Why Crickets are Better than Mealworms

[Zoe]

There might have been a post about this before, but I thought this was interesting.
For those of you who feed mealworms and not crickets, consider this: Note that I left out unimportant stats like ash and moisture, which were very similar between the two anyway.

Crickets:
Protein: 20.72
Fat: 5.74
mg/100g Calc.: 21.53
mg/kg Vit. C: 105.90
Dietary Fiber: 2.80
Calories/Fat: 51.66

Mealworms:
Protein: 18.65
Fat: 13.64
mg/100g Calc.: 3.28
mg/kg Vit. C: 38.10
Dietary Fiber: 2.00
Calories/Fat: 122.76

(http://www.angelfire.com/tx/facehugger/insect.html)

I think the stats speak for themselves, but basically crickets have more protein and dietary fibers, and WAY more calcium and vitamine C. Plus, they have way less fat and calories than mealworms do. All in all, mealworms are far less nutritious and far more fatty.

If you're feeding mealworms out of price difference (mealworms are usually cheaper), you'll find that crickets are actually less expensive, because unless you're feeding the superworms (stats are about the same as the normal ones, only more calc and less vit c... but they are mostly exo skelleton... not something you want your herps to be eating all the time), one large cricket is the size of like 5 adult regular mealworms.

If you're feeding mealworms because of the noise, well, I don't blame ya! I hate the sound crickets make!!! But at least they give the herps a run of their money (instead of just sitting in a bowl)

Zoe