bsf farming business plan

• Also available in:
• हिन्दी भाषा (hi)
• Bahasa Indonesia (id)
• ភាសាខ្មែរ (km)
• မြန်မာ (my)
• Tiếng Việt (vi)

Establishing a Scaled-Up Black Soldier Fly System

By: sombat chalermliamthong and patrick trail, echo asia impact center, published: 2021-09-01, from: echo asia note articles.

[Editor’s Note: This step-by-step guide follows the BSF production system of the ECHO Asia Small Farm Resource Center in Chiang Mai, Thailand. This is only one example of a functional system and should be adapted according to local context and availability of inputs. This article aims to elaborate on a ‘scaled-up’ system, adding to the wide variety of materials written about backyard and household BSF production.]

Figure 1. Author displays healthy Black Soldier Fly larvae to workshop participants at the ECHO Asia Small Farm Resource Center.

Introduction to Black Soldier Fly Production

Critical to the success of a small-scale farm is its ability to turn on-farm waste into alternative value-added products. By integrating the Black Soldier Fly ( Hermetia illucens ) on the farm, small-scale enterprises can do just that. Taking common waste products such as food scraps and manure, the Black Soldier Fly can be used to efficiently convert raw waste materials into high-protein feed sources for livestock, while simultaneously producing a by-product suited for amending soils. 

The production of BSF larvae also has particular potential for areas in which feed protein sources are difficult to come by. In remote mountainous regions for example, the production of pigs, poultry, and fish are often limited by the availability of affordable protein inputs such as fishmeal and/or soy meal. Black Soldier Fly larvae production may be suited as an affordable alternative. While, humans can safely consume BSF larvae as well, the focus of this article will target production of feed sources for livestock. 

There are many potential advantages to producing BSF and few drawbacks. Of particular note, BSF are extremely efficient converters of waste, can be produced quickly, and require a comparatively small footprint to other livestock or agricultural enterprises. It is also important to note that the Black Soldier Fly is not considered a pest, a common misconception. The BSF is not a known vector of disease, nor does it bite or sting.

Nutritional Value of BSF Larvae

Figure 2. Nutritional break down of [dehydrated] Black Soldier Fly ( Hermetia illucens ) larvae. Source: Feedipedia, 2021.   

The larvae of the BSF are packed full of nutrients, both in quantity and quality. In addition to their high percentage levels of protein and fat content, larvae offer a complete nutritional make-up, including micronutrients, chitins, amino acids, and vitamins. Figure 2 below offers a snapshot of the nutritional make-up of the BSF larvae. For further details and break down of individual nutritional components of BSF larvae, see summary article by Barragan-Fonseca et al., 2017 . 

A Step-By Step Guide to Scaled-Up BSF Production

This photo guide tracks the current Black Soldier Fly production system of the ECHO Asia Small Farm Resource Center, located outside of Chiang Mai, Thailand. This particular system aims to produce a steady flow of BSF larvae for feed of chickens and fish on the farm, but should not be considered large-scale or industrial by any means. Many resources currently exist online for the set-up and maintenance of small backyard BSF systems, such as those produced in buckets, bins, and barrels, but this system aims to produce larger quantities of larvae at various stages of production and life cycle. At the time of writing, this system consistently produces larvae in the range of 10 kilograms per week. 

Step 1. Getting Started

Figure 3. Close up of an adult Black Soldier Fly (Hermetia illucens) .

As noted earlier in the article, the Hermetia illucens (Figure 3) can be found in most parts of the world, having adapted itself from its native region of the Americas into a now commonly seen insect species. To start a BSF production system, flies can either be captured from the wild or purchased from a local source. This article assumes the latter, that the reader is starting with eggs, larvae, or adult flies already in hand.

Figure 4. The screened-in BSF mating enclosure, including a dark room and overhead sprinklers for moisture control. Here adult flies mate and females will lay their eggs.

Step 2. Establishing a Mating Enclosure

The establishment of a mating enclosure is critical to the production of eggs, the primary step in producing BSF larvae. Such enclosures depend on the targeted scale of the enterprise, with many options and adaptations available. Mating enclosures can range from large screened-in rooms such as the above example from the ECHO Asia Farm, or smaller systems that utilize mosquito nets or even mesh laundry baskets. No matter the scale or design, it is necessary that the mating enclosure maintain adequate moisture and temperature. It is also critical that these enclosures remain sealed environments, both to keep the BSF in, and pests such as bird and rats out. 

Within this enclosure a few provisions should be made for the adult flies, including a water source, some vegetation and surface on which to hide and mate, and a ‘dark room’ inside of which females will lay their eggs. At his stage in their life cycle, neither the pupae nor the mature adults will eat any food, therefore only a small food source is provided for the purposes of enticing the females to lay their eggs. 

Step 3. Collecting Eggs

In order to collect the eggs of the adult female BSF, provisions must be made within the mating enclosure. At the ECHO Asia Farm we have discovered that small blocks of wood work well, providing both an inviting egg-laying environment for the female flies and a convenient mode of egg collection for staff. It is common practice to use small pieces of cardboard as egg laying material (Wong, 2020), however we prefer the aforementioned method as it is more convenient for the collection of eggs and tends to result in higher quantities of eggs. At this stage it is important to note that BSF do not lay their eggs directly on (or in) a food source, but rather nearby to one. Therefore, laying blocks should be situated nearby a food source, as depicted in Figure 5. 

Figure 5. Inside the breeding enclosure, wooden blocks with small crevices are provided for the female BSF to lay their eggs. Blocks are placed above a food source, but not directly in contact with the food source.

In order to collect eggs, blocks should be removed, separated, and carefully scraped off. It is important to note at this stage that eggs can be of different ages if the blocks are not removed each day. By having eggs of different ages, the larvae will hatch and grow at different stages, requiring additional sorting and separating at maturity. Ideally, when producing larger batches of BSF, it is better to have larvae at uniform age and maturity. Typically, a mature female will produce anywhere from three to four hundred eggs in her lifetime.

Figure 6. Once the eggs have been laid, the wooden blocks can be removed and taken apart for easier access to the eggs. Toothpicks are used to separate blocks to provide small gaps in which females may deposit their eggs. 

Step 4. Transitioning from Eggs to Larvae

Once eggs have been collected, they can be transferred to a food source where they will hatch and crawl their way to the nearby feedstock provided. Eggs will typically hatch within 4 days of being laid. At this stage, when larvae remain small, plastic trays can be used to hold small quantities of feed/waste and larvae. Mesh screen is used to keep the eggs from directly contacting the food source.

Figure 7. Collected eggs can be gently placed on top of the food source. Eggs are laid on screen mesh to avoid direct contact with the moist food. Once eggs hatch, they will quickly find their way to the food source. 

Step 5. Selecting Appropriate Feedstock

One of the great benefits of the Black Soldier Fly is its ability to consume a wide array of different products, consuming market waste (fruit & vegetable), manure, table scraps, bone meal, and most other products. This article will not provide a prescriptive list of feed sources, but rather encourages the producer to identify the so-called ‘waste’ resources available to him/her. Ideally, low-cost, or even free, waste by-products should be targeted, including market waste, cafeteria food scraps, rice bran, brewer’s spent grains, soy cake, etc…

Figure 8. Many food source options exist for the production of BSF larvae, such as pineapple waste byproducts collected from the market, as seen here. 

In order to ensure a balanced, or ‘complete’ feed source, it is recommended to mix a number of various waste resources together. This helps ‘bulk up’ the feedstock to ensure higher yields of larvae produced, but is not necessary.

Figure 9. To ensure that BSF larvae grow strong and healthy, it is possible to mix higher quality waste byproducts such as rice bran and soy meal, with lower quality waste byproducts. 

Step 6. Stepping Up Production

As larvae hatch and feed, they will need to be ‘stepped up’ into larger containers or bays for adequate production. During this step, additional feedstock is provided and larvae are left to eat.

***NOTE: It is critical to control moisture to avoid foul smells and rotting feed material. Piles of feed or waste should never be allowed to go anaerobic. Trays or bays should have a way to drain off moisture to avoid any standing liquid. On the ECHO Asia Farm, we use a dry material such as rice bran or rice powder to rapidly absorb moisture when needed.

Figure 10. A scaled-up Black Soldier Fly system at a local farm in northern Thailand. This farm uses individual bays with different waste sources to grow BSF larvae at various stages of their life cycles. 

Step 7. Knowing When to Harvest Larvae

Within the next 13 to 18 days larvae will feed voraciously, eating as much as twice their own body weight each day. It is critical during this time to identify the desired stage at which to harvest the larvae. At the end of the larval stage, before reaching the pre-pupae stage (Figure 11), larvae will reach their maximum nutrional capacity as a feed resource (Barragan-Fonseca et al., 2017). If harvested too late the producer runs the risk of lower feed quality, whicle harvesing too early might mean missing out on additional weight and size, and therefore potentially higher yields.

It is important to note that the decision to harvest larvae at this stage, before reaching maturity, will likely require some form of sorting or sizing, or separation of larvae from their feed material. This can be a laborious task and it is recommended that screens of various sizes be used in this process. Mechanized shakers do exist and can be repurposed for this purpose, or it can be done manually. 

Figure 11. The life cycle of the Black Soldier Fly ( Hermetia illucens ), lasting approximately 45 days in its entirety. Before reaching the pre-pupal stage, BSF larvae are at their maximum nutritional quality as a feed resource. Source: Nutrinews 2020.

