Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The expansion of aquaculture has intensified the search for sustainable alternatives to fishmeal. The mopane worm, Gonimbrasia belina (syn. Imbrasia belina ), is a traditionally consumed southern African insect whose protein, lipid and micronutrient contents have prompted interest in its use as an aquafeed ingredient. This semi‐systematic review evaluates the nutritional value and digestibility of mopane worm meal and its effects on growth, feed utilisation and physiological responses in fish. Several experimental studies on mopane worm meal in fish diets, reviews and related insect‐meal research used to examine its nutritional potential were identified. The available evidence suggests species‐specific and inclusion‐dependent responses. Mozambique tilapia ( Oreochromis mossambicus ) tolerated partial fishmeal replacement and exhibited increased activity of some digestive enzymes, although the fishmeal‐based control achieved the highest growth. By contrast, increasing replacement levels reduced growth, protein utilisation and digestibility in African catfish ( Clarias gariepinus ) and were associated with greater hepatic alteration. Dusky kob ( Argyrosomus japonicus ) showed favourable growth and feed‐utilisation responses at moderate inclusion levels without major changes in digestive enzymes or haematological variables. Overall, the evidence supports mopane worm meal as a potentially valuable supplementary protein, particularly in locally formulated diets and when replaced in moderate proportions (18% for Dusky kob). Although there are studies suggesting replacements up to 60% for Mozambique tilapia, there is no scientific evidence regarding the optimal range. However, the small number of short‐term feeding trials, variability in ingredient composition and processing, incomplete digestibility data and uncertain sustainability of wild harvesting prevent broad commercial recommendations. Standardised, long‐term and independently replicated studies are required to establish species‐specific inclusion thresholds and evaluate physiological, economic and ecological outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Macate et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: