The environmental impact of rearing crickets for live pet food in the UK, and implications of a transition to a hybrid business model combining production for live pet food with production for human consumption

Abstract

Purpose Rearing crickets in the UK for the live pet food market is already a well-established industry. However, there is interest in also producing food for human consumption. This paper presents a life cycle assessment (LCA) of a current live pet food business. Using results from this LCA, the papers explores how current business practices could be improved to reduce environmental impacts, and discusses the potential benefits of a hybrid live pet food/human consumption business model. Methods An attributional, cradle-to-farm-gate life cycle assessment was conducted on rearing crickets for the live pet food market, with data collected on-site at a case study business. Results are reported in multiple impact categories from the ILCD 2011 Midpoint+ method. Comparison is made to the only other similar study: an LCA of rearing crickets in Thailand for human consumption (Halloran et al. J Clean Prod 156:83-94, 2017). The sources of the different environmental impacts between the two studies are explored and inefficiencies in the live pet food rearing process identified. Subsequently, scenarios are used to explore how the inefficiencies may be mitigated, and environmental impact of the live pet food production process reduced through adoption of a hybrid live pet food/human food production model. Results and discussions The environmental impact was found to be larger across all impact categories than the only known comparable study, which is for rearing crickets in Thailand for human consumption (Halloran et al. J Clean Prod 156:83-94, 2017). Some of this difference is due to the heating required for rearing crickets in a climate such as the UK, and some is due to the requirements of the live pet food market being much more demanding on resources than the human food model. The current study identifies improvements in practices that would make this contrast less stark, such as optimizing feeding practices, and the benefits of moving to a hybrid live pet food/human consumption business model. Conclusions This is the first LCA of crickets reared in the UK. The results highlight inefficiencies in the rearing process that are now being addressed by the case study business. The study also shows the potential co-benefits of a hybrid business model, in which crickets for human consumption are produced alongside crickets for the live pet food market.

Environmental aspects of insect mass production

“…LCA studies of insect production chains are not exception. The general goal in the studies reflecting on the production of insects grown on conventional (commercial) feed is connected with identification of environmental impact of such production with certain comparison to similar protein production systems (Halloran et al, 2017;Oonincx and de Boer, 2012;Smetana et al, 2016Smetana et al, , 2019bSuckling et al, 2020) for food and feed purposes. Strong comparative approach based on a few FUs to conventional 'traditional' protein and fat sources is taken in studies of Smetana et al (Smetana et al, 2015, 2016, 2019b, 2020a.…”

“…Some studies account for the weight the input materials in case of waste or manure treatment to determine efficiency of biotransformation (Ites et al, 2020;Komakech et al, 2015;Mertenat et al, 2019;Roffeis et al, 2015;Salomone et al, 2017). Studies dealing with production of insectbased feed (Maiolo et al, 2020;Roffeis et al, 2017Roffeis et al, , 2020Thévenot et al, 2018;Van Zanten et al, 2015) or insectbased ingredients for food and feed purposes (Halloran et al, 2017;Smetana et al, 2015Smetana et al, , 2016Smetana et al, , 2019bSuckling et al, 2020;Ulmer et al, 2020) rely on weight-based unit of output product (feed, meal, insects, dried insects). In order to consider nutritional properties of insects studies rely on comparison based on amount of proteins (Bosch et al, 2019;Halloran et al, 2017;Joensuu and Silvenius, 2017;Oonincx and De Boer, 2012;Salomone et al, 2017;Smetana et al, 2015Smetana et al, , 2016Smetana et al, , 2019bUlmer et al, 2020), lipids (Salomone et al, 2017;Smetana et al, 2019bSmetana et al, , 2020a or energy (Smetana et al, 2015).…”

“…The overall reliability of data in the analysed studies could be assessed as good, as a lot of studies relied on primary data for foreground processes of insect production (Bava et al, 2019;Halloran et al, 2017;Oonincx and De Boer, 2012;Roffeis et al, 2017Roffeis et al, , 2020Salomone et al, 2017;Smetana et al, 2019b;Suckling et al, 2020;Thévenot et al, 2018;Ulmer et al, 2020), a few studies relied on mixed literature and primary measured data (Ites et al, 2020;Maiolo et al, 2020;Mertenat et al, 2019;Smetana et al, 2016). The studies, which have a hypothetical or review character relied on secondary modelled data or literature sources for the modelling of LCA (Bosch et al, 2019;Komakech et al, 2015;Roffeis et al, 2015;Smetana et al, 2015;Van Zanten et al, 2015).…”

“…Electricity and natural gas use at insect farming then are responsible for 51% of total GWP (Van Zanten et al, 2015). Similarly, Suckling et al (2020) indicates the impacts of rearing on global warming to be responsible for 59% of GWP with third part being allocated to heating. Therefore, the detailed analysis of insect farming and identification of improvement potential could play an important role.…”

“…Feed production for insects is responsible for a vast impact of insect production: 20-99% of contribution depending on the impact category (Bava et al, 2019;Halloran et al, 2017;Maiolo et al, 2020;Oonincx and De Boer, 2012;Roffeis et al, 2017Roffeis et al, , 2020Smetana et al, 2016Smetana et al, , 2019b. Insect cultivation could be responsible for 95% of water resource depletion, 70% of land use, 45% of ozone depletion, 45% of freshwater eutrophication (Suckling et al, 2020).…”