Step 8. Sorting and Sizing

In order to produce larvae at their peak nutritional stage they must be ‘harvested’ from their feed material. This involves some level of sorting and screening to isolate the larvae. This can be done with various sizes of screens and is made easier by transferring larvae to a finer feed source at the end of their production, allowing for easier separation. This can be done by hand or through investment in mechanized shakers, similar to technologies used in vermicast systems. For larvae that are fed directly, it may not be necessary to clean them completely.

Figure 12. Sorting and sizing BSF larvae.

Step 9. The Final Product

These larvae are at their final and most nutritionally rich stage, before turning into pupae, at which time their nutritional value will begin to decline. 

Figure 13. The final product! 

Step 10. Raising Pupae for Reproduction Purposes  

Many BSF systems take advantage of the ‘self-harvesting’ nature of the BSF pupae. At this stage in its life, a BSF pupae will migrate from its food source in search of a dark quiet place to transform into a mature fly. As seen in the example above (Figure 14), many set-ups have been designed to funnel the crawling pupae out of the food source and into a bucket or other catchment arrangement. This is an extremely convenient phenomenon, but as noted earlier, only happens at the pupal stage when the BSF has already passed its prime as a feed source. 

At the ECHO Asia Farm we have found that the ‘self-harvesting’ system works very well for [re]supplying the mating enclosure. If checked regularly it can be convenient and is capable of providing a steady supply of pupae for reproduction purposes. 

Figure 14. A BSF larvae ‘self-harvesting’ bay. When pupae have reached the end of their pupal cycle, they will crawl away from their food source and will fall into the troughs where they can be collected.

Production Challenges to Consider

Pests such as birds, rats, and other critters should be considered before establishing a BSF system of any scale. Closed systems are necessary to keep flies in and unwanted pests out. Unfortunately, this necessary process of installing screens and nets can become expensive, and adds significantly to a producer’s bottom line. 

Foul Smells

As previously mentioned, it is critical to the success of any BSF system to control moisture properly. Many food wastes, such as fruit scraps, contain high moisture contents and can lead to systems that become anaerobic. Preventing this from happening is not only crucial to the success of the overall system, but also to overall smell and subsequent perception of neighbors and clients. As previously mentioned, it is recommended to install drainage options and to keep on hand substances such as rice bran and rice flour that can be added to rapidly absorb moisture. 

Uses of Black Soldier Fly Products

Livestock feeds.

Figure 15. Comparison of commercial chicken feed supplemented with various rates of BSF larvae at the ECHO Asia Farm. In this case, larvae are being integrated whole.

While it is possible to produce BSF larvae for human consumption, the primary impetus for producers remains as a source for livestock feed, particularly fish and poultry. Larvae can be fed directly, or they can be integrated into an existing feed ration. Staff on the ECHO Asia Farm are currently experimenting with commercial fish and chicken feeds supplemented with various rates of BSF larvae (Figure 15). To use larvae practically and regularly, they can be fed fresh, whole, dried, ground, or frozen depending on the context and equipment available to the producer. 

Soil Amendment

In addition to the larvae produced, BSF also leaves behind a valuable manure similar to vermicasts. These ‘casts’ or ‘frass’ can be applied to soil as a rich amendment, providing additional value to an overall production system. In commercial enterprises this by-product is often bagged and sold as a separate product, another income generating component the small and medium producer might consider. At a minimum, this product can be reintegrated onto the farm in vegetable beds, nursery potting mixes, etc… 

Lastly, there also comes with the production of BSF a liquid product that can be collected and used to amend soils. This liquid can be collected during the feeding process when larvae are voraciously consuming waste products such as food scraps, manure, and other feedstock materials. 

Figure 16. BSF ‘casts’ or ‘frass’. A potentially valuable by-product of BSF production systems. 

BSF production may or may not be beneficial on every farm or every context. Critical to any success will be the identification of an affordable, preferably free waste resource to serve as feedstock for the production of BSF. In many cases, BSF have been identified as an economical solution to the management of existing farm waste, such as manure and other un-used by-products.   

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mr. Phai from Phai BSF Ecofarm CNX, for his willingness to share is his knowledge and experience. We learned so much from you, thank you. 

Barragan-Fonseca, K.B., M. Dicke, and J.J.A. van Loon. 2017. Nutritional value of the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens L.) and its suitability as animal feed – a review. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed. 3(2): 105-120. Available : https://avingstan.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Barragan-Fonseca-et-al-2017-Nutritional-value.pdf 

Feedipedia, 2021. Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value of Black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens), dehydrated. Available: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/16388 

Nutrinews. 2020. Using black soldier fly larvae as a source of protein. The Animal Nutrition. Available : https://theanimalnutrition.com/using-black-soldier-fly-larvae-as-a-source-of-protein/ 

Wong, A. 2020. Black Soldier Fly of the Frangipani Langkawi Organic Farm. ECHO Asia Notes. 41. Available: https://www.echocommunity.org/en/resources/e3d5b1f1-0ec8-4a86-97e0-d80f26e7a951   

Permanent Links

Permanent links, collections.

• 2021 ECHO Asia Black Soldier Fly (BSF) Production Workshop
• 2022 ECHO Asia On-Farm Feeds WS Resources
• Black Soldier Fly

ECHOcommunity.org is the online collaborative membership community of ECHO, an international nonprofit organization. ECHO exists to reduce hunger and improve lives through agricultural training and resources. Working through regional impact centers around the world ECHO connects small-scale farmers, and those working to eliminate world hunger, with essential resources, and each other. These resources include a vast knowledgebase of practical information, experienced technical support and an extensive seed bank focused on highly beneficial underutilized plants.

• Search Menu
• Themed Issues
• High-Impact Collection
• Infographics
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Publish with Us?
• About Animal Frontiers
• About the American Society of Animal Science
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, agroecological insect-fish farming, income generation and financial projections, bsf and fish costs structure, market scenarios, income generation when adopting aiff, income differences in the short, medium, and long-term, enabling aspects to promote aiff, aspects to promote aiff in countries of the global south, authors’ contributions, conflict of interest, acknowledgments.

• < Previous

Small-scale Black Soldier Fly-fish farming: a model with socioeconomic benefits

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Karol B Barragán-Fonseca, Julián Cortés-Urquijo, Julián Pineda-Mejía, Diego Lagos-Sierra, Marcel Dicke, Small-scale Black Soldier Fly-fish farming: a model with socioeconomic benefits, Animal Frontiers , Volume 13, Issue 4, August 2023, Pages 91–101, https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfad030

• Permissions Icon Permissions

While previous research has focused on Black Soldier Fly production on a large industrial scale, our research focuses on economic and social advantages for local economies and small-holder farmers.

Our findings indicate that Black Soldier Fly provides an important alternative protein source that can be locally produced by small- or medium-scale farmers, and can be combined on farms with fish production.

Our data show that Black Soldier Fly can provide an economically viable feed component for small-holder farmers

These results build on existing evidence that a circular approach to insect-fish farming is a viable option that empowers farmers and can contribute to developing the local community through a local value-chain approach in the Global South.

Over the past 20 years, aquaculture has become more integrated into the global food system, with a rapid growth in production and major transformations in feed ingredients, production technologies, farm management, and value chains ( Naylor et al., 2021 ). This growth in production as well as consumption relates almost entirely to countries in the Global South, where almost all (98%) of the world’s smallholder fish farmers are located, mostly in rural areas ( FAO, 2020 ). Smallholder fish producers operate across production intensities to cultivate a variety of species, relying primarily on their own labor and relatively small areas of land ( Marschke and Wilkings, 2014 ). In many communities, fish farming has been practiced as a tradition ( Bhujel, 2013 ), and in general, small-scale aquaculture is a peasant activity managed by families, with few employees or operated by a small community ( FAO, 2015 ). Such medium- and smallholder fish farmers are found in countries on different continents, most of them belonging to the Global South where poverty rates are high and high-quality nutrition is needed. Environmental impact of production, scarcity and increasing prices of raw ingredients for fish feed are among the most important challenges for this sector ( Tran et al., 2022a ), because feed is the largest single cost item for fish production, accounting for 60–70% of the total costs, including smallholder fish farmers ( van Huis, 2013 ).

Therefore, to reduce costs, the exploration of new opportunities is needed. Circular economy ( CE ) may provide these opportunities and may bring innovation into the aquaculture sector ( Thorarinsdottir et al., 2011 ). CE is not a new concept among smallholder farmers because it has been practiced in circular agriculture and agroecology for a long time ( Barragan-Fonseca et al., 2022a ). However, since aquaculture in the Global South faces similar challenges and opportunities, CE should be implemented by aiming for social equality, promoting a radical change in the creation of wealth and the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, and recovering culture ( Betancourt Morales and Zartha Sossa, 2020 ).

