosan in canine gastrointestinal tract. Carbohydr. Polym. 2001, 44(3), 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Voge, M.; Heyneman, D. Development of Hymenolepis nana and Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae) in the intermediate Host Tribolium confusum. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 1957, 59(9).
  90. Woodroffe, R.; Cleaveland, S.; Courtenay, O.; Laurenson, M.K.; Artois, M. Infectious disease — infectious disease in the management and conservation of wild canids. In Biol. Conserv. Wild Canids; Macdonald, D.W., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Eds.; Oxford University Press, 2004; pp. 123–142.
  91. Ferrantelli, V.; Riili, S.; Vicari, D.; Percipalle, M.; Chetta, M.; Monteverde, V.; Gaglio, G.; Giardina, G.; Usai, F.; Poglayen, G. Spirocerca lupi isolated from gastric lesions in foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Sicily (Italy). Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2010, 13(3), 465. [Google Scholar]
  92. Weru, J.; Chege, P.; Kinyuru, J. Nutritional potential of edible insects: a systematic review of published data. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 41, 2015–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Premrov Bajuk, B.; Zrimšek, P.; Kotnik, T.; Leonardi, A.; Križaj, I.; Jakovac Strajn, B. Insect protein-based diet as potential risk of allergy in dogs. Animals. 2021, 11, 1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Jarett, J.K.; Carlson, A.; Serao, M.R.; Strickland, J.; Serfilippi, L.; Ganz, H.H. Diets with and without edible cricket support a similar level of diversity in the gut microbiome of dogs. PeerJ 2019, 7, e7661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. German, A.J.; Hall, E.J.; Day, M.J. Immune cell populations within the duodenal mucosa of dogs with enteropathies. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2001, 15, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Mowat, A.M. The Immunopathogenesis of Food-Sensitive Enteropathies. CRC Press, 2019, pp. 199-226.
  97. Allenspach, K.; Mochel, J.P. Current diagnostics for chronic enteropathies in dogs. Vet. Clin. Pathol., 2022, 50, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Siel, D.; Beltrán, C.J.; Martínez, E.; Pino, M.; Vargas, N.; Salinas, A.; Pérez, O.; Pereira, I.; Ramírez-Toloza, G. Elucidating the Role of Innate and Adaptive Immune Responses in the Pathogenesis of Canine Chronic Inflammatory Enteropathy—A Search for Potential Biomarkers. Animals 2022, 12, 1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Evason, M.; Peace, M.; Munguia, G.; Stull, J. Clients’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to pet nutrition and exercise at a teaching hospital. Can. Vet. J. 2020, 61, 512. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  100. Kamleh, M.; Khosa, D. K.; Verbrugghe, A.; Dewey, C. E.; Stone, E. A cross-sectional study of pet owners’ attitudes and intentions towards nutritional guidance received from veterinarians. Vet. Rec. 2020, 187, e123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Prata, J. C. Survey of pet owner attitudes on diet choices and feeding practices for their pets in Portugal. Animals, 2022, 12, 2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Nagata, N.; Ohta, H.; Yokoyama, N.; Teoh, Y. B.; Nisa, K.; Sasaki, N.; Osuga, T.; Morishita, K.; Takiguchi, M. Clinical characteristics of dogs with food-responsive protein-losing enteropathy. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2020, 34, 659–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Procoli, F. Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Food-Responsive, Antibiotic-Responsive Diarrhoea, Protein Losing Enteropathy: Acronyms, Clinical Staging, and Treatment of Chronic Inflammatory Enteropathy in Dogs. Adv. Small Anim. Med. Care 2020, 1, 127–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Glanemann, B.; Seo, Y. J.; Priestnall, S. L.; Garden, O. A.; Kilburn, L.; Rossoni-Serao, M.; Segarra, S.; Mochel, J.P.; Allenspach, K. Clinical efficacy of prebiotics and glycosaminoglycans versus placebo in dogs with food responsive enteropathy receiving a hydrolyzed diet: A pilot study. Plos one 2021, 16, e0250681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Benvenuti, E.; Pierini, A.; Bottero, E.; Pietra, M.; Gori, E.; Salvadori, S.; Marchetti, V. Immunosuppressant-responsive enteropathy and non-responsive enteropathy in dogs: Prognostic factors, short-and long-term follow up. Animals 2021, 11, 2637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Siddiqui, S.A.; Brunner, T. A.; Tamm, I.; van der Raad, P.; Patekar, G.; Bahmid, N.A. , Aarts, K.; Paul, A. Insect-based dog and cat food: A short investigative review on market, claims and consumer perception. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2023, 26, 102020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Niyonsaba, H.H.; Höhler, J.; Kooistra, J.; Van der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Meuwissen, M.P.M. Profitability of insect farms. J. Insects Food Feed 2021, 7, 923–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Research and development areas in insect-based pet food.
Table 1. Research and development areas in insect-based pet food.
Research focus Challenges
Clinical trials and certification requirements
  • Conduct extensive clinical trials on the use of insect-based pet food for companion animals, especially dogs with food-responsive enteropathies (FRE).
  • Develop rigorous certification requirements for hypoallergenic pet food containing insect protein to ensure safety and efficacy.
Gastrointestinal health and microbiome studies
  • Investigate the impact of insect-based pet food on the canine gut microbiome, gastrointestinal health, and histological structure of the digestive tract.
  • Examine macroscopic changes, histological analyses, and microbiome evaluations to understand how insects affect the gastrointestinal system.
Immune system effects
  • Assess the influence of insect protein on the canine immune system, particularly the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) and local inflammations.
  • Examine cytokine analysis and cytometric studies of lymphocyte subpopulations to understand the immune response to insect-based nutrition.
Allergenic potential and cross-reactivity
  • Investigate the allergenic potential of insect-based pet food, particularly examining cross-reactivity with other allergenic proteins.
  • Determine if insects can serve as safe and hypoallergenic protein sources for dogs with food allergies.
Large population studies
  • Conduct large-scale population studies involving various dog breeds living in diverse domestic environments.
  • Understand the progression and etiology of FRE, considering individual variations, dietary habits, and sanitation conditions.
Consumer acceptance and marketing
  • Explore strategies to enhance consumer acceptance of insect-based pet food for companion animals.
  • Develop marketing campaigns targeting pet owners to increase awareness and demand for these innovative products.
Intellectual property protection
  • Strengthen intellectual property protection for insect-based pet food formulas and related research to prevent counterfeit products in the market.
Transparency and education
  • Promote transparency in pricing, manufacturing, and product information for insect-based pet food.
  • Implement educational campaigns to provide consumers with accurate and reliable information about the benefits and safety of these products.
Pet food formulation and quality control
  • Develop standardized pet food formulations based on insect protein to ensure consistent quality and nutritional value.
  • Establish rigorous quality control measures, including ingredient sourcing, storage, and supplier assessments.
Diverse insect species and farming practices
  • Explore the utilization of a wider range of insect species for pet food to increase biodiversity and sustainability.
  • Investigate innovative and sustainable insect farming practices to meet the growing demand for insect protein.
Legal and administrative compliance
  • Stay updated on evolving legal and administrative requirements related to insect-based pet food.
  • Ensure full compliance with regulations and standards, adapting production processes as needed.
Competition and marketing strategies
  • Prepare for competition in the insect-based pet food market by developing unique marketing strategies and continuously innovating food formulas.
Collaboration with veterinary professionals
  • Foster collaboration with veterinary practitioners, particularly gastroenterology specialists, to bridge the gap between innovative nutritional solutions and clinical application.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated