THE
USE OF INSECTS AS FOOD IN MEXICO
Taxa and life stages consumed
Buprestidae
(metallic woodborers)
Chalcophora sp., larva
Cerambycidae
(long-horned beetles)
Aplagiognathus
spinosus Newman, larva, pupa
Aplagiognathus sp., larva
Arophalus afin rusticus
Linn., larva, pupa
Callipogon barbatus Fabr., larva,
pupa, adult
Lagocheirus rogersi Bates, larva,
pupa, adult
Stenodontes cer. maxillosus
Drury, larva, pupa
Trichoderes pini Chevr., larva, pupa
Chrysomelidae (leaf
beetles)
Leptinotarsa
decemlineata Say, larva
Cicindelidae (tiger
beetles)
Cicindela curvata Chevr., larva
Cicindela
roseiventris Chevr., larva
Curculionidae
(snout beetles, weevils)
Metamasius spinolae Vaurie, larva,
pupa
Rhynchophorus
palmarum Linn., larva, pupa
Scyphophorus
acupunctatus Gyllenhal, larva, pupa
Dytiscidae
(predaceous diving beetles)
Cybister explanatus
Leconte,
larva, pupa, adult
Histeridae (hister
beetles)
Homolepta sp., larva
Hydrophilidae
(water scavenger beetles)
Tropisternus tinctis Sharpe, larva,
pupa, adult
Passalidae (bess
beetles)
Oleus reinator Trequi, larva,
pupa
Passalus af. punctiger
Lep. & Serv., larva, pupa
Scarabaeidae
(scarab beetles)
Melolontha sp., larva
Phyllophaga rubella
(author?),
larva
Phyllophaga spp., larvae, pupae
Strategus sp., larva
Xyloryctes spp., larvae, pupae
Tenebrionidae
(darkling beetles)
Tenebrio molitor Linn., larva, pupa
Paxillus leachi M. & Y.,larva
Rhantus sp., adult
Ephydridae (shore
flies)
Hydropyrus (=
Ephydra) hians Say, larva, pupa, adult
Mossilus (=
Gymnopa) tibialis Cresson, larva
Muscidae (filth
flies)
Musca domestica Linn., larva, pupa
Stratiomyidae
(soldier flies)
Stratiomyid spp.,
larvae
Syrphidae (flower
flies)
Belostomatidae
(giant water bugs)
Abedus ovatus Stal., nymph,
adult
Abedus sp., nymph, adult
Belostoma sp., nymph, adult
Lethocerus sp., nymph, adult
Coreidae
(leaf-footed bugs)
Acanthocephala
luctuosa S., nymph, adult
Pachilis gigas B., nymph, adult
Corixidae (water
boatmen)
Corisella edulis J., nymph, adult
Corisella (=
Corixa) mercenaria Say, egg, nymph, adult
Corisella texcocana
Jacz.,
egg, nymph, adult
Krizousacorixa (=
Kirzousacorixa; = Ahauhtlea) azteca, egg, nymph, adult
Krizousacorixa
femorata Guerin-Meneville, egg, nymph, adult
Notonectidae
(backswimmers)
Notonecta
unifasciata Guerin-Meneville, egg, nymph, adult
Naucoridae
(creeping water bugs)
Naucorid sp./spp.,
nymphs, adults
Pentatomidae (stink
bugs)
Edessa conspersa Stal., nymph,
adult
Edessa mexicana Stal., nymph,
adult
Edessa petersii Stal., nymph,
adult
Euchistus crenator Stal., nymph, adult
Euchistus
strennus Distant (= zopilotensis
Distant), nymph, adult
Euchistus (=
Atizies) sufultus Smith,
nymph, adult
Euchistus (=
Atizies) taxcoensis Ancona,
nymph, adult
Pharylpia
fasciata (author?),
nymph, adult
Brachymona
arcane tenebrosa M.,
nymph, adult
Aphididae
(aphids)
Aphid honeydew
Cicadidae
(cicadas)
Proarna sp., adult
Tibicen
puinosa S., adult
Membracidae
(treehoppers)
Hoplophorion
(= Metcalfiella) monograma
Germar, nymph, adult
Umbonia
reclinata Germar, nymph,
adult
Umbonia sp., nymph, adult
Apidae (honey
bees, bumble bees)
Apis mellifera Linn., egg, larva, pupa
Bombus
diligens (author?),
adult
Bombus
formosus (author?),
adult
Bombus medius (author?), adult
Lestrimelita
limao Sm., egg, larva,
pupa
Melipona
beeckei Bennet, egg,
larva, pupa
Partamona sp., egg, larva, pupa
Scaptotrigona
mexicana G., egg, larva,
pupa
Trigona jaty Fabr., egg, larva, pupa
Trigona nigra
nigra Cress, egg, larva,
pupa
Trigona sp., egg, larva, pupa
Diprionidae
(conifer sawflies)
Neodiprion
guilletei (author?),
prepupa
Formicidae
(ants)
Atta