Several studies ( van Huis, 2013 ; Dicke, 2018 ; Chia et al., 2019 ; Madau et al., 2020 ; Tran et al., 2022a ), have shown how insects may be used to close the loop when referring to serious environmental and social problems that global agriculture is facing. Agriculture is responsible for more than 70% of the water footprint ( Pfister and Bayer, 2014 ) and food production is responsible for more than 30% of overall greenhouse gas emissions from all sources globally ( Smetana et al., 2019 ), aquaculture having a lower impact than livestock ( Jiang et al., 2022 ). Insects provide innovative solutions as an alternative protein source for animal nutrition ( van Huis, 2013 ; Smetana et al., 2019 ; Tran et al., 2022b ), a source to add value and improving health, natural behavior and quality of animals ( Foysal et al., 2019 ; Rawski et al., 2021 ), and a valuable tool for the transition to a bio-based CE in the agri-food sector, which aims to close the loop of agroproduction through recycling and reuse ( Madau et al., 2020 ). The use of insects as component of fish feed has been recently covered by various reviews focussing on production performance of aquaculture species ( Nogales-Merida et al., 2019 ; Tran et al., 2022b ). These reviews indicate that insects such as the Black Soldier Fly ( BSF , Hermetia illucens ) are promising components of feed for various fish species including salmonids ( Weththasinghe et al., 2022 ) and tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus ) ( Tippayadara et al., 2021 ). The BSF can be used in innovations that provide environmental, social, and economical improvements of the performance of agri-food systems ( Onsongo et al., 2018 ; Chia et al., 2019 ), not only by large-scale, but also by medium- and smallholder farmers ( Barragan-Fonseca et al., 2022a ). Some initiatives using insects by medium- and smallholder farmers have shown that insects can support several of the Sustainable Development Goals ( SDGs ), focusing on food security, sustainable agriculture, combating climate change, and promoting stability and peace ( Dicke, 2018 ; Chia et al., 2019 ; Barragán-Fonseca et al., 2020b ; Madau et al., 2020 ).

Currently, it is not clear to what extent circular agriculture, based on producing insects for feed, can foster sustainable livelihoods for peasant families within the fish-producing economy. We recently proposed a theoretical model: Agroecological Insect-Fish Farming ( AIFF ), as a new opportunity to develop a CE by implementing practices such as those related to the agroecological field for crop production and the use of insects, especially the BSF ( Barragan-Fonseca et al., 2022a ). Here, we present the economic impact of the transition from an industrialized linear economy to a smallholder farmer circular aquaculture, and analyze the feasibility and the conditions under which AIFF might be developed by small- and medium-scale peasant farmers in the Global South based on a case study in Colombia.

To assess the direct impact of the inclusion of BSF larvae ( BSFL ) as a protein source to decrease the costs related to fish feed, smallholder farmers in Icononzo (Tolima, Colombia) engaged in setting up such novel circular approach of producing tilapia fish ( O. niloticus ) fed with BSFL as an alternative component of commercial feed. These farmers were ex-guerrilla members who had put down their arms in the peace process and started fish production within the frame of the project “Insects for Peace” ( I4P ) ( Barragán-Fonseca et al., 2020b ). These farmers replaced between 25% and 38% of the traditional tilapia feed with sundried BSFL, fish were fed five times a day during the fingerling phase, three times a day during the juvenile phase and twice a day during the growing and final phase. Fish exposed to traditional production and those exposed to the AIFF model were fed with the same regime and frequency. Italcol´s brand fish feed was used as the commercial feed. Based on this case and information collected from fish and insect producers in Colombia, a CE model called “Agroecological Insect-Fish Farming” (AIFF) was developed ( Barragan-Fonseca et al., 2022a ). This model conceptualizes the synergies between CE and agroecology approaches as a new opportunity to develop a CE by implementing practices such as the use of insects, especially BSF, producing high value proteins and organic fertilizer (insect waste streams— IWS ) while empowering small- and medium-holder fish farmers’ economies by raising profitability ( Figure 1 ).

General description of the Agroecological Insect-Fish Farming model—AIFF (adapted from Barragan-Fonseca et al., 2022a ). This model conceptualizes the synergies between CE and agroecology approaches as a new opportunity to develop a circular economy by implementing practices such as the use of insects, especially BSF, producing high value proteins and organic fertilizer (insect waste streams—IWS) while empowering small- and medium-holder fish farmers’ economies by raising profitability. More than an economy, this is a concept based on the next three principles: Principle 1—Inputs: Preserve and enhance natural capital by controlling finite stocks and balancing renewable resource flows. Principle 2—Processes: Optimize resource yields by circulating production components and materials in both technical and biological cycles. Principle 3—Outputs: Foster system effectiveness by revealing and phasing out negative externalities.

The economic impact and financial projections of partially replacing commercial feed ingredients with BSFL based on a circular approach, used data obtained from insect farmers and fish farmers in Colombia and the case study of Icononzo ( Barragan-Fonseca et al., 2022a ). This relates to an analysis of the economic impact of the transition to a peasant circular aquaculture to support peasant economy and small- and medium-scale farmers in Latin America according to the AIFF model. To gain insight into the economic effects of using BSF as protein source in fish feed, the income of farmers when including AIFF (circular production) should be compared to a traditional linear fish production (non-AIFF). When producing fish fed with BSF as protein source, two production systems may be used: 1) producing BSF and fish in two different places, as was done in Icononzo or 2) by executing both production systems at the same physical location or production center. Fish costs: We used a two-cost structure for fish production. One is based on Icononzo′s case study (AIFF model) and the other is a cost structure without including BSF as fish feed (non-AIFF model). In this way, with BSF and fish cost structures we have a starting point to analyze other market scenarios.

In the case of BSF production, the costs incurred by having the BSF production unit and the fish production unit in different production centers (being BSF and fish production of the same owner) or in the same production center are presented. The fish cost structure is subdivided into two, the first structure refers to a fish production system that applies a circular economy production through the AIFF model, which uses BSFL as feed component for fish, thus reducing the use of conventional fish feed and, in turn, their respective total costs. Table 1 presents BSF and fish production costs of Icononzo′s case study. All costs and revenues are expressed for an AIFF with 7,000 fish (2.1 tons of total biomass were produced with an average weight of 300 g/tilapia) and 1,400 kg of BSF production capacity during a period of 4 months, which represents the duration of the tilapia production cycle. AIFF and non-AIFF production methods had similar responses of the tilapia performance, both had an average Feed Conversion Ratio of 1.3 and mortality of 30% where the tilapia reached the weight target (±300g). BSFL production : is done through vertically stacking trays in a facility. Larvae were fed on organic waste streams from community waste and from Icononzo´s local market. Average production of BSF: 15 kg of organic waste (wet weight) to produce ~2 kg (wet weight) of harvested BSFL, or ~0.6 kg of sundried BSFL, and 4.5 kg of frass (wet weight). Tilapia production : The facilities for tilapia production consisted of three tanks where the tilapia fingerlings were distributed according to the water volume availability. Tanks 1, 2, and 3 had a capacity of 2,500, 2,500, and 2,000 animals respectively. Each tank had constant water replacement and air flow with a net that covers and protects the fish from natural predators.

Structure of BSF production for a 4-month fish production cycle in a different production center or in the same location as fish production, and fish production costs per fish-production cycle (4 months) with AIFF and non-AIFF model

Underlined figures represent costs that differ between scenarios. All costs in euro’s based on Colombian conditions. N/A, not applicable.

a Cost structure includes: Fixed costs that do not depend on production volume; they are constant in time; Variable costs which depend on the production volume. The sum of the fixed and variable costs equals Total costs .

b Icononzo market scenario.

c The type of peasant family economy applied in this context recognizes working conditions where the producer families exchange working hours with neighboring farms and family members, which is why it is optional to pay wages in cash or in working hours. For cost accounting purposes, it is calculated that an average worker dedicates 3 to 4 h of work per day in each of the two activities, with an average payment of 1.2 Euros for each hour of work (higher than the payment of 1 h of work stipulated by the legal minimum wage in force in Colombia in 2023).

d Costs that are reduced in BSF’s cost structure by incorporating both production systems (BSF and fish) within the same production center.

e This cost relates to both cost structures, because variation in the costs of BSF production affects the cost structure of fish production, because for circular fish production (AIFF), the production of BSF is previously incurred.

Table 1 presents the costs related to both BSF and fish production systems. There are variables such as organic waste transport that only relate to the production of BSF. Land rent, marketing, telephone/internet, and organic waste transport represent those costs of BSF production that, when BSF and fish are produced on the same farm, should not be included for BSF production because they are included in the costs of fish production.

We use two variables to propose four different market scenarios, Icononzo´s case being one of them. Variable A: BSF production and fish production are in the same or in different production centers or farms. Variable B: The sales price of fish produced in a linear economy (non-AIFF) is the same or different from that produced in a circular economy (AIFF). We selected these variables based on the actual situation in Icononzo for small and medium-scale fish farmers. A difference in fish prices for the circular and linear production systems was selected because there is a tendency toward the consumption of food with better nutritional quality and benefit for human health due to the management and type of complementary feeding used ( Feldmann and Hamm, 2015 ). Both variables combined generate four different market scenarios. The market scenario of Icononzo’s BSF production is based on the following principles: different sales prices (€1.00/ fish produced in a circular system [AIFF] vs. €0.71/fish produced in a linear system [non-AIFF]) and production systems in different production centers. After analyzing Icononzo's market scenario (hereafter Scenario 3) we assessed the consequences of changing variables A and B. The prices were obtained by the local sales market experience. In the local market, traditional tilapia price was € 0.71/fish, compared with a different market price of € 1.00/fish, based on the Porter’s five tendency force: threat of substitution, where the customers prefer a more sustainable product on their dish (from farm to fork).

Table 2 presents four market scenarios based on the two variables: Variable A—BSF and fish produced in the same or in different production centers, and Variable B—fish produced in a circular and linear production system are sold at the same or different prices. Variable A only affects the cost structure of the AIFF model, reducing or maintaining costs; while variable B only affects the income of the non-AIFF model (linear economy). Therefore, there are four market scenarios each with two cost structures: under the AIFF model and the non-AIFF model, and we can calculate the profit differences between fish production with AIFF and non-AIFF models.

Fish production with (AIFF) and without (non-AIFF) the use of Black Soldier Fly as feed component

All costs in euro’s.

