Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T23:35:42.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conversion of vegetable residues and wheat straw by black soldier fly larvae: growth, chemical composition, and gut microbiota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2026

Xifeng Wang*
Affiliation:
College of Biological Engineering, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, China
Yongjian Yang
Affiliation:
College of Biological Engineering, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, China
Zhihua Liu
Affiliation:
College of Biological Engineering, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, China
Rui Ma
Affiliation:
College of Biological Engineering, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, China
Ruyan Ji
Affiliation:
College of Biological Engineering, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, China
Haifeng Li
Affiliation:
College of Biological Engineering, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, China
Pengxiao Chen
Affiliation:
School of Food and Strategic Reserves, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, China
Jianhang Qu
Affiliation:
College of Biological Engineering, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, China
*
Corresponding author: Xifeng Wang; Email: wangxifeng@haut.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

China generates about 240 million tons of vegetable residues and 1 billion tons of crop straw annually. This study evaluated the performance of black soldier fly larva (BSFL) on three vegetable residues (cabbage (CA), celery (CE), and white radish (WR)), either alone or mixed with wheat straw (3:1, 1:1 w/w). The results showed that CA residue alone supported the best larval growth (maximum individual weight: 76.0 mg, 72.0% of the standard diet (SD)). But straw addition significantly reduced larval weight and survival (P < 0.05). Vegetable residues significantly enhanced straw degradation compared to straw-only treatments, as evaluated by X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy. BSFL reared on vegetable-containing substrates showed comparable dry matter, crude protein, and ash to the SD, while having lower crude fat (19.2–19.9% vs. 21.8%). High-throughput sequencing of the larval gut microbiota showed that straw supplementation significantly increased gut microbial richness and upregulated the abundance of methyl-accepting chemotaxis protein KO3406. At the phylum level, Firmicutes, Actinobacteriota, and Proteobacteria dominated across all treatments. In addition, vegetable–straw mixtures promoted seed germination and root development. These findings offer a practical co-management strategy for high-moisture vegetable residues and lignocellulosic agricultural residues, providing new microbial insights into substrate adaptation in BSFL.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press.
Figure 0

Table 1. Composition of different substratesTable 1 long description.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Weight and survival rate of the BSFL in different substrates. (A) The mixture of cabbage (CA) and wheat straw (WS), (B) The mixture of celery (CE) and wheat, (C) The mixture of white radish (WR) and wheat straw, and (D) The survival rate of BSFL in different substrates. Values are the average (±standard deviation) of three samples (n = 3). SD (standard diet, composed of 75% wheat bran and 25% corn flour), WS, CA, CE, and WR. Repeated-measures ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test was applied, with different letters indicating significant differences between groups (P < 0.05).Figure 1 long description.

Figure 2

Table 2. Utilisation rate of different substrates by BSFLTable 2 long description.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Surface morphology of wheat straw (WS) in different groups – (A) WS, (B) WSL, (C) 75%CAL, (D) 75%CEL, and (E) 75%WRL – observed by SEM.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Determination of the crystallinity of wheat straw (WS) by XRD. (A) Curves of XRD and (B) Crystallinity of WS.Figure 3 long description.

Figure 5

Figure 4. Chemical composition of BSFL reared on different substrates. (A) Dry matter, (B) crude protein, (C) crude fat, and (D) crude ash. Values are the average (±standard deviation) of three samples (n = 3). One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test was applied, with different letters indicating significant differences between groups (P < 0.05).Figure 4 long description.

Figure 6

Table 3. Alpha-diversity of the intestinal microbial community of BSFL in different substratesTable 3 long description.

Figure 7

Figure 5. (A) Comparison of PCoA among different gut microbial communities of BSFL reared in different substrates, (B) Venn plots of common and unique bacterial species in the BSFL intestines of different substrates.Figure 5 long description.

Figure 8

Figure 6. Bacterial community compositions of BSFL at the phylum (A) and genus levels (B); (C) the abundance of top 30 KO gene groups.Figure 6 long description.

Figure 9

Figure 7. Root length and germination rate of leachate. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test was applied, with different letters indicating significant differences between groups (P < 0.05).Figure 7 long description.