cephalotes Latr., adult
reproductive
Atta mexicana Bourmeir, adult
Liometopum
apiculatum Mayr., egg,
larva, pupa
Liometopum
occidentale var. luctuosum
W., egg, larva, pupa
Myrmecosystus
(= Formica) melliger Llava
(= melligera), adult
Myrmecosystus
mexicanus W., adult
Pogonomyrmex sp., larva, pupa
Sphecidae
(sphecids or mud daubers)
Ammophila sp., immature stages
Vespidae
(wasps, hornets)
Amnophila sp., immature stages
Brachygastra
azteca (Sauss.),
immatures
Brachygastra
(= Nectarinia) lecheguana
(Latr.), immatures
Brachygastra
mellifica (Say),
immatures
Mischocyttarus sp., immatures
Parachartegus
apicalis (Fabr.),
immatures
Polistes
canadensis (Linn.),
immatures
Xylocopidae
(carpenter bees)
Xylocopa sp., larval food
Scientific
name(s) unreported
Cossidae
(carpenter moths, leopard moths)
Comadia (=
Xyleutes; = Cossus) redtenbachi
Hamm., larva
Geometridae
(measuringworms)
Synopsia
mexicanaria Walk., larva
Hepialidae
(ghost moths, swifts)
Phassus
trajesa Linn., larva
Phassus
triangularis E., larva
Megathymidae
(giant skippers)
Aegiale (=
Acentrocneme) hesperiaris
Kirby, larva
Noctuidae
(noctuids)
Ascalapha (=
Erebus) odorata Linn.,
larva
Heliothis zea Boddie, larva
Spodoptera
frugiperda J.E. Smith,
larva
Pieridae
(whites, sulphurs)
Catasticta
teutila Doubleday, larva
Eucheira
socialis Westwood,
larva, pupa
Psychidae
(bagworm moths)
Bagworm tea
Pyralidae
(snout moths, grass moths)
Laniifera
cyclades Druce, larva
Saturniidae
(giant silk moths)
Arsenura
armida Cramer, larva
Hylesia
frigida Hubner, larva
Hylesia sp., larva
Latebraria
amphipyroides Guenee,
larva
Sphingidae
(hawk-moths, sphinx moths)
Hyles lineata (author?), larva
Scientific name(s) unreported
Corydalidae
(dobsonflies, fishflies)
Scientific name(s) unreported
Aeschnidae (darners)
Anax sp., nymph, adult
Acrididae
(short-horned grasshoppers)
Arphia fallax Sauss., nymph, adult
Boopedon
flaviventris Bruner,
nymph, adult
Boopedon sp. af. flaviventris Bruner,
nymph, adult
Encoptlophus
herbaceous Sauss.,
nymph, adult
Melanoplus
femurrubrum DeGeer,
nymph, adult
Melanoplus
mexicanus Sauss., nymph,
adult
Melanoplus sp., nymph, adult
Ochrotettix cer. salinus Burm., nymph, adult
Osmilia
flavolineata DeGeer,
nymph, adult
Plectrotettra
nobilis Walk., nymph,
adult
Schistocerca paranensis Burm., nymph, adult
Schistocerca sp., nymph, adult
Spharagemon
aequale Say, nymph,
adult
Sphenarium
histrio Gerst., nymph,
adult
Sphenarium
magnum Marquez, nymph,
adult
Sphenarium
purpurascens Charp.,
nymph, adult
Sphenarium spp., nymphs, adults
Trimerotropis sp., nymph, adult
Tropinotus
mexicanus Brunner,
nymph, adult
Blattidae
(cockroaches)
Medicinal use
Gryllidae
(crickets)
Scientific
name(s) unreported
Gryllotalpidae
(mole crickets)
Scientific
name(s) unreported
Romaleidae
(lubber grasshoppers)
Romalea
colorata S., nymph,
adult
Romalea sp., nymph, adult
Taeniopoda sp., nymph, adult
Tettigoniidae
(long-horned grasshoppers)
Microcentrum sp., nymph, adult
Hydropsychidae
(net-spinning caddiceflies)
Leptonema sp., larva
In her book on insects
as a future source of protein (1982a), Dr. Julieta Ramos-Elorduy
de Conconi states that, "Mexico can be described as a
country where there is so much hunger that the country doesn't feel
it." In some areas of the State of
Oaxaco and in some arid regions of the country, insects are the only
significant source of protein. The author presents in tabular form a list of 71
species of insects that are consumed in Mexico, listing them by order and
family and giving the developmental stage(s) that are eaten and the
geographical location [state(s)] where eaten.