Costs, revenues, and break-even point for four different market scenarios per fish-production cycle (4 months) including and excluding the AIFF model based on two variables (A and B).

Fish production revenues are derived directly from the total sales of fish (at the farm gate), and by-products’ revenues are the income obtained from the sales of the by-products generated by the fish production. In the case of AIFF production, by-product revenues refer to the fertilizers obtained after harvesting the BSF (frass, i.e., non-consumed substrate, insect manure, and moulting skins), which are sold to neighboring crop farmers ( Barragán-Fonseca et al., 2022a ); in the case of non-AIFF fish production by-products’ revenues (leftover fish parts) refer to the surplus fish marketable in the area. Break-even point refers to the level of sales (in quantities sold) where the revenues obtained cover both fixed and variable costs, and that from these values profits start to be generated. Operating profit is the difference between Total Revenues and Total Costs, being the profits obtained from the total sale of fish, after discounting the costs. Difference in Operating Profit for a 4-month production cycle represents the difference between the fish production systems (AIFF and Non-AIFF) of each of the cases, for a period of 4 months, a value that will allow be projected to some future periods, as we will see later.

Bold values indicate the main values, that are calculated on the basis of several lines above the value.

a Icononzo´s market scenario.

b Break-even point represents the point at which total revenues equal total costs. At this point there is no profit or loss. In the table they are presented as the number of units sold.

In scenarios 1 and 3, higher fixed costs are generated by the obligation to pay rent for the land, marketing, telephone, and transport of organic waste to the BSF farm, which are unavoidable when the BSF production plant is located in a different location than the fish production plant. Hence, in this first case, the difference between operating profits when producing AIFF compared to non-AIFF is 200 euros. In Scenario 2, the costs are lower than in Scenario 1, because here the advantage is that both BSF and fish production systems are in the same place, which reduces AIFF fixed costs by €300 for each production cycle: total fixed costs are €2,291 for AIFF in the same production center and €2,591 for AIFF in different production centers. Therefore, fixed costs like marketing, internet and telephone, land rent, and organic waste transport are not present. As a result, the difference between Operating Profit between producing with AIFF and without AIFF increases from €200 to €500. Scenarios 3 and 4 differ considerably in income from scenarios 1 and 2, mainly generated by the differentiation of sales prices of fish (€0.71 and €1 for non-AIFF and AIFF, respectively). The differences in break-even point between AIFF and non-AIFF models, regardless of scenario, show that the AIFF model presents better income to the farmer, with the best market scenarios being 3 and 4.

In the Icononzo case (Scenario 3), where BSF production is not located at the fish farm, the final price of fish produced with BSF as feed ingredient (€1.00/fish) at the farm gate is higher than without including BSF (€0.71/fish). This result is achieved because local consumers are willing to pay more for fish locally produced through an AIFF model by ex-combatants, based on the experience with local consumers in Icononzo. However, this principle may or may not be fulfilled in other communities because it depends on the preferences of consumers that may change over time, depending on their situation and economic stability. If their economic situation deteriorates, consumers may prefer a lower price over quality. This is why it is important to recognize other possible sources of economic sustainability, which do not fundamentally depend on the sales price of fish produced through AIFF compared to the non-AIFF model. For instance, when there is a cost structure where both production systems (fish and BSF) are on the same land or within the same production center, the BSF production cost is lower than when both production systems are in different places. The AIFF model provides opportunities to yield up to 44% higher revenues, and to reduce the costs up to 23%.

The AIFF and non-AIFF approaches in scenarios 3 and 4 differ considerably in income compared with the two approaches in scenarios 1 and 2, mainly caused by the differentiation of sales prices of fish (€0.71 and €1.00). It is a strong assumption considering economic crises that farmers (local consumers) have in relation to the commercialization of their products or basic services access. Reduced income of these local fish consumers may make them decide to choose cheaper fish. However, the wish for healthy and environmentally friendly food encourages consumers to make decisions where quality prevails over price, which is why they decide to opt for fish produced through a circular-economy approach. The differences in break-even point between AIFF and non-AIFF models, regardless of scenario, show that the AIFF model presents better income (Operating profit) to the farmer, with the best market scenarios being 3 and 4.

In relation to the break-even point, in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, the main difference between the production systems with AIFF and Non-AIFF is that feeding fish from BSF production requires higher fixed costs and lower variable costs due to the constant production of BSF which is required, unlike the case of opting for the traditional production system where costs depend to a large extent on the purchase of concentrate that varies according to the level of production. In scenarios 3 and 4, the main difference in break-even point of both production systems is due to the price difference, which is ahead of the production system with BSF where comparatively a point of zero losses can be reached sooner than in the case of producing by the non-AIFF model. In all cases, the constant sales level of 7,000 fish would allow reaching and exceeding the break-even point in the first period of application.

Additional to that, as mentioned before, the AIFF model has the possibility of generating a by-product in the transformation process: organic fertilizer from BSF frass, which can be used for crops ( Poveda, 2021 ; Barragan-Fonseca et al., 2022b ) and can improve profits for farmers as was reported, for example, Kenya ( Beesigamukama et al., 2022 ; Tanga et al., 2022 ). This fertilizer is generated without increasing the costs of fish production and also increases the family income by supplying the inputs that a peasant family needs to increase the quality of other products that they grow on their farm. With the sale of these, an increase in the family income is estimated at 500 euros. Therefore, the AIFF model may produce a return rate up to 45% considering that total sales are €7,500 and the costs associated to its production are around 50% of it.

However, there are some risks to consider for the proposed market scenarios. For instance, there may be a previous unproductive stage typical of the application of the BSF production system, which may vary among production centers which could affect each of the models contemplated because in this time there would not be income. On the other hand, the aforementioned market models do not consider monetary inflation fluctuations or eventual cases of increases in the prices of inputs in the local area, which is why it is important when evaluating scenarios that require more detail to consider the need to add to the final sale price the inflationary percentage that allows projections more faithful to reality. Thus, the evaluation of more precise AIFF scenarios is needed according to different geographic and socio-economic factors in the AIFF implementation.

The income projections are based on the calculation of the operating profits of both production systems (AIFF and non-AIFF models) presented in each of the four scenarios analyzed. The projections are made for the short (2 years), medium (5 years), and long-term (10 years), where each year of production contains three production cycles of fish, each lasting 4 months. The difference in accumulated earnings is bigger in the AIFF model than in the non-AIFF model in all four scenarios and in the long-term projection. The income differences (Difference Operating Profit for 4 months) in the short, medium, and long-term between AIFF and non-AIFF models of the four scenarios ( Figure 2 ) shows that even in the least profitable scenario (Scenario 1) the income based on AIFF is higher than for the non-AIFF situation. Even with this small income difference and starting from a moderately profitable scenario (Scenario 1), when projecting the income over several years into the future after 10 years the income difference between both systems is €5,970.

Income of farmers using the AIFF and non-AIFF models in four market scenarios (see Table 2 for details on the four scenarios). The income differences (Difference Operating Profit for 4 months) are based on the calculation of the operating profits of both production systems (AIFF and non-AIFF models) presented in each of the four scenarios analysed. The projections are made in the short (2 years), medium (5 years), and long term (10 years), where each year of production contains three production cycles of fish. The income differences between AIFF and non-AIFF model of the four scenarios shows that the income based on AIFF is higher than for the non-AIFF situation.

The transition to a sustainable organic waste management with insects should establish the best ways to put AIFF into practice in a local scenario. Experience shows that this transition cannot be merely technological. By nature, it is multidimensional and requires active participation by different actors through an inter- and transdisciplinary approach ( Chia et al., 2019 ; Barragán-Fonseca et al., 2020a , b ). Here, we analyze success and risk factors and we present a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats ( SWOT ) analysis of an AIFF model to identify enabling aspects to implement AIFF schemes in developing countries. For this SWOT analysis all observations and inferences suggested are based on the previously documented literature, Icononzo´s experience, insect production with small-holder farmers in Kenya ( Chia et al., 2019 ), workshops with ex-combatant communities in Colombia ( Barragán-Fonseca et al., 2020a ), and private and public institutions in Colombia regarding the use of insects as feed ( Dicke et al., 2020 ), and the authors’ experience.

SWOT analysis for AIFF

Pros and cons of the use of insect farming in aquaculture in countries of the Global South are assessed through a SWOT analysis to identify key factors that could support or impair the development of AIFF in those countries as protein source for the aquaculture sector. In Table 3 we present the SWOT of implementing the AIFF model in the Global South.

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis of implementing AIFF model in the Global South

The transition from linear to circular aquaculture by smallholder farmers in low-income countries requires a local analysis of the value chain and the actors (stakeholders) involved, that can potentially intervene so that the system is successful and that it adjusts to specific conditions at each place. A value chain of the AIFF model consists of four main segments: 1) The substrate segment, aimed at providing organic waste for insects, 2) the insect segment, aimed at production of insects, 3) the feed production segment, aimed at products resulting in resources for fish feed, and 4) the fish production, valorization, and consumption segment ( Dicke et al., 2020 ). Each segment has specific stakeholders. We propose four main aspects to promote the AIFF model in developing countries: 1) socio-economic, 2) technical, 3) communication and marketing, 4) education, research, and innovation, and 5) policy-making and legislation.

