Sauzo":1ablj2gw said:
What about silkworms? They have to pupate as well yet people say they are the best feeders out there. And as for food, they pretty much eat the same formulated chow as hornworms unless you feed them mulberry leaves which most people don't unless you have access to a mulberry tree. Not mention also about phoenix worms(BSFL) which a lot also consider as a very good feeder.
I've been wondering about silks as well - I'm not certain on those but data I've found usually have seen low fat numbers. Not sure the biology behind it though. Perhaps it is related to their low activity levels as adults and short lifespan? Again, it doesn't seem like there is much data that discriminates the age/instar of insects... As for the chow - the hornworm chow I've experienced is not the same as the silkworm chow. Smell, texture and consistency were way different. Hornworms are much less picky than silks and there are a few studies about altering the starch/fat/water content of their food and the effect on the moths. Still a bit over my head though.
BSFL are still larvae, and have more fat than adult insects. Something in the range of 15-20% I think? Compared to a cricket's 3-10%. They do have remarkable high calcium for a commercial insect, as well as other nutrient benefits. Interestingly as adult flies they are back to "normal" low levels of calcium.
The ones IMO that are "poor" feeders for regular use are wax and butter worms - but there is a very small data set of butters. They both score rather low on the various micronutrient profiles to have such high fat/calories - whereas some of the other bugs like the soldier fly larvae being a bit more to the table.
Of course, age, food source, gut contents, and way more effect the actual measurements so it's hard to ever truly be certain. Without good dietary guidelines for our reptiles it's hard to judge what's too much either :/ it's frustrating.
Dr. Finke's work it pretty detailed and he is actually quite approachable about it