Analyses of samples
from Mexico have revealed a crude protein content (dry weight) between 31% and
72% in most species. Most amino acids (including lysine) surpass FAO standards,
but in keeping with generally-obtained results from elsewhere, most
insects are low in methionine and tryptophan. The author notes the need for
more data on bioavailability, particularly when insects are used in conjunction
with other common foods in the rural diet.
Conconi proposes that
the "industrialization" of insects (the establishment of small
industries in the countryside for the mass-culture of insects as food)
would work both to the benefit of rural economies and better nutrition in the
country as a whole. Relative to their exploitable attributes, it is pointed out
that insects are the dominant animal group on earth, they are adapted to a wide
variety of ecological conditions, and many have high reproductive capacity and
short life cycles. Relative to their acceptability as food, a survey taken in
the Federal District (Mexico City) revealed that 75% of the population is aware
that there are edible insects in Mexico, 93% considered
"industrialization" a viable project, 39% responded that they would use
the resulting products, 29% that they would use them once in awhile, and 19%
that they would try them only as a curiosity.
Conconi demonstrates
that edible insects are prominant in the rural markets, but in addition several
species command high prices in Mexico City and other urban areas where they are
purchased by people of various economic levels and are sold as delicacies in
the finest restaurants. The author mentions that in 1981, the demand for
"escamoles" (immature stages of the ant, Liometopum apiculatum)
was so great that the price per kilogram went up to 1,000 pesos (more than U.S.
$2 at the then-prevailing exchange rate). "In Tlaxcoapan . . . . they are sold in restaurants like El
Prendes, Las Meninas, Delmonicos, and Bellinghaussen, where 2 tacos with 50
grams of ants costs 300 pesos. They are served fried or with black butter, but
the best way is fried with onions and garlic."
The recorded history
of edible insect use in Mexico goes back hundreds of years. The work of the
great Spanish writer, Sahagun (1557; vide Curran 1937, 1951),
reveals that the Aztecs knew a great deal about natural history, including the
insects that are edible. As extracted from Curran's summary, the Indians ate
honey from bees' and wasps' nests whenever they could find them, and the larvae
and pupae were frequently eaten along with the honey. The Indians greatly
relished the honey of the "honey ant," termed mequazcatl, and
consumed the ant along with the honey. The corn ear worm was eaten with relish,
along with the corn. All grasshoppers were considered edible and formed an
important part of the diet during seasons when they were abundant. Curran
reproduced a number of early native drawings taken from Sahagun's work,
including the maguey caterpillar and several others that the Aztecs relished as
food. Sahagun (1557 [1946]; vide Massieu et al 1958) also mentioned that the
Indians ate the aquatic insects (Hemiptera) known as axayacatl after
drying them in sunlight.
