BSFL vs Black soldier flies?

[Shanar808]

Does anyone know the nutritional difference between the larvae and the flies? I understand there’s the issue of the flies not being the best candidates for gutloading, but as far as the content of the feeders themselves. There was a post a while back on the calcium content being higher in the larvae but I would love to verify this.

 

[Madmango]

BSF is high in protein of high quality and sufficient digestibility, with amino acid profiles sufficient for most livestock and animals. BSF is high in fat, predominantly saturated fats followed by monounsaturated fats, normally with high omerga-6 to omega-3 polyunsaturated fat ratios. Defatted larvae or meal can produce a higher protein product. BSF are acceptable sources of vitamin E and certain minerals.
Link to info
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-32952-5_13
Links to study’s are at the bottom of the page.

my understanding is that it depends on what the larva and fly are given to eat as to how nutritious they are.

 

[CasqueAbove]

I believe it is the larvae that are high calcium and don’t need to be dusted. But they have a tough outer skin that doesn’t always get digested. The flies and good feeders. There issue comes from the fact that they don’t eat so can’t be “gut loaded “. But if larvae is raised healthy and flies are fed shortly after pupating then you have a good feeder. The flies are not dusted, but they are only a supplementary feeder and would not replace the dusted cricket or roach.

 

[Klyde O'Scope]

Does anyone know the nutritional difference between the larvae and the flies? I understand there’s the issue of the flies not being the best candidates for gutloading,

It's not that they're poor candidates for gutloading; it's that they cannot.
Adult BSF have no mouth parts—they're incapable of eating.