Socio-economic aspects

Peasant family farming has traditionally been more focused on self-consumption of food and other goods to satisfy their own needs and on the selling of surpluses rather than on cash crops ( van der Ploeg, 2008 ). Entrepreneurial farming in the Global South usually engages small- and middle-scale farmers in business models addressed to big, national, international, or highly profitable markets, that normally require high inputs of innovation, capital, knowledge, and skills and a fruitful economic environment which, in some developing countries, are currently difficult to achieve. Value chains and business models promoted through public policies and cooperation programs in the Global South usually fail due to the lack of understanding of the local economic environment. Most of the time, the local economic environment lacks public support and infrastructure, is embedded in criminal activities, involves high levels of land concentration and is managed by violent power structures, among others. In this context, promoting peasant and family farming within the AIFF model, would be a more realistic approach to provide sustainable livelihoods to peasants, increasing local knowledge, safeguarding culture, conserving nature, feeding themselves, and being autonomous, among other benefits ( van der Ploeg, 2014 ).

As a corollary of the former aspect, we propose to concentrate efforts, at a starting stage, in building local markets and zero-level channels, where farmers can sell fish products directly to final customers. Further efforts to achieve more complex markets and added value to innovative products can be made in contexts where the support of the state or international cooperation is well organized and concentrated on peasant and small- and middle-scale farming where there are more certainties regarding possible and realistic markets. Cooperatives also can serve to support the AIFF model by reducing costs of agricultural inputs, negotiating better prices in the market, sharing knowledge and supporting strategies of production among others ( Gibson-Graham et al., 2013 ). Therefore, AIFF initiatives could be developed by combining extended and niche markets. It means selling large quantities of fish produced at the lowest possible cost and producing and selling a lower amount of fish but with a higher added value (e.g., healthy and agroecological food concept) in specific niche markets.

Technical aspects

In the case of BSFL as feed component for sustainable fish production, the main concern is the variability in bioconversion due to the changeability of the substrate used to feed BSFL ( Onsongo et al., 2018 ). Several studies show that insect meal can be used to substitute fish meal in fish diets and can be used to as novel aquafeed component for sustainable aquaculture ( Tippayadara et al., 2021 ). The use of live or sun-dried larvae may provide both a nutritional advantage and cheaper protein source for freshwater and tropical fish found in the Global South, which are mostly herbivorous/omnivorous ( Henry et al., 2015 ), such as for tilapia that does not have such high protein requirements. The use of a mixture of different protein sources (different insects, with plant-derived proteins or with other animal proteins) could reduce the potential nutrient deficiencies and better balance the amino acid profiles of aquafeeds incorporating insect meal ( Henry et al., 2015 ) and insect meals may also be mixed with other protein sources to improve tilapia performance ( Mohd Din et al., 2012 ) to reduce lack of full diet balancing. Experiences in the Global South show that the implementation of integrated agri-aquaculture systems and aquaponic systems might allow smallholder fish farmers to develop local adaptations and generate synergies ( Barragan-Fonseca et al., 2022a ).

Communication and marketing

Considering the labor-intensive aspect of the production of healthy and agroecologically produced food (including healthy fish) which is usually more expensive than highly industrialized food, a strong communicational effort is needed to show the advantages of consuming AIFF products and healthy and agroecological food. Such advantages are not only about the promotion of healthy behavior, but also about the provision of fair income to peasant farmers and the protection of nature. Additionally, because sustainable consumption of food requires high levels of mental construal ( van Dam, 2016 ) which problematizes making decisions in favor of health, environmental protection, fair income to producers, there is an additional challenge in terms of communication that strengthens current efforts in promoting and improving sustainable and responsible consumer behavior.

Education, research, and innovation

Small farmers need to be aware of the advantages of circular economy practices. This can be done by sharing knowledge and recovering traditional peasant practices, on the use of side-products from their farms to reduce costs and to profit from part of these side-products. On the other hand, the adoption of agroecological practices also implies the conscientization of circularity among farmers. Because many countries in the Global South are located in the tropics, this provides a comparative advantage compared to countries that have seasons because it has greater biodiversity, such as insect species and species of tropical forages that can be included in diets of these insect species ( Espitia-Buitrago et al., 2021 ). New insect species that may be amenable to large-scale rearing and new feed alternatives and substrates for them are important to explore as it represents an additional advantage of rearing these species in the Global South. Finally, if we aim to achieve the “zero hunger” SDG, consumers with low incomes should be able to afford access to food from AIFF producers. Thus, efforts addressed to reduce production costs and to connect producers with consumers would serve to produce healthy fish at the lowest production cost and with a fair profit for peasant farmers.

Policy-making and legislation

Future attempts to regulate AIFF practices must consider specific contexts. While in some countries—e.g., with a strong conflict around land ownership—regulation would help to support small- and medium-scale farmers practicing AIFF initiatives, in others it would reduce their possibilities. On the one hand regulation might ensure food quality and good practices of production, but on the other hand, it can serve to strengthen the concentration of land in a few hands and to reduce the adaptability of its practice by peasant communities who will be at a disadvantage with those who can invest in the achievement of an existing regulation. The involvement of the public sector, if possible, could be concentrated on redistribution of land, the improvement of current infrastructure to reduce costs of transportation of agricultural inputs and food products, the provision of basic services, training in entrepreneurship to build capacities, and the support in creating innovation and more markets among others.

Aquaculture rapidly gains importance in providing nutritious food to the growing human population. Small- and medium-scale farmers are important fish producers in the Global South. Yet, they face high costs of imported feeds, especially related to soy and fishmeal as protein sources. Current aquaculture especially follows a linear production. Insects such as BSF provide an important alternative protein source that can be locally produced by small- or medium-scale farmers. Moreover, BSF production can be combined on farms with fish production. This leads to a circular approach to fish production where residual streams can be used to improve the sustainability of fish farming. In addition to the extra income using insects, helping communities become independent from external inputs should be a priority. In this way, the AIFF model promotes the independence of the community from external and increasingly expensive inputs, a CE concept that can be expanded to other livestock as has been seen in different countries in the Global South ( Chia et al., 2019 ). Here we show, based upon experiences in Colombia, that a circular approach to fish farming is a viable option that empowers farmers and can contribute to developing the local community through a local value-chain approach. We identified several aspects that deserve to be developed to support this sustainable aquaculture approach that contributes to the livelihood of small- and medium-scale farmers.

All authors significantly contributed to the manuscript and all authors approve the manuscript.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

The authors kindly thank Ricardo Arciniegas-Cardenas for providing information on his insect-fish farm.

About the Author

Karol B. Barragán-Fonseca is a veterinarian, with an MSc in Biological Sciences. She has worked in situ and ex situ with conservation and sustainable wildlife production systems. Since 2008, she is a professor at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL), working on insects as feed and food. Karol founded the Terrestrial Arthropod Research Laboratory at UNAL in 2012, and received her PhD in this field in 2018 at Wageningen University (WUR). Currently, Karol is an Assistant Professor; cofounder of EntoPro, an UNAL spin-off company; and coordinator of the Insects for Peace initiative to promote social transformation through insects.

Julián Cortés-Urquijo is a mechanical engineer with a Master in Development and Rural Innovation from Wageningen University and is currently a PhD Candidate in Social Sciences at the same university with the project: Post insurgency in Colombia: local agency, politics and reincorporation of FARC-EP. His research interests are Rural Sociology; Cooperatives and Solidarity Economy; Demobilization, Disarmament and Reintegration (DDR); Social Movements, Militant Ethnography; and the use of video in Social Sciences. He has worked in Colombian public institutions in the area of rural development.

Julián Pineda-Mejía studied animal production at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL), his BSc thesis was done at Wageningen University in the Netherlands and the research was oriented to the growth of Black Soldier Fly larvae fed organic waste. As an MSc student in animal science at the UNAL, Julián has supported applied insect research with ex-combatant communities in Colombia to decrease the cost of animal feed in their livestock systems. He is a co-founder of EntoPro, an UNAL spin-off company. Currently, he works as an innovation project manager for a company dedicated to providing environmental services.

Diego Lagos-Sierra is an economist and researcher from the Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL) focus on rural development and management for territorial and community development. Specialist in Social Research Techniques and Methods with research experience in illicit economies, internal armed conflict, economic autonomy, rural productive projects, with relevant experience in promoting dialog with national and international institutional and community actors in Colombia. He has developed interdisciplinary knowledge in differential gender and ethnic approach; direction, execution, and distribution of investigative projects through audio-visual narratives, and application of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methodologies for regional, local, and conjuncture analysis for projects.

Marcel Dicke investigates the ecology of insect-plant interactions and insects as food and feed. Head of the Laboratory of Entomology at Wageningen University, The Netherlands, with a history of working in academic research, ample experience with translating fundamental science to the general public, with specific projects with private industry in different fields: insect-plant interaction, pollination, biological control, breeding for resistance, and insects as food and feed. He has received various awards for his research such as the NWO Spinoza award (aka the “Dutch Nobel Prize”), Eureka prize for science communication, awarded by NWO (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research), Academic Year Prize (Battle of the Universities), among others. Marcel is a Current member of the Council for International Congresses of Entomology (CICE).

Barragán-Fonseca , K.B. , J. Cortés Urquijo , M. Dicke , and A.P. Quintana . 2020a . South-south inspiration to connect SDG2 and SDG16 in former conflict areas; Promoting sustainable livelihoods of ex-insurgents in Colombia by insect farming . Wageningen (The Netherlands) : Wageningen Livestock Research . doi: 10.18174/539034 .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Barragán-Fonseca , K.B. , A. Muñoz-Ramírez , N. Mc Cune , J. Pineda , M. Dicke , and Cortés-Urquijo , J. , 2022a . Fighting rural poverty in Colombia: circular agriculture by using insects as feed in aquaculture . Wageningen (The Netherlands) : Wageningen University & Research . doi: 10.18174/561878 .