In their English
translation of Clavigero's (1786) "History of Lower
California," Lake and Gray (1937) note that it describes
experiences in the 1750's and they cite two references showing, first, the
diversity of animal foods used by the Indians of northwestern Mexico and,
secondly, the consequences of giving up insects as part of the diet. From
Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1864 (Lake and Gray, p. 93
footnote): "There seem to have
been few animals which the Indian did not eat. Father Baegert states that they
lived chiefly on dogs and cats, horses and mules, mice and rats, lizards and
snakes, grasshoppers and crickets, owls and bats, green caterpillars, 'an
abominable white worm of length and thickness of the thumb,' and other insects
and small animals." A second footnote
(p. 93) states:
Under the instruction of the
missionary the Indian was induced to give up the eating of many kinds of
insects and worms, and to eat beef. From an economic point of view this was a
mistake of the missionaries. The Mission Indians required an enormous amount of
beef. It was not uncommon to have an Indian consume in a day from fifteen to
twenty pounds of beef. Cattle stealing became a favorite pastime of the
Indians, and at first it was difficult to increase the number of cattle at a
Mission. Father Baegert wrote that 'for eight years I kept, ranging at large,
from four to five hundred head of cattle, and sometimes as many goats and
sheep, until the constant robberies of my own and the neighboring missions
compelled me to give up cattle breeding. . . . The Indian never learned to eat
pork nor to drink milk, and so he always demanded a generous supply of beef. .
. (University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology,
Vol. VIII, Part I, p. 13).
In a paper useful for
comparative nutrient values, although no insects are included, Cravioto et
al (1945) analyzed the major fruit and vegetable foods of Mexico for
carotene, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, ascorbic acid, calcium, phosphorus,
iron, nitrogen, ash and total solids content. Massieu et al (1950)
analyzed the tyrosine in several foods of high protein content: commercial
samples of "zeina" and wheat gluten; "axayacatl" (nymphs
and adults of the aquatic hemipteran genera Krizousacorixa, Notonecta and
Corisella); "ahuahutle" (eggs of Krizousacorixa and Corisella);
"maguey worms" or "meocuiles" (Acentrocneme [Aegiale =]
hesperiaris); "jumiles" (hemipterans of the genera Atizies,
Edessa and Euchistus [Euschistus =]); "acociles" (small
crustaceans, Cambarus moctezumi); and "charales" (small
freshwater fish, Chirostoma jordani). The crustacean and the fish are
used as food in many regions of Mexico, while the use of the insects is limited
to certain groups of the Mexican population. A very high tyrosine content was
found in the "ahuahutle," nearly twice the amount found in
"zeina" and more than twice the amount in the other materials tested.
Cravioto et al (1951) analyzed several
hundred Mexican foods for their nutritional value. Results obtained from
insects (ahuautle, axayacatl, gusanos de maguey, and jumiles) are shown in
Mexico Table 1 (see Cravioto et al p. 153). Also extracted from the lengthy
table of Cravioto et al and included in Table 1 are data on
"acocile," a crustacean, and "charales," a small fish
(these data are discussed below under Massieu et al (1958)).
Barrera and Bassols (1953)
mention (vide Ramos-Elorduy and Pino 1989) that lepidopteran larvae,
ahuahutle (Corixidae), and honey ants (Formicidae) were used as food by the
Aztecs. Larvae of large cerambycid beetles (Cerambycidae) were eaten in the
Ferreria Region of the State of Hidalgo, and caterpillars which grow in cactus
(Pyralidae: Laniifera cyclades Druce according to Ramos-Elorduy
and Pino) were eaten in Yucatan.
Grimaldo et al (1957),
pointing
out the lack of information on cystine and tyrosine in previous amino acid
studies on Mexican foods, reported the results of their analyses for these two
amino acids. Included are data on ahuahutle, axayacatl, chapulines
(grasshoppers), and jumiles (Mexico Table 2; see Grimaldo et al Table II, p.
6). The authors discuss their results in relation to whole milk protein,
considered an appropriate standard for promoting growth and nitrogen retention.
For comparisons, tyrosine values in the proteins of ahuahutle and axayacatl are
borrowed from the previous study by Massieu et al (1950). Ahuahutle, with
cystine at 4.64% of total protein, was the highest in this amino acid of the 58
foods that were analyzed, 34 of vegetable origin and 24 of animal origin.
"Requeson," a product obtained from milk, was, at 4.48%, the only
other sampled food that was close. The other insects were much lower than whole
egg protein in cystine. Ahuahutle, at 11.10%, was much higher in tyrosine (as a
percentage of total protein) than were any of the other sampled foods. The
other insects were also higher than egg protein (Table 2) and higher than most
other foods in tyrosine.
Massieu et al (1958) conducted amino
acid analyses on six primitive Mexican foods, four insects, a crustacean, and a
small fish (Mexico Table 3; see Massieu et al Table 2, p. 213). Of ahuahutle,
known also as "aguaucle" or "Mexican caviar," they state
that several dishes which are typically Mexican are prepared with it today:
"Usually it is eaten after it is mixed with eggs and fried; it is sometimes
mixed into other popular foodstuffs. It tastes much like shrimp." Jumiles "are eaten raw, fried, or
roasted and ground, by several groups of the rural population, especially in
tropical and subtropical regions."
