Funnily enough, it's fat that they're too high in; equivalent to superworms. Also, they really should be taking out the moisture when doing a comparative analysis, or else the nutrient compositions are all out of context. Moisture is supposed to be taken as a separate measurement and nutrients...
Interesting, looks like we came to the same conclusion regarding roaches, mantids and phasmids; they are not eaten much, if at all, most likely due to nocturnal activity. What stands out the most in that survey is the abundance of arachnids, compared to the studies from continental Africa/EU...
Gonna add a few more charts (I love charts) so that I can support my point that superworms and roaches should be on the same tier.
Dubia roach:
Super worm:
See how similar they are? They are both pretty fatty insects at 35-45%. Not surprising, considering they can't fly and drag their fat...
Yes, I think they would be great, seasonally. Just keep them for a day or so first to make sure they aren't dropping dead from pesticides.
For wasps, you want them to be small, since you're relying on them getting stunned right before getting eaten. Theoretically, this should be fine, but if...
I totally get where your confusion comes from. Let me see if I can explain better from the beginning.
1. Look at the top of the page. It says "fitbit". We are looking in fitbit's database.
2. Fitbit is a watch-like fitness device that tracks activity so you can manage your calories. My fiance...
HAHA I remember this. He was saying that chameleons don't eat "locusts" and that he has never seen a chameleon eat one in the wild, even when placed directly in front of the chameleon. Turned out he didn't know what a locust was :ROFLMAO: and not only that, you can see them being eaten all the...
There are 3 species of grasshopper that are legal to ship across all continental US without need for a permit, per USDA:
1. Melanoplus differentialis (large species)
2. Melanoplus femurrubrum (medium)
3. Melanoplus sanguinipes (small)
Jeremy, the table you posted was 100% for a kale salad. It's from the fitbit app, where users enter nutritional data from the back of packages and stuff to track their diet. Someone was eating a kale salad, and made a typo when entering it into their phone, resulting in the autocorrect changing...
I was not seriously asking you about ash values; that was a rhetorical question. The ash content is irrelevant, when the nutrition data clearly resembles a plant, instead of an animal. Have a look at my edit on the previous post. That nutrition table is not for katydids. It was for a kale salad.
What do you think including the ash content would change? We can already tell from the macronutrients on that chart that it's quite clearly not nutritional information for a katydid, or even any other kind of insect at all. It's either a typo or someone made a drunk/joke entry in their fitness...
There's nothing wrong with the format. Yes, it's tailored for human consumption, but it's simple to interpret. Here's crickets, for example, in the same format.