Barragán-Fonseca , K.Y. , K.B. Barragán-Fonseca , G. Verschoor , J.J.A. van Loon , and M. Dicke . 2020b . Insects for peace . Curr. Opin. Insect Sci . 40 : 85 – 93 . doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2020.05.011 .

Barragán-Fonseca , K.Y. , A. Nurfikari , E.M. van de Zande , M. Wantulla , J.J.A. van Loon , W. de Boer , and M. Dicke . 2022b . Insect frass and exuviae to promote plant growth and health . Trends Plant Sci . 27 : 646 – 654 . doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2022.01.007 .

Beesigamukama , D. , B. Mochoge , N. Korir , K. Menale , B. Muriithi , M. Kidoido , H. Kirscht , G. Diiro , C.J. Ghemoh , S. Sevgan , et al. . 2022 . Economic and ecological values of frass fertiliser from black soldier fly agro-industrial waste processing . J. Insects Food Feed . 8 : 245 – 254 . doi: 10.3920/jiff2021.0013 .

Betancourt Morales , C.M. , and J.W. Zartha Sossa . 2020 . Circular economy in Latin America: a systematic literature review . Bus. Strategy Environ . 29 : 2479 – 2497 . doi: 10.1002/bse.2515 .

Bhujel , R.C. , 2013 . Small-scale aquaculture: global and national perspectives . In: Shrestha , M.K. and J. Pant , editors. Small-scale aquaculture for rural livelihoods: Proceeding of the National Symposium on Small-scale Aquaculture for Increasing Resilience of Rural Livelihoods in Nepal . Penang, (Malaysia) : Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Tribhuvan University, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal and the WorldFish Center ; p. 10 – 18 .

Chia , S.Y. , C.M. Tanga , J.J.A. van Loon , and M. Dicke . 2019 . Insects for sustainable animal feed: inclusive business models involving smallholder farmers . Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain . 41 : 23 – 30 . doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.09.003 .

van Dam , Y.K. , 2016 . Sustainable consumption and marketin . Wageningen (The Netherlands) : Wageningen University .

Dicke , M . 2018 . Insects as feed and the Sustainable Development Goals . J. Insects Food Feed . 4 : 147 – 156 . doi: 10.3920/jiff2018.0003 .

Dicke , M. , Aartsma , Y. and Barragan-Fonseca , K.B. , 2020 . Protein transition in Colombia: insects as feed in a circular agriculture . Wageningen (The Netherlands) : Wageningen University & Research . https://edepot.wur.nl/545408

Espitia-Buitrago , P.A. , L.M. Hernandez , S. Burkart , N. Palmer , and J.A.C. Arango . 2021 . Forage-fed insects as food and feed source: opportunities and constraints of edible insects in the tropics . Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5 : 444 . doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.724628 .

FAO , 2015 . Voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries in the context of food security and poverty eradication . Rome : FAO . https://www.fao.org/3/i4356en/I4356EN.pdf

FAO , 2020 . The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action . Rome : FAO . doi: 10.4060/ca9229en

Feldmann , C. , and U. Hamm , 2015 . Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: a review. Food Qual Prefer . 40:152–164. doi: 10.1016/J.FOODQUAL.2014.09.014 .

Foysal , M.J. , R. Fotedar , C.Y. Tay , and S.K. Gupta . 2019 . Dietary supplementation of black soldier fly ( Hermetica illucens ) meal modulates gut microbiota, innate immune response and health status of marron ( Cherax cainii , Austin 2002) fed poultry-by-product and fishmeal based diets . PeerJ . 7 : e6891 . doi: 10.7717/peerj.6891 .

Gibson-Graham, J.K., Cameron, J., and S. Healy. 2013 . Take back the economy: an ethical guide for transforming our communities. University of Minnesota Press .

Henry , M. , L. Gasco , G. Piccolo , and E. Fountoulaki . 2015 . Review on the use of insects in the diet of farmed fish: past and future . Anim. Feed Sci. Technol . 203 : 1 – 22 . doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.03.001 .

van Huis , A . 2013 . Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security . Annu. Rev. Entomol . 58 : 563 – 583 . doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153704 .

Jiang , Q.T. , N. Bhattarai , M. Pahlow , and Z.C. Xu . 2022 . Environmental sustainability and footprints of global aquaculture . Resour. Conserv. Recycl . 180 : 1061839 . doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106183 .

Madau , F.A. , B. Arru , R. Furesi , and P. Pulina . 2020 . Insect farming for feed and food production from a circular business model perspective . Sustainability . 12 : 541815 . doi: 10.3390/su12135418 .

Marschke , M. , and A. Wilkings . 2014 . Is certification a viable option for small producer fish farmers in the Global South? Insights from Vietnam . Marine Policy . 50 : 197 – 206 . doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.06.010 .

Mohd Din , A.R.J., S.A. Razak, and V. Sabaratnam. 2012 . Effect of mushroom supplementation as a prebiotic compound in super worm based diet on growth performance of red tilapia fingerlings. Sains Malaysiana 41(10):1197–1203. [Online]. Available: http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/5782/23/04_Abd_Rahman_Sains_Malaysiana.pdf .

Naylor , R.L. , R.W. Hardy , A.H. Buschmann , S.R. Bush , L. Cao , D.H. Klinger , D.C. Little , J. Lubchenco , S.E. Shumway , and M. Troell . 2021 . A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture . Nature . 595 : E36 – E36 . doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03736-4 .

Nogales-Merida , S. , P. Gobbi , D. Jozefiak , J. Mazurkiewicz , K. Dudek , M. Rawski , B. Kieronczyk , and A. Jozefiak . 2019 . Insect meals in fish nutrition . Rev. Aquac . 11 : 1080 – 1103 . doi: 10.1111/raq.12281 .

Onsongo , V.O. , I.M. Osuga , C.K. Gachuiri , A.M. Wachira , D.M. Miano , C.M. Tanga , S. Ekesi , D. Nakimbugwe , and K.K.M. Fiaboe . 2018 . Insects for income generation through animal feed: effect of dietary replacement of soybean and fish meal with black soldier fly meal on broiler growth and economic performance . J. Econ. Entomol . 111 : 1966 – 1973 . doi: 10.1093/jee/toy118 .

Pfister , S. , and P. Bayer . 2014 . Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production . J. Clean Prod . 73 : 52 – 62 . doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.031 .

van der Ploeg , J.D . 2008 . The new peasantries: struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization . London : Routledge .

van der Ploeg , J.D . 2014 . Diez cualidades de la agricultura familiar . LEISA Rev. Agroecol. 29 : 6 – 8 . https://edepot.wur.nl/296359 .

Poveda , J . 2021 . Insect frass in the development of sustainable agriculture. A review . Agron. Sustainable Dev . 41 : 10 . doi: 10.1007/s13593-020-00656-x .

Rawski , M. , J. Mazurkiewicz , B. Kieronczyk , and D. Jozefiak . 2021 . Black soldier fly full-fat larvae meal is more profitable than fish meal and fish oil in Siberian sturgeon farming: the effects on aquaculture sustainability, economy and fish GIT development . Animals . 11 : 60413 . Doi: 10.3390/ani11030604 .

Smetana , S. , E. Schmitt , A. Mathys . 2019 . Sustainable use of Hermetia illucens insect biomass for feed and food: attributional and consequential life cycle assessment . Resour. Conserv. Recycl . 144 : 285 – 296 . Doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.042 .

Tanga , C.M. , D. Beesigamukama , M. Kassie , P.J. Egonyu , C.J. Ghemoh , K. Nkoba , S. Subramanian , A.O. Anyega , and S. Ekesi . 2022 . Performance of black soldier fly frass fertiliser on maize ( Zea mays L.) growth, yield, nutritional quality, and economic returns . J. Insects Food Feed . 8 : 185 – 196 . doi: 10.3920/jiff2021.0012 .

Thorarinsdottir , R.I. , A. Jokumsen , B.T. Bjornsson , and O. Torrissen . 2011 . Local raw materials for production of fish feed for aquaculture . Nordic Innovation Centre, Project no. 10102 . http://www.nordicinnovation.org/Global/_Publications/Reports/2011/2011_lokal_raw_material_fish_feed_rep.pdf

Tippayadara , N. , M.A.O. Dawood , P. Krutmuang , S.H. Hoseinifar , H. Van Doan , and M. Paolucci . 2021 . Replacement of fish meal by Black Soldier Fly ( Hermetia illucens ) larvae meal: effects on growth, haematology, and skin mucus immunity of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus . Animals . 11 : 19 . doi: 10.3390/ani11010193 .

Tran , H.Q. , H.V. Doan , and V. Stejskal . 2022a . Environmental consequences of using insect meal as an ingredient in aquafeeds: a systematic view . Rev. Aquac . 14 : 237 – 251 . doi: 10.1111/raq.12595

Tran , H.Q. , T.T. Nguyen , M. Prokesova , T. Gebauer , H.V. Doan , and V. Stejskal . 2022b . Systematic review and meta-analysis of production performance of aquaculture species fed dietary insect meals . Rev. Aquac . 14 : 1637 – 1655 . doi: 10.1111/raq.12666 .

Weththasinghe , P. , J.O. Hansen , L.T. Mydland , and M. Overland . 2022 . A systematic meta-analysis based review on black soldier fly ( Hermetia illucens ) as a novel protein source for salmonids . Rev. Aquac. 14 : 938 – 956 . doi: 10.1111/raq.12635 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2160-6064
• Print ISSN 2160-6056
• Copyright © 2024 American Society of Animal Science
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Black Soldier Flies: Inexpensive and Sustainable Source for Animal Feed

Rosanne Mwangi scoops up two handfuls of squirming Black Soldier Fly larvae. “Brown, live gold,” she says with a broad grin.

