Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor): Potential and Challenges to Promote Circular Economy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I really enjoyed reading the article. However, will not deny that paper is really one sided because of following elements:

1. You do not discuss the negative points associated with mealworms (for example anti-nutritional factors).
2. You do not compare with other insects at all. Some insects like BSF larvae are much better in terms of circularity and sustainability.

This two points should be covered to improve the significance and interest to the audience. Here are some page wise specific points:

Title

I would propose to make it 'Battle of insects to promote circular economy'. Try to cover atleast mealworm as well as BSF. Remember one thing, the strength of this paper is being equally critical.

Section 2

• This section should briefly cover the antinutritional factors
• How does it compares with other insects? specially BSF?
• Compare n6/n3 ratio
• Discuss the protein factor (N-values) of all insects
• Discuss DIAAS and PDCAAS values of all insects
• Compare environmental footprint data (carbon dioxide eq of all insects)
• Compare feedstock requirement of all insects
• Table 2- Not correct. Meat and fish (processing waste and former foodstuff) could not be used in feed. Refer to IPIFF hygiene guide. Even for the applications refer for IPIFF factsheets.

Section 3

• Underwritten. I understand there are other reviews which extensively address this part. However, give your essence, compare mealworms and BSF.

Section 4

• Compare with other insects.
• Line 187-88: now they are in list.
• Cover EFSA opinion on Locusta
• Some Companies also filled novel food dossier for BSF
• Cover below paper:
• https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/fo/d1fo00673h
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0023643821009592
• Do a proper comparison

All rest section

• Compare atleast with BSF and be enough critical.

Kind regards,

One of the reviewers

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

You can find enclosed the revised version of the manuscript entitled " Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor): potential and challenges to promote circular economy” submitted for publication in Animals, Special Issue Waste and/or By-Products Use in the “Circular Economy” Idea.

We would thank you for your comments and appreciated suggestions for improving the quality of the manuscript.

We have addressed all issues: changes are highlighted in red font in the text. Also, the responses in the attached .docx file are typed in red.

Dr. Riccioli

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General Impression: 

The work's aim is essential, original.

Introducing a new sector - edible insects in developed and developing countries will increase the market competition. Given the socioeconomic factors concerning work and wealth, many evolving stakeholders could benefit from this innovative sector contributing to improving the working conditions and well-being of the inhabitants. By generating monetary income and reducing population malnutrition, the edible insect sector can significantly impact society as a whole. 

The manuscript "Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor): potential and challenges to promote circular economy" is well written. 

I suggest you consider a possible change of the article's title because it does not fully reflect its content.

Detailed comments:

Line: 111: vitamin E, vitamin B12, niacin, riboflavin, pantothenic acid, and biotin - I suggest using the same method of marking. Either symbols or proper names.

Lines: 109-111. "Moreover, mealworm larvae show a good composition in minerals and vitamins such as copper, iron, zinc, magnesium, potassium and phosphorus, while poor in calcium [28.29] (Table 1)". The content of the study is not consistent with the results presented in Table 1 (calcium content). 

Table 1. I propose to explain the abbreviations used in the table (below the table).
 Please check table 1 (based on a reference) for the content of minerals and the unit they express.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

You can find enclosed the revised version of the manuscript entitled " Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor): potential and challenges to promote circular economy” submitted for publication in Animals, Special Issue Waste and/or By-Products Use in the “Circular Economy” Idea.

We would thank you for your comments and appreciated suggestions for improving the quality of the manuscript.

We have addressed all issues: changes are highlighted in red font in the text. Also, the responses in the attached .docx file are typed in red.

Dr. Riccioli

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I still believe with just mealworm this report is incomplete.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

thank you for the opportunity to reply to Reviewer #1 despite his comment is "I still believe with just mealworm this report is incomplete."

The main objective of this review is to analyze the potential of one specific insect from a circular economy perspective, indeed we focused our attention on mealworm larvae reviewing all the features of this important species and underline its capacity to increase circular economy. Given this, it seems to us that addressing a single insect is not limiting. Furthermore, from our point of view, it is even more important than review all the insects together.

We focused our research on the mealworm, which represents the first edible insect to achieve the EFSA positive opinion as novel food in the EU. We have linked various aspects of mealworm to the concepts of the circular economy, not only in the food-feed sectors but also to other important production sectors.

As already written in the responses to comments in round 1, a comparison with other insects (e.g., BSF) might be interesting, however, the suggestion to change the article to 'Battle of insects to promote circular economy' represents another type of article and should comprise a separate work. And that is not the goal of this manuscript. We present here a 19 pages text, with 134 references, focusing only on one insect species. We really think that insects must be treated as species and not as familia, noteworthy the rearing procedures, the processing, and the possible outcomes are completely different insect by insect, as also between mealworm and the R1 proposed black soldier fly. Not all insects impact similarly on the circular economy, they must be treated separately.

R1 focused all the first revisions on the concept “add BSF” and now the same comment is reported, in the meantime we answered all his/her other requests, modifying the paper and increasing the discussions. The only comment that was uncovered in the first revision was the one about the request to add two references completely out of the focus of the review.

We hope that our considerations are sufficient to justify and support the scientific validity of our article.

 

Thank you in advance.

Dr. Riccioli

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I still believe the manuscript should compare MW with other insects. In this manuscript, it appears that author's say MW is most feasible insect to enhance circularity without comparing it with other insects. Willing to reconsider my decision if authors are willing to include the comparison with other insects.