Gusanos de maguey or "meocuiles" today are eaten after they have
been fried in lard or in their own fat and rolled in 'tortillas.' They are consumed by a number of people,
especially those living on the high plateaus in Mexico where the Agave plant
(maguey) is cultivated for the 'pulque' industry. The flavor of meocuiles is
very much valued and in Mexico City they are considered delicacies." Other foods discussed are
"Acociles," small Crustacea belonging to the genus Cambarus,
specifically C. moctezumi which live in Lake Xochimilco near Mexico
City, and "charales," small fish (in this case Chirostoma jordani)
which are common in the fresh water lakes near Mexico City and elsewhere. These
crustaceans and fish, especially the latter, "are quite popular among
groups in Mexico which have been considered to consume inadequate amounts of
amino acids in the diet."
The amino acid
analyses of Massieu et al revealed that none of the insects are as high as the
fish or crustacean in lysine, but axayacatl and jumiles contained a high level
of tryptophan and ahuahutle was the richest in arginine and tyrosine (Mexico
Table 3). Massieu et al also compare the nutrient composition of the six foods
using the data of Cravioto et al (1951) (see Mexico Table 1).
Ahuahutle, axayacatl,
jumiles, and the fish were high in protein based on the conversion factor of N
x 6.25. The jumiles and gusanos de maguey were rich in fat (ether extract),
although the fat of the former included fats used to prepare them for market.
Axayacatl was high in calcium although not nearly as high as the fish and crustaceans.
Ahuahutle and axayacatl were among the samples high in phosphorus but the
calcium-phosphorus ratio was very low in ahuahutle. Axayacatl was
especially rich in iron, while the gusanos de maguey were relatively low
compared to the other foods. All of the
foods were rich in niacin, especially ahuahutle and axayacatl, and these plus
jumiles and the crustacean were high in riboflavin. Massieu et al conclude:
"These primitive foods can contribute much toward the nutrition of those
who consume them."
Massieu et al (1959)
describe the systematic program of studies conducted by the National Institute
of Nutrition over the past 15 years on the composition of Mexican foods. The
studies have included foods used frequently in the diets of precolombian
Mexicans, and the authors suggest that some of these products "are
potentially important, especially those of animal origin, because they could
complement the drastic protein deficiency often observed in some sectors of the
Mexican population." Studies are
needed, the authors say, to determine ways in which the use of some of these
foods, which include insects, could be made more widespread and available in
Mexican diets.
Samples of the 190
foods included in the present study were obtained in local markets. Among the
insects studied (Mexico Table 4), the authors noted the high protein and niacin
content of "chapulin" (Sphenarium grasshoppers), and the
protein, riboflavin and niacin of jumiles. "Tismitches" (Table 4; see
Massieu et al, 1959, Table VIII, p. 64) apparently is a mixture of insect
larvae, crustaceans and fish collected in areas like Tlacotalpan; the
composition was not uniform, possibly because of seasonal changes in the
proportions of the organisms collected. The dried product had a high vitamin
content.
MacNeish (1958) is
cited by Callen (1963) as finding grasshopper wings and legs in
two of 11 coprolites from Mexico. Callen examined coprolites supplied by
MacNeish from two caves of the Sierra Madre in southwestern Tamaulipas, Mexico,
and found parts of grasshoppers, beetles, bees, ants, wasps and termites. The
material examined covered eight cultural phases spanning 7000 to 400 BC, but
the author does not specify which phase(s) contained insects.
Conconi (1974)
points out that insects are the dominant animal group and have great
reproductive potential, therefore, they are a natural resource that offers new
food alternatives (vide Conconi and Burgess 1977). In the 1970's, Conconi and colleagues at the National Autonomous
University in Mexico City initiated an extensive research program on the
nutritional value of Mexican insects.
