It's interesting to note that this is not a new concept. I've long been enamored of Vincent Holt's 1885 "Why Not Eat Insects". It the work of a very earnest Victorian gentleman trying to figure out how best to deal with the protein needs of "the poor", leading to the conclusion that the upper class must lead the way by changing their attitude toward the consumption of insects:
It is hard, very hard, to overcome the feelings that have
been instilled into us from our youth upwards; but still I
foresee the day when the slug will be as popular in
England as its luscious namesake the Trepang, or sea-slug,
is in China, and a dish of grasshoppers fried in butter as
much relished by the English peasant as a similarly
treated dish of locusts is by an Arab or Hottentot. There
are many reasons why this is to be hoped for. Firstly,
philosophy bids us neglect no wholesome source of food.
Secondly, what a pleasant change from the labourer's
unvarying meal of bread, lard, and bacon, or bread and
lard without bacon, or bread without lard or bacon, would
be a good dish of fried cockchafers or grasshoppers. "How
the poor live!" Badly, I know; but they neglect wholesome
foods, from a foolish prejudice which it should be the
task of their betters, by their example, to overcome.
Note that it also yields 10 kg of feed, which sounds more appealing to me than locusts. Unless these locust nuggets turn out to be the best tasting thing ever, I think I'll have my feed with a side of chicken, and leave the locusts to the more adventurous.
Yes, but you do need some protein. Not to say you have to eat bugs to get it, but it's a step up from beef or pork.
One other thought- you assume you can or would eat bug feed.
Locusts, for example, eat: leaves, flowers, bark, stems, fruit, and seeds. While it is true humans can eat all of these things, it is typically only from select plants. When was the last time you ate a rice plant, or bark that wasn't Cinnamon?
