Butterworms-Not what we once thought?

[CountofCasualty]

http://www.timberlinefisheries.com/...content of four species of feeder insects.pdf

A very interesting article on the content of a variety of insects(mainly pheonix worms and butter worms are the main focus here)

I think it is worth the read for many of us that look at butterworms as staples, considering the fat content we are told they have and the fat content this study found they have is incredibly shocking.

 

[unkempt1]

It's not shocking at all. A small minority of us in the BD community have always stated that worms of all types have too high a fat content to be considered a staple live feeder. Unfortunately many people in the community prefer to err on the side of convenience and listen to others that haven't done the research on the nutritional values of live prey. Phoenix worms are often seen as a miracle feeder, when in fact long-term they are not.

Properly gut-loaded and dusted roaches or crickets are the best feeder options.

 

[CountofCasualty]

I disagree. A variety of worms can make an excellent diet. And no one feeder should always be fed anyways.

This topic isn't about how all worms are unsuitable feeders. This is about the article in question and how there are conflicting information on Butters. Please do not deviate from that or make this a debate.

 

[jarich]

Like many of these rumours, it started with someone trying to create more sales. The idea that they were high in calcium and low in fat can be traced back to an interview given by one of the original importers back in the 90s in Reptiles Magazine. You can often see his assertion that they had "twice as much calcium as other feeders" repeated all over the place, in those exact words, even listed in otherwise numerical charts. Pretty silly