## 3 Results  
### Compositions of Organic and Mineral Constituents of O. monoceros and R. phoenicis  
The composition of adult _O. monoceros_ and _R. phoenicis_ are shown in Table 1. The mineral (11.09 \(\pm\) 1.37 vs. 10.45 \(\pm\) 0.37%) and lipid (14.64 \(\pm\) 0.54 vs. 15.06 \(\pm\) 0.28%) contents of the two species studied were not statistically different. On the other hand, the moisture (9.36 \(\pm\) 0.54 vs. 8.68 \(\pm\) 0.31%), protein (44.32 \(\pm\) 0.83 vs. 45.89 \(\pm\) 0.83%), fiber (10.04 \(\pm\) 0.83 vs. 13.72 \(\pm\) 0.46%), and carbohydrate (10.11 \(\pm\) 0.80 vs. 6.59 \(\pm\) 8.77%) contents of the two species were statistically different. The protein and fiber contents were higher for _R. phoenicis_, while the moisture and carbohydrate contents were higher for _O. monoceros_. The metabolizable energies of the species were not statistically different (1563.11 \(\pm\) 8.77 vs. 1543.99 \(\pm\) 8.58 KJ/100g). Although the contents of these two species were not statistically different (Table 1), the contents of the majority of the mineral elements analyzed were statistically higher for _R. phoenicis_ than for _O. monoceros_ (Table 2). The analysis of minerals (mg/100g), in particular, sodium (77.64 \(\pm\) 1.69 vs. 113.57 \(\pm\) 1.69), potassium (108.38 \(\pm\) 1.03 vs. 644.12 \(\pm\) 1.03), phosphorus (47.82 \(\pm\) 1.31 vs. 73.90 \(\pm\) 2.51), magnesium (25.38 \(\pm\) 0.55 vs. 40.73 \(\pm\) 0.38), calcium (53.54 \(\pm\) 1.53 vs. 66.51 \(\pm\) 0.10), iron (8.08 \(\pm\) 0.88 vs. 11.51 \(\pm\) 0.06), copper (9.96 \(\pm\) 0.72 vs. 1.33 \(\pm\) 0.01), zinc (0.85 \(\pm\) 0.02 vs. 15.65 \(\pm\) 0.04), and manganese (0.96 \(\pm\) 0.34 vs. 1.26 \(\pm\) 0.04), shows that these species contain variable and significant quantities of minerals. Table 2 shows that the sodium/potassium, calcium/phosphorus, and calcium/magnesium ratios were 0.71, 1.12, 2.1 for _O. monoceros_ and 0.17, 0.9, 1.63 for _R. phoenicis_, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters Analyzed**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Average Content (\(\pm\)SD) ***} \\ \cline{2-3}  & _O. monoceros_ & _R. phoenicis_ \\ \hline Moisture (\%) & 9.36 \(\pm\) 1.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 8.68 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Ash (\%) & 11.09 \(\pm\) 1.37 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 10.45 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Protein (\%) & 44.32 \(\pm\) 0.83 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 45.89 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Lipid (\%) & 15.06 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 14.64 \(\pm\) 0.54 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Fiber (\%) & 10.04 \(\pm\) 1.15 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 13.72 \(\pm\) 0.46 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Carbohydrate (\%) & 10.11 \(\pm\) 0.80 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 6.59 \(\pm\) 1.2 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Energy (KJ/100g) & 1563.11 \(\pm\) 8.77 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1543.99 \(\pm\) 8.58 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)Means followed by different letters in the same line are significantly different (ANOVA-1 comparison tests, \(p\) < 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Proximate compositions (% wet weight) and their energy value (KJ/100 g) of _O. monoceros_ and _R. phoenicis_. The percentages of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids (monounsaturated and polyunsaturated) in the lipids of _O. monoceros_ and _R. phoenicis_ are shown in Table 3. It appears that _O. monoceros_ and _R. phoenicis_ contain more than 45% unsaturated fatty acids. The results of this table show that the unsaturated fatty acid content of _R. phoenicis_ (58.48 \(\pm\) 0.06%) was higher than that of _O. monoceros_ (47.51 \(\pm\) 0.01%). The polyunsaturated fatty acids content of the insects studied was low (3.13 \(\pm\) 0.01 vs. 3.13 \(\pm\) 0.03%). Concerning the omega-6/omega-3 ratio of fatty acids in the insects studied, the values were 2.06 for _O. monoceros_ and 0.08 for _R. phoenicis_. The results of the chemical screening carried out on _O. monoceros_ and _R.