Hide table of contents

This is a summary of a research report that investigates costs of production at large Black Soldier Fly Larvae (BSFL) producers, and explores whether they can displace fishmeal as a feed ingredient at scale. You can request access to the full report here.

Key points

  • Over $1 billion has been invested into Black Soldier Fly Larvae (BSFL) farming since 2014.
  • BSFL producers have ambitions to displace fishmeal as a feed ingredient. If successful, this could unlock growth in aquaculture.
  • We investigated costs of production at four of the largest BSFL producers to better understand the prospects of them making major inroads into aquaculture feed.
  • We found production costs at these firms will most likely be too high to displace fishmeal.
  • We anticipate a smaller BSFL sector focused on high-value market segments rather than bulk feed commodities.
  • Our analysis has lots of caveats, including generalizability across different business models and geographies. Read the long summary or full report for more detail.

Executive summary

  • Significant investment has flowed into black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) farming, where producers have ambitions to create feed ingredients for aquaculture (aquafeed).
    • Since 2014, over $1 billion has been invested into black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) farming.
    • At present, BSFL producers mainly sell ingredients to the premium pet food market.
    • But they have ambitions to position BSFL ingredients as a more sustainable alternative to fishmeal, an important feed commodity for farmed fish and shrimp.
    • If these ambitions are realized, it could unlock growth in the aquaculture sector.
  • But the prospects of BSFL producers displacing fishmeal in aquafeed remain uncertain.
  • To shed light on this issue, we estimated production costs across four of the largest BSFL producers (by funds raised).
  • We estimate that production costs for these BSFL producers will be too high to meaningfully displace fishmeal.
    • Our research suggests BSFL producers would need to keep production costs below $1,600 per tonne of dried insects in order to displace fishmeal at a meaningful scale.
    • For a hypothetical ‘average producer’, we estimated median production costs to be double this: around $3.7K per metric tonne of dried insects (see Chart 1).
    • We also estimated production costs at six current and planned production facilities, where median costs ranged from $2.3K to $6.1K per tonne.
    • Notably, none of the evaluated facilities demonstrated a 90% subjective confidence interval for production costs that undercut the $1,600 per tonne threshold.
  • It’s also unclear whether BSFL producers will be able to get production costs as low as our estimates.
    • Our cost estimates above are conditional on facilities operating at full capacity.
    • But given deteriorating investor sentiment and a constrained funding outlook, it remains an open question whether existing facilities will ever reach full capacity.
    • It is also uncertain whether firms will be able to raise sufficient capital to complete construction at sites that have been announced but are not yet in operation.
  • We anticipate a smaller, less sustainable BSFL sector focused on high-value market segments.  The results of this analysis have led us to believe that the BSFL sector will:
    • end up much smaller by 2030 than many previous industry forecasts;
    • focus on high-value applications rather than compete with feed commodities on price;
    • struggle to live up to sustainability claims predicated on displacing fishmeal.
  • Our analysis has lots of caveats and uncertainties
    • Our cost estimates are based on centralized, mass-production business models in Europe and North America, which rely heavily on grain-based substrates.
    • Findings may not be universally generalizable across different business models or geographic contexts.
  • Further details are available in the full report.
    • The full report contains detailed information on the calculation methodology and facility-specific cost estimates.
    • To request access to the full report, please fill out this form.

Chart 1 – Estimated production cost ‘by type of cost’ at a hypothetical ‘average facility’

Acknowledgments

This post is a project of Rethink Priorities—a think tank dedicated to informing decisions made by high-impact organizations and funders across various cause areas. The lead author is Sagar Shah, and this summary reflects his views. This report draws heavily on research conducted by Michael St. Jules during his time at Rethink Priorities, though it doesn’t necessarily reflect his latest thinking. Thanks to Ben Stevenson for reviewing the report and checking calculations, and Ula Zarosa and Shaan Shaikh for assistance with copyediting.  Header image photo credit: Jaka Suryanta.

                                                Request access to the full report

2

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

There are no more recommendations left.

