## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Essential Amino Acid** & **22 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **25 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **28 \({}^{\circ}\)C** \\ \hline Threonine & 59.81 \(\pm\) 2.22 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 73.30 \(\pm\) 7.89 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 68.71 \(\pm\) 0.90 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ Valine & 50.83 \(\pm\) 0.74 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 58.13 \(\pm\) 5.11 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 60.84 \(\pm\) 4.43 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Isoleucine & 36.21 \(\pm\) 0.95 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 47.66 \(\pm\) 5.15 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 40.47 \(\pm\) 1.77 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ Leucine & 35.32 \(\pm\) 0.88 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 41.73 \(\pm\) 4.58 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 38.01 \(\pm\) 1.94 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Lysine & 39.71 \(\pm\) 0.74 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 49.69 \(\pm\) 1.87 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 33.79 \(\pm\) 0.95 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ Methionine & 21.61 \(\pm\) 0.88 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 30.61 \(\pm\) 4.38 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 26.99 \(\pm\) 2.93 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) \\ Phenylalanine & 30.62 \(\pm\) 2.09 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 32.57 \(\pm\) 3.64 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 35.07 \(\pm\) 1.30 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ \hline EAAI (\%) & 37 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 46 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 41 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} Superscripts on the same row represent a significant difference (\(p\leq 0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Amino acid score temperatures on the development of larvae were previously described by [PERSON] et al. [18]. However, the developmental speed of the mealworm larvae in our study was shorter than that in previous studies. This may have been influenced by other factors that affect the developmental time, such as the larval density, diet, or access to water sources. [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al. [26; 27] demonstrated that access to water is essential for mealworms. Concerning the proximate composition, the results for the DM content were consistent with the results of [PERSON] et al. [28], who reported that _T. molitor_ contained 29.41 g of DM per 100 g of FW. The ash content agreed with the values of \(\sim\)3.6 g/100 g per unit DM reported by [PERSON] et al. [29]. The fat content of the fresh sample reached an average value of 9.60 g/100 FW or 28.5 g/100 g DM. Accordingly, the average analysed fat content corresponded to the range reported in the literature of 15-50 g/100 g of fat per unit DM [30; 31; 32; 33]. A positive effect of increasing temperature on the fat content of edible insects was found. The increase in the lipid content at higher temperatures was consistent with observations by [PERSON] et al. [10], who monitored the fat content of mealworm larvae at seven different temperatures ranging from 15.2 to 39 \({}^{\circ}\)C. In their study, the fat content also increased with the increase in temperature up to 37 \({}^{\circ}\)C (maximum fat content of 47.4 g/100 g DM) and then significantly decreased to 16.0 g/100 g DM at 39 \({}^{\circ}\)C. [PERSON] et al. [10] suggested that the fat content varied significantly with temperature and depended on the diet and life stage of insects. Another key factor may be the activity of enzymes and hormones that can affect fat metabolism [13; 34]. [PERSON] et al. [10] explained their results based on the possible bioconversion of carbohydrates into lipids. In addition, they found that at temperatures that caused the accumulation of more lipids, insects contained less water. Our measured results and the results of [PERSON] et al. [10] disagreed with the findings published by [PERSON] et al. [13; 34], who reported that the fat content reached its highest values at 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C and decreased at 15 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C. They justified these changes in the fat content by claiming that the insects analysed did not require larger amounts of fat to support their physiological processes as the temperature increased. The average protein content was 19.25 g/100 g in the fresh sample and 58.42 g/100 g of DM, which was consistent with the literature [32; 33; 35; 36].