The flies she refers to as gold are alive only for a fleeting six weeks. But during that time, they reproduce generously, laying 500-plus eggs in a single batch, and are fairly indestructible, having been known to survive up to two hours submerged in pure rubbing alcohol. They eat in a writhing mound, thousands sharing a single serving of nearly any kind of organic waste.

The single most important fact about Black Soldier Flies (BSF) may be that in the larvae stage, they have the Superman-like ability to transform that waste into high-quality protein. Used as alternative protein additives in animal feed, this translates into an inexpensive, clean and sustainable food source—especially important as farmers, along with global economies, struggle to recover from the financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, including food shortages.

“The BSF is a path to improving household incomes with a readily available resource, and that is really exciting,” says Mwangi, a mother of three who lives in Muranga County, a farming community in Kenya’s Central Highlands.

BSF To Alleviate Poverty & Promote Food Security

The Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe) on a project to test business models for scaling insect-based protein feed in poultry and pig farming and aquaculture in Kenya. The goal is to help alleviate poverty, promote food security and improve the overall health status of smallholder farmers. An international science research institute headquartered in Nairobi, icipe’s mission is to use insect science for sustainable development.

Icipe researched more than 28 insect species, including locusts and crickets, before settling on the BSF larvae as the best way forward. “Black Soldier Flies are exceptional,” says Dr. Chrysantus Mbi   Tanga, an icipe research scientist specializing in insect-based feed.

The icipe team also made sure they had a large pool of potential consumers and significant need. Studies indicate about 90 percent of farmers and 85 percent of feed producers in Kenya are ready to use insect-based feed. The annual supply of dried BSF larvae for feed formulation in Kenya is about 3,600 metric tons, but icipe estimates the current demand at about 90,000 metric tons. Since 2015, icipe has trained more than 5,000 farmers across Kenya in how to raise and use BSF as feed supplements.

Some 75 percent of working Kenyan s make all or part of their living by farming, including some 800,000 smallholder farmers. Currently, 46 percent of the population of about 54 million people live on less than 1 U.S. dollar a day , 36.5 percent are food insecure and 35 percent of children under five are chronically malnourished.

Careful Research Led to BSF-Based Feed Production

Increasing BSF production and use in feed has several direct advantages. The first is that it is easier on the pocketbook. “The most expensive component of raising animals is the protein cost in feeds, which accounts for 60 to 70 percent of the total production cost,” says Dr. Tanga. “BSF are a lot more affordable. They grow on organic waste and within two weeks you can harvest them.” For Mwangi, using BSF as feed has resulted in about a 20 percent increase in earnings.

Secondly, Dr. Tanga says, “our research showed the BSF larvae are even better for the animals than conventional feed. Scaling up insect-based technologies will have a huge impact in improving poultry, fish and pig production.”

That means better quality meat and eggs, and faster to market. Mwangi says her free-range chickens, which normally take about 24 weeks to be market-ready, are now going to market at 16 weeks. And her pigs are ready for market in about six or six-and-a-half months, saving her one to two months.

Thirdly, BSF larvae has the advantage of being solely for animal consumption. Traditional feed is made from fishmeal and soybeans, and the animals are in a sense competing with humans for this food.

And finally, BSF production creates job opportunities for youth and women who produce the feed. Mwangi employs seven people fulltime, and brings in extra workers during peak harvesting periods

Turning Waste into Value

Here’s how it works: the BSF eggs are placed in tent-like structures along with organic waste where they incubate for three days and then hatch. Pre-pandemic, Mwangi was using potato waste, but has since switched to over-ripe avocados because they have become more readily available. The larvae begin feeding on the waste immediately.

They grow over about 14 days and then all but 10 to 20 percent are harvested into feed. The remaining BSF perpetuate the colony. Within two weeks, they pass through the pupae stage before becoming flies. The flies live for about 10 to 16 days more on a diet of water only, and during that time they lay the eggs that begin the process again. Another outcome of the process is organic frass fertilizer , which can be sold as an additional value-added product or used in farmlands for increased crop productivity.

Taking something that is considered to be waste, and turning it into a higher value product while avoiding the use of chemical additives, Mwangi says, is her contribution to global sustainability and climate-smart agriculture.

Mwangi’s parents were social workers, but her sister grows potatoes and she raises chickens and pigs. “It is really rewarding to see things grow,” she says. “It is a job that makes economic sense but you also have time to do other things. So now, I am teaching other farmers about how to raise BSF and use the larvae as feed supplements. It can really improve the household income of smallholder farmers.”

Mwangi’s youngest child, an eight-year-old daughter, “is always with me, tugging along at my skirt,” Mwangi says with a laugh. “She is a farmer in the making, and the Black Soldier Fly is most definitely the future.”

Related Updates

Making Good Food More Sustainable: Exploring the intersection between agriculture and energy

As the world battles the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on food security, climate change continues to present a major and long-lasting crisis for our food systems. At the same time, the food and agriculture sectors are some of the major contributors to climate change, accounting for 70 percent of global freshwater use and nearly […]

• +31 (0)77 205 8758
• [email protected]

A practical guide to commercial BSF farming

On the 11th and 12th September Bob Holtermans CEO and founder of Insect engineers in the Netherlands, will be attending BSFCon https://www.bsfcon.com / , Cambridge, UK to explain the key challenges new entrants into the BSF insect industry face.

In the rapidly growing insect industry, aspiring entrepreneurs are drawn by the prospect of entering a unique market with high potential. With enthusiasm, they seek to establish businesses centered around insects. However, their initial excitement is met with a sobering reality check as they realize that success in this field demands strategic planning and a deep understanding of the industry dynamics.

The journey begins with the fundamental question: who is the target customer? This seemingly straightforward inquiry often eludes new entrepreneurs, leading to detrimental consequences. Whether the focus lies in producing insect-based food, feed, or waste processing, clarity regarding the target market is essential. This foundational step is often overlooked, despite its significance.

Within the feed sector, competition is fierce, with price sensitivity and volume demands driving market dynamics. Entrepreneurs venturing into BSF farming must acknowledge that gradual expansion is not feasible. Transitioning from a pilot facility—processing, for instance, 2 tons of wet waste daily—to handling 50 tons per day requires meticulous planning from the outset. Lessons from past failures underscore the necessity of a robust commercial strategy.

The allure of a successful BSF farm hinges on several factors: location, energy costs, waste availability, waste cost, and the sales market. While optimizing substrate use per unit area is enticing, it comes with caveats. New farmers often disregard the critical role of climate control and air circulation. These factors influence productivity and can lead to a tipping point beyond which diminishing returns arise.

Insights gleaned from Regen Organics in Kenya offer valuable lessons. Processing a staggering 70,000 tons of organic waste annually, their focus on waste management is instructive. For EU/UK growers, this approach might be less feasible due to regulatory limitations on permissible waste streams. This contrast underscores the need for policymakers in these regions to take heed.

In conclusion, the insect industry beckons entrepreneurs with its potential, but success requires strategic foresight. Defining the target customer, carefully planning for growth, considering market dynamics, and accounting for critical factors such as climate and air circulation are vital. Valuable lessons emerge from both triumphs and failures, serving as a roadmap for those entering the dynamic world of insect entrepreneurship.

Useful links:

• Bob Holtermans - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bobholtermans/
• Turnkey insect farm - https://www.insectengineers.com/bsfturnkey/production
• Learn more at the Insect school -   https://www.insectschool.com/
• BSFCon website - https://www.bsfcon.com

Contact us - https://www.insectengineers.com/about-us/contact

Insect Engineers

Stay up to date.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

• Privacy policy

• Black Soldier Fly , Business & Entrepreneurship Training

Share article:

18 aug 2022, f&s trains starting black soldier fly farmers on entrepreneurship and business skills in nakuru, kenya.

Fair & Sustainable Consulting, together with DanChurchAid (DCA), is supporting youth to set up commercial Black Soldier Fly (BSF) Farms in Nakuru county.

The BSF initiative is part of the Agritech Solutions Project implemented by DanChurchAid and financed by DMDP – Danida Market Development Partnerships – a Danida funded initiative.

After an extensive selection process  , the best entrepreneurs were selected. Since July 2022, 8 ambitious young people are being trained and coached to develop their knowledge and skills in running a commercial-size BSF business.

As a first step in that process, they started with a five-day training tailor-made to the entrepreneurs’ needs, which were identified during the selection process. Training topics included marketing, finance, human resources, and the development of soft skills. Trainers Wangechi Kuria and Annelien Meerts ensured that the training was interactive, by blending theory with a wide variety of small-group assignments, roleplays, and individual assessments to enhance learning.

The participants gained knowledge of how to develop a marketing plan and recruit and retain staff for their BSF farm, and gained an understanding of how to read financial statements, such as the cash flow and income statement. In addition, they have further developed their skills of giving feedback and job instructions, how to lead a team and delegate tasks, and how to set priorities.

The entrepreneurs gave the following feedback on the training:

“I really loved the tailor-made teaching methods used. This is because I was able to think of scenarios that I may get in the future. And I was able to understand how to handle it.”

“I have learned effective and efficient communication skills to help me run a successful business in the future. Skills to hire and retain employees and tools to help recruit the best of the best.”