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 · 6d ago · 1m read
 · 
We’re thrilled to share a victory for animals and truth in advertising! Thanks to Animal Outlook’s lawsuit, filed with the incredible support of Legal Impact for Chickens (LIC), the nearly 100-year-old DC butcher shop, Harvey’s Market, has agreed to stop selling foie gras forever. The case, filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court, challenged Harvey’s Market’s alleged deceptive advertising practices related to foie gras. The lawsuit alleged that Harvey’s Market falsely promoted foie gras as “HUMANELY RAISED STOCK” and “FREE RANGE,” among other allegedly misleading claims. These statements were displayed inside Harvey’s Market in a manner that suggested they applied to every product in the meat case, including foie gras. AO and LIC argued that animals subjected to gavage (force-feeding) to produce foie gras can never be “humanely raised,” and that animals raised entirely indoors without outdoor access cannot be considered “free range.” Thanks to the efforts of LIC’s amazing legal team—Kathryn Evans and Alene Anello—we were able to send the message that deceptive claims about animal welfare will not go unchallenged. As part of the case, LIC sourced a unique poll of DC consumers to show 75% believe “humane raised stock” to be an inaccurate description of the birds used to make foie gras. A further 80% said they would not consider such birds to be “free range”. And when shown an image of the meat case from Harvey’s Market approximately 65% said they thought the signage applied to all products in the case, including the foie gras.  While Harvey’s Market did not admit liability, Animal Outlook voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on July 1, 2025, following the confidential settlement agreement.    
Luiz Rezende
 · 4d ago · 1m read
 · 
Hi all! We’re happy to share that Super Festval, a supermarket brand part of Grupo Beal (former “Companhia Beal de Alimentos’), has officially published a commitment to exclusively source pork from group housing systems during gestation in Brazil by 2028, considering preferably preimplantation systems where sows are housed in stalls for no longer than 7 days. You can read the announcement in Portuguese on the company website here. Super Festval is a traditional family business with a local well-known brand and 39 stores in the state of Paraná, south of Brazil. The organizations Alianima, Fórum Animal, Humane World for Animals and Sinergia Animal engaged in corporate relationship with the company for 5 years of negotiations, combining strategies of friendly negotiation, technical support and public campaign warning to accelerate the commitment. The negotiations were positively influenced by the fact that Super Festval has a cage-free commitment fulfilled in 2024 (see their report to the Egglab audit). This is a successful case to strengthen animal welfare policies negotiations with retailers in Brazil. At the moment, it's important to increase the number of animal welfare policies implemented in Brazilian retail in order to promote progress in this sector that is traditionally less receptive to animal welfare policies. We will continue monitoring the implementation of Super Festval commitment, encouraging the company to report their evolution annually, asking to participate in Alianima’s Pig Watch report and extending its animal welfare policies to additional species, for example nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). For the animals,
 · 5d ago · 1m read
 · 
Today marks a historic win for animal advocacy in Brazil, thanks to the combined efforts of Humane World for Animals, Te Protejo, , Fórum Animal and Change.org .  On July 9, 2025, Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies approved the Senate substitute for PL 6602/13 (now PL 3062/22), banning federal animal testing for cosmetics, personal hygiene products, and perfumes. Why this is huge: •⁠  ⁠1.6 million+ signatures delivered a powerful public mandate. •⁠  ⁠A decade in the making—originally filed in 2013, it finally broke its long legislative stalemate. •⁠  ⁠Brazil moves closer to becoming the world’s 45th country to outlaw cosmetic animal testing, sparing millions of animals from suffering. Besides us, the project had the support of many activists and other organizations and institutions such as the Department of Animal Protection that was created within the Ministry of the Environment in Brazil. Next steps: The bill goes to presidential signature. After enactment and a 60-day vacatio legis, ANVISA and other agencies will have up to two years to implement alternative testing methods and enforce the law. This breakthrough proves what we can achieve when we unite. Let’s keep up the momentum—share this news, raise your voice, and push for a cruelty-free future! 
 · 1d ago · 1m read
 · 
Iceland Foods committed to eliminating eyestalk ablation and implementing pre-slaughter electric stunning across their own-label prawn range by the end of 2027. ICAW has been running a campaign against Iceland for several months inclusive of digital actions, in-person demonstrations (including 70 people gathering in London in May) and other pressure tactics. Only 3 retailers have yet to commit to higher prawn welfare in the UK: Aldi, LIDL and ASDA. Thank you to everyone involved for supporting our campaign! For any additional information please contact Justine at jaudemard@i-caw.org