Conconi and Bourges
(1977) cited several recent studies noting the poor nutrition that occurs in
the arid and semiarid zones that make up a large part of Mexico, and stated that
this makes it obligatory to search for new food alternatives that enrich the
basic diet and fit within traditional Mexican food habits. They list 52 species
of insects known to be consumed in Mexico, many of which have not been
previously recorded as food. Species are listed according to insect order and
family, and information is given for each species on the life stage(s) consumed
and the geographic area (state) where consumed. The authors also present a
world list of insects recorded as food (369 species), most of which, however,
are, as stated by the authors, drawn from Bodenheimer (1951).
The six species
studied were all high in crude protein (dry weight basis), ranging from 58.3%
to 71.0% (Mexico Table 5; see authors' Table 1). Except for methionine and
tryptophan, and in the case of Atizies taxcoensis, lysine, amino acids
exceeded F.A.O. (1957) recommended daily allowances (mg/16 mg/N). Thus, these
insects are, in general, of intermediate protein quality. Studies are needed to
determine their value as blended with other foods which are common in the rural
Mexican diet. Conconi and Bourges emphasize that, except for the grasshopper, Sphenarium
histrio, none of the species included in their study compete with man for
food. Furthermore, four of the species, Atizies taxcoensis (jumiles), Cossus
(Xyleutes =) redtenbachi (pink caterpillar), Corisella mercenaria (axayacatl),
and juvenile stages of the ant, Liometopum apiculatum (escamoles), are
endemic in arid zones, thus enhancing their importance as a food source.
In addition to the
data in Table 5, Conconi and Bourges conducted a proximate analysis on C.
mercenaria, one of the "axayacatl" group, with the following
results (dry weight basis): protein 68.74%, fat 11.13%, ash 5.53%, and
carbohydrate 12.60%.
Conconi and Pino
(1979) conducted a study in eight counties of the high, semiarid Mezquital
Valley (State of Hidalgo) which has long been considered one of the areas of
poorest nutrition in Mexico. The soil is poor in organic matter and minerals
and the alkalinity high enough to inhibit cultivation. Average calorie
consumption in Hidalgo State is only 2,064 per day per person, and there is
high infant mortality because of malnutrition. Malnutrition in the Mezquital
Valley is even more severe with an average calorie consumption of less than
1,774 per day per person. The diet is based on corn, beans, chilies, quelite
and a ration of pulque (liquor from the maguey), and consumption of products of
animal origin (such as meat, eggs and milk) "is very rare." Insects of one kind or another are commonly
eaten daily, however, and the authors obtained proximate analyses on 13 species
and on five plants which serve as hosts for seven of them (Mexico Table 6; see
authors' Tables II, III and IV).
It is readily seen by
the data that the insects are many times higher in protein and fat than are the
plants upon which they feed (Table 6). Protein ranges as high as 69.05% in the
adult weevil, Metamasius spinolae, compared to 5.21% in nopal, the
cactus upon which it feeds. Fat ranges as high as 58.55% in the larva of Aegiale
hesperiaris compared to 3.60% in the maguey plant. The insects are all much
lower in crude fiber. Conconi and Pino make the interesting suggestion that
some plants that are widespread and characteristic of arid regions, but of
limited food value, such as mezquite, madrono, and some cacti, could be used
for cultivation of their associated insects, thus producing more protein of
animal quality.
In this first of a
series of published abstracts by J.R.E. de Conconi and colleagues, Conconi
and Pino (1980a) report that they have conducted proximate analyses
on several species of edible insects: larvae of Phyllophaga rubella (Coleoptera);
larvae, pupae and adults of Ephydra [Hydropyrus =] hians (Diptera);
larvae of Erebus [Ascalapha =] odoratus [odorata =] (Lepidoptera),
preserved in salt; and Abedus ovatus and Leptocerus sp.
(Hemiptera). These insects ranged from 35% to 85% crude protein on a dry weight
basis. Administration of the juvenile hormone analogue, Altocid ZR 515, to Locusta
migratoria by sprinkling on the insects or on their food produced no
significant difference in their nutritive value. Conconi and Pino (1980b)
report preliminarily on the digestibility of insect proteins (see Conconi et al
1981a for the full report). Conconi et al (1981c) provide
preliminary data on the protein quality of three edible species, Pachilis
gigas, Euschistus strennus, and Ephydra [Hydropyrus =] hians (see
Conconi et al 1982a for the full report).