“The highlight of the training for me was its relevance and practicality. Not only will I apply the knowledge acquired directly into my BSF farm but also in other aspects of my life”

About Fair & Sustainable (F&S) Insect Farms

F&S has started its own initiative in Black Soldier Fly farming in Kenya, called Fair & Sustainable Insect Farms. The overall goal of this initiative is to promote commercial BSF farming as a profitable circular innovation in agriculture, through a model that enhances youth entrepreneurship and women economic empowerment. BSF larvae are a sustainable, high-quality alternative for conventional protein in animal feed. Moreover, they transform organic waste that traditionally ends up in landfills, into organic fertilizer.

F&S aims to set up 100 farms in the next few years under the umbrella of F&S Insect Farms.  Through the franchise model, the young entrepreneurs have full access to technical, financial, and managerial support for seven years

I nterested to learn more or collaborate with us? Contact us –

In the Black Soldier Fly farms initiative: [email protected]

In tailor-made entrepreneurship training: [email protected]

Recommended articles

26 mar 2024, transforming waste into opportunity: fair and sustainable consulting’s initiative in nyeri county, 18 mar 2024, how to mainstream gender in eu-supported actions on forests, 14 mar 2024, empowering growth: celebrating the culmination of pac pme’s second cohort in sikasso, the netherlands.

• +3130 234 8281
• [email protected]
• Arthur van Schendelstraat 550
• 3511 MH Utrecht, The Netherlands
• +251 118 619 531
• [email protected]
• South Africa St. (Bistrate Gebreal)
• Haymanot Building, 6th Floor
• Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
• +254 710 423 972
• [email protected]
• Rhapta Heights, Shiriki House 4th floor
• Rhapta Road – Nairobi, Kenya

Quick Links

• Complaints procedure
• Privacy statement

Green Protein: Farming Black Soldier Fly Larvae in Zimbabwe

Tonderai fadzai mukonoweshuro, nicholas callender.

“They now call me Professor,” chuckles Shadreck Kombera. “Yet I had never seen the inside of a university until the project trained me in black soldier fly production.” We were thrilled to meet this ‘professor’ with his wealth of knowledge and who took us through the process of black soldier fly (BSF) production during our recent visit   to rural Buhera in eastern Zimbabwe. Shadreck’s information is written on a fabric scroll and, as he takes us through the intervention, two community members hold up the fabric for him.  

As an intervention—and new phenomenon—in this cyclone-affected community as part of resilience-building in the area, BSF has drawn much local support. Hermetia illucens is a common, medium-size, predominantly black-colored fly with shiny wings. This fly has gained global attention for devouring organic waste and turning it into compost, or for the use of its larvae as animal feed  .

Here in Buhera, we found that maggots are now seen as an alternative source of protein and a sustainable way to keep chicken (by supplementing their existing feed) or even as a replacement for other, higher-cost protein inputs. Thus, the production, management, and use of BSF as a high protein, low-cost, crude source of poultry feed. Shadrack’s homestead is the center of BSF in the area. BSF production is currently not widespread in Zimbabwe, and this is the first community to be involved at scale.

Shadreck is one of 22 lead farmers trained under the Zimbabwe Idai Recovery Project to ensure the success of a “pilot” for 563 beneficiaries. The 22 farmers in turn had to train 25 other farmers. “The size of my eggs, and quality of chickens, converted those who were initially skeptical of BSF,” Shadreck tells us. He produces 3kgs of BSF larvae every three weeks from naturally occurring, wild BSF populations. To feed his poultry, he needs two tons of BSF a year; where he falls short, he gets his supply from other farmers with healthy colonies.

The farmers have been trained in harvesting, substrate production, drying, feed formulation, milling, and palletization, as well as marketing, value chain analysis, and forming farmer group enterprises. They use various types of manure and waste—kitchen waste, animal waste, vegetable waste, fruit waste, watermelon waste—to attract the wild flies that lay larvae.

BSF has a four-stage life cycle from egg to larvae to pupa to adult fly. It deposits its eggs near a food source or substrate layer underneath it and, after about three to four days, they grow into the larvae that feed on the waste before being harvested.

Just as good as soya bean

BSF’s nutritional composition compares well with mainstream feed ingredients, such as soya bean meal. Its use as a component for livestock feed offers many of the advantages associated with a low carbon footprint as the fly larvae feed on organic revenue streams and help to reduce organic waste products in the environment.

Farmers use strong-smelling substrates to attract the BSF from the wild, sourced from a mixture of cattle, pig, and chicken manure. Farmers have been innovative in testing various substrates and low-cost technology. Cost of production per ton for BSF is 50%-62% cheaper than conventional soya bean meal.

The 22 lead farmers in this project, which is aimed at resilience-building, have managed to set up the essential infrastructure and equipment required for optimal BSF production. This includes production tanks, cages, and greenhouses for controlling temperature and humidity. Extreme weather conditions and high temperatures in Buhera can upset nature, resulting in, for example, non-hatching fly eggs. We provided the green houses as part of the project to prevent this.

Moving forward and sustainability

On our visit, we noticed that two commodity associations have taken root in the community to make sure the project continues to evolve. Farmer exchange visits have been hosted, with visiting farmers being taken through the entire process of BSF production. Additionally, the project identified an opportunity to collaborate with other organizations which are collecting seeds from melons from two farming groups. Once the seeds are collected, the BSF farmers use the rest of the melon as waste, a most suitable substrate for BSF.

We also saw that many farmers had already moved away from high-cost production techniques to inventive, low-cost, rudimentary ones, opening the doors for more people being able to farm larvae. Their techniques include breeding larvae in plastic drums cut in half, or in disused metal drums, or in small plastic dishes, old pots, big metal bathing dishes, small compost pits, lunch boxes, and sacks.

There is now a push to link farmers to providers of equipment such as crushers, pelletizers, and packaging machines, and to marketers and other actors in the value chain. This will also require conducting business development training around BSF production to commercialize production and business case development.

Whatever happens next, we came away thinking that farming black soldier fly larvae is already proving to be a unique and impactful way for some of Zimbabwe’s most climate-vulnerable communities to derive a substantial degree of benefit  from everyday solid waste. Climate-smart, it uses nothing more complicated than larvae with voracious appetites to digest bio-degradable vegetation and manure. In doing so, the larvae turn it into useful compost and feed, or, when used as chicken feed themselves, become part of the virtuous cycle of an organic food chain.

A Call to Action: Zimbabwe Idai Recovery Project

• Agriculture and Food
• Climate Change

Senior Operations Officer

Disaster Risk Management Specialist

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

Terima kasih sudah berlangganan!

Anda akan segera mendapatkan berita-berita terbaru seputar manajemen sampah dan penawaran menarik kami!

Bergabung dengan Newsletter Kami

Dapatkan berita-berita terkini seputar manajemen sampah dan penawaran menarik lainnya

* Wajib Diisi

Organic Waste Becomes a Contributor to Global Warming

The great potential of organic waste, organic waste and black soldier flies (bsf).

• Where and how do I learn the cultivation of Black Soldier Flies (BSF)?
• Who should join the Black Soldier Flies (BSF) Breeding and Cultivation Workshop Class by Waste4Change Sidoarjo?
• What Will I Learn in the Black Soldier Flies (BSF) Cultivation Workshop Class by Waste4Change Sidoarjo?
• Where will I stay during my study at BSF Breeding and Cultivation Workshop?
• How much money should I invest to join the Black Soldier Flies (BSF) Cultivation Workshop Class by Waste4Change Sidoarjo?
• Where could I get the Black Soldier Flies (BSF) cultivation equipment, BSF products, and Black Soldier Flies (BSF) starter kit?

Black Soldier Flies (BSF): Great Business Opportunity and a Perfect Solution to Organic Waste Problem

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation) has mentioned that roughly one-third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tonnes — gets lost or wasted.

In Indonesia alone, we are facing the fact that almost 13 million tonnes of food are wasted every year. The wasted food could feed roughly 28 million people, the same number of hunger rates in Indonesia (according to a study made by Detik Finance ).

Considering that organic waste is one of the biggest contributors to global warming, the statement about food waste situation in Indonesia has drawn much attention from food and waste experts all around the world.

In fact, according to a study made by Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) in 2016, Indonesia is the second largest food waster of the world, squandering nearly 300 kilograms of food per person each year.

Biogas for the new alternative of renewable energy source, compost that fertilizes the soil, and animal feed, those are just 3 of many benefits that we could get from managing organic waste in a correct and responsible way.

Organic waste could also be used as a source of food for another highly-valuable commodity: Black Soldier Flies (BSF).

Manna Insect

Validate your business plans with Manna’s novel BSF farming calculator!

Manna Insect, a Finnish technology company focused on smart container solutions for black soldier fly (BSF) farming, is offering the most cost and power efficient standalone solution to upcycle local biowaste to animal feed using BSF larvae, and has now published a calculator tool for potential customers to validate their business case.

The value of Manna’s solution, that guarantees optimal growing environment for BSF larvae and an easy way to turn biowaste in to valuable organic fertilizer and high-protein animal feed, has already been proven in practice on three continents. To support the promoted efficiency of the Manna MIND 20ft solution and to offer potential customers an easy way to estimate the profitability of their planned BSF business, Manna has now launched a novel calculator tool.

With the new calculator, everyone interested in BSF rearing and breeding with Manna’s unique solution, can now estimate their business potential and validate their plans. This tool is an efficient way to calculate, how much BSF larvae (animal feed) and frass (organic fertilizer) can be produced in a month with Manna’s containerized solution, and how much are the costs and revenues.

Jump to the calculator to play with numbers and to validate your business plan!

Subscribe to our newsletter