Conconi et al (1981a) determined the
protein digestibility of nine insect foods (Mexico Table 7; see authors' Table
4). The data show, by column, respectively, protein as a percentage of dry
matter, digestible protein as a percentage of dry matter, and the percentage of
the protein that is digestible, using methods and criteria described by the
authors. As shown, the percentage of the protein that is digestible ranged from
77.86% to 98.93% in the different species or species groupings. The authors
discuss these results in relation to the daily intake of proteins that are
considered adequate by various experts on nutrition, noting that Mexican
nutritionists consider 25 grams per day per person to be, at best, minimal
(this level of intake is well below FAO and U.S. standards).
Conconi et al (1982a) present data on 11
species, including new data on amino acid content of six species (Mexico Table
8; see authors' Table 4). The most notable feature of this report is the high
methionine/cysteine values found, for all six species exceeding FAO-OMS
standards. The authors report protein chemical values, based on the 1973 FAO
guidelines, for 10 species as follows (authors' Table 5): Sphenarium histrio
60%; S. purpurascens 65%; Atizies taxcoensis 10%; Pachilis
gigas 58%; Euschistus strennus 56%; Cossus [Xyleutes =]
redtenbachi 60%; Hydropyrus hians 42%; Musca domestica 58%; Atta
mexicana 60%; Liometopum apiculatum immature reproductives 80%,
immature workers 51%.
Conconi et al (1983b)
report amino acid analyses on several species not previously analyzed, i.e.,
the grasshoppers Boopedon flaviventris and Melanoplus mexicanus;
the homopteran Hoplophora monograma; the bee Trigona sp.; the
caterpillar Hylesia frigida, from the madrono tree; and the grub of the
weevil, Scyphophorus acupunctatus from the maguey. The authors do not
give the tabularized data in this abstract, but state that all of the insects
analyzed meet FAO (1973) quidelines for all of the essential amino acids except
tryptophan. The chemical value of H. monograma was 96%, which is excellent
and the highest value found in any insect yet studied. The chemical value for
the weevil, S. acupunctatus, was also high, 81%. Conconi et al (1983c)
conducted analyses of sodium, potassium and lithium in 28 species from
different localities in Mexico. None of the samples contained lithium, and no
relationship was observed between classification (order to which the insect
belongs) and the quantity of sodium or potassium found.
Conconi (1982b)
presents in condensed form various points made in her book (Conconi
1982a). Conconi et al (1983d)
discuss the past use of insects as food by different ethnic groups in
Mexico. According to the authors, 38
species were included, but, in this abstract only 21 are mentioned and specific
ethnic groups are not identified. Robles
et al (1983) report that 28 edible species were found to be used in
a region in the southeastern part of the Federal District. Lepidoptera
predominated. Most of the insects were collected and consumed locally, with
only a few such as the escamole ants, ahuautle and axayacatl entering
commerce. Eerde (1980/1981)
provides a popular account of insects as food, based on the work of Conconi and
colleagues.
Conconi (1984) re-emphasizes
many of the points made in her earlier works (1982a,b), pointing out that the
Mexican diet is based on corn, beans and chili, and that 24 of the 32 states
are regarded as having inadequate nutrition (too few calories and too little
protein). In the States of Hidalgo, Oaxaca, Chiapas and Puebla, insects supply
a large part of the animal protein consumed by the inhabitants, and some
species such as grasshoppers, caterpillars, stink bugs, wasps and ants are
"commercialized" by the local people. Generally, the insects are
eaten roasted or fried, "or they are boiled and then fried with onions and
chilies and eaten in tacos."
Flavor varies from insect to insect: "For example, the white maguey
worm tastes like crackles, grasshoppers generally assume the taste of the condiment
with which they are cooked, such as chili piquin or lemon in garlic;
'escamoles' taste like nuts fried in butter, 'cuecla' larvae preserved in salt
taste like herring, etc." Insect
dishes found in restaurants in Mexico, the United States and France include
such as "escamoles in black butter," "chapulines in
garlic," and "chinicuiles in curry." The author concludes that:
We don't know how much it would cost
to cultivate insects as food; however, we believe that because of their high
protein content, high digestibility, variety in food diets, high conversion
efficiency, and great reproductive potential associated with a short life
cycle, the useful biomass obtained would be significant when compared to other
products which are used to obtain protein. That is why insects should be taken
into consideration as a food alternative for a world in which human nutrition
has been a huge problem.
Conconi et al (1984a) listed 101 species of insects that had been found up to that time to be used as fo