Blog

According to numerous animal feed industry studies the demand for insect protein as a feed ingredient is set to grow. In fact one recent report from the animal feed journal FeedNavigator suggests that, “The size of the insect feed market is predicted to top $1bn by 2022.”

$1 billion is a lot of money, and a lot of feed manufacturers are hoping to cash in on that prize. In America, for example, Intrexon Corporation and Darling Ingredients have teamed together to, “to significantly expand production of advanced ingredients for sustainable feed and nutrition derived from black soldier fly (BSF) larvae.”

Randall Stuewe, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Darling Ingredients, pointed out the logic to the expansion when he said, “BSF larvae represent an innovative approach to address challenges within the global food supply chain by providing environmentally friendly, nutritious ingredients for animal feed.”

Meanwhile, the press release announcing the animal feed plant expansion explained how, “An insect-based approach offers significant potential to convert nutrients from abundant food surpluses and renewable energy co-products into valuable proteins, oils, and fertilizers. Additionally from an ecological perspective it also allows for decreasing dependence on non-sustainable protein sources for animal feed. Within the fish and poultry markets, BSF larvae also represent a more typical diet for these natural insectivores as compared to soy and other plant-based meals, making them an ideal candidate for nutritive feed ingredients.”

And this project is not alone, as Sarah Nolet, a consultant on food system innovation highlighted when she wrote, “Insect-for-feed (IFF) startups have emerged around the world to capitalize on the [sustainable livestock feed] opportunity, particularly for aquaculture, including:

• Ynsect (France; $37M raised)
• AgriProtein (South Africa; $30M raised)
• Enterra (Canada; $5M raised)
• nextProtein (France; €1.3 million raised)
• Protix (Netherlands; undisclosed)
• EnviroFlight (USA; acquired by Intrexon Corporation)
• Mad Agriculture (USA)”

In an illuminating article on the agribusiness investor website, AGFunder, she further outlined the many advantages of insect protein as an animal feed additive source. This included the following,

1. Sustainability. “insects require very little land or energy to produce, and they can be produced quickly and all year round, unlike other feedstock such as soybeans.”

2. Demand for Protein. “The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that commercial feed production will need to increase by 70% by 2050 to meet the growing demand for protein.”

3. Beyond Aquaculture. “research studies have shown insects have higher palatability with relative conversion/production rates and less consumption in chickens; and other studies indicate larvae enzymes may help improve.”

4. A profitable solution to food waste. “40% of food is wasted in the US, and yet flies thrive on food waste.”

But there are disadvantages too.

The Challenges in the Insect-For-Feed Sector

One of the biggest challenges facing IFF companies is the struggle to make headway against the vast, industrial scale production of traditional animal feed suppliers. This has resulted in problems with up-scaling; as the industry struggles to build infrastructure, breed sufficient quality ‘parent stock’, meet consistent standards of product, and combat legislation that is restricting growth for a revolutionary new product.

However, the science behind the use of insects as an animal feed source is persuasive, and should provide proof for the budding industry’s survival.

Antoine Hubert, CEO of meal worm farming company Ynsect, highlighted the evidence of using insect protein as a feed source, when he said, “The animal trials are going very well. For example, in one trial with shrimp that were fed the Ynsect product, they saw around a 34 percent increase in body weight compared with shrimp fed a commercial diet that included fish meal, and mortality was reduced by four times in shrimp affected by early mortality syndrome.”

Another project promotes the farming of housefly larvae fed from the droppings of nearby chicken farms, and is being held on farms in the UK. As the online journal, Science, notes, “[the farms] have produced hundreds of kilos of dried maggots in the last few months as part of an E.U.-funded research project called PROteINSECT. They are now being fed to fish, pigs, and chickens in large trials.”

It may takes decades for the insect for animal feed sector to make a real impact on the livestock farming industry. Maybe the predictions are correct, and the market will be worth $1 billion by 2022. Maybe, the larger animal feed manufacturers will cut prices on traditional feedstocks and force the currently smaller insect feed suppliers out of business.

However at present, the industry is certainly expanding, and animal feed manufacturers who have not looked into using insect protein may be missing out. Insect meal may not be as revolutionary as many feed experts expect, but as Jason Drew, co-founder of AgriProtein, a South African based insect meal company notes, “Even if we get less than 1% of the animal feed market we will be happy.”

Photo credit: EnviroFlight

If we are serious about the problem of wasted phosphorus product, then there are a number of areas the fertilizer industry and agribusiness could focus on to prevent a future market meltdown of ‘peak phosphorus’ proportions.

Many of these were set out in a recent article published by the Institute for Sustainable Futures, when it stated the following targets;
• increasing the efficiency of fertiliser application (only 20% to 30% of P in fertiliser is taken up by plants every year)
• recovering and reapplying waste such as urine and faeces (adults excrete 98% of the phosphorus they consume!)
• reducing phosphorus losses from crop spillages, non-edible crop by-products, and wastage during food processing, retail and household food consumption
• reducing the quantity of meat consumed in the average diet (producing meat products require 10 times the phosphorus required to produce vegetable-based products).

A 2013 report by Dr Dana Cordell and Dr Stuart White, of  Sydney’s University of Technology, which was published through the scientific journal Agronomy, explained how an integrated approach to phosphorus use on farms could achieve the highest efficiency rates. The report combined a number of current practices used to improve efficiency, with, “…examples ranging from increasing efficiency in the agricultural and mining sector, to technologies for recovering phosphorus from urine and food waste.” The report went on to highlight how there is no silver bullet for wasting less phosphorus, but instead a mixture of measures taken together could prove most effective. It stated that, “An integrated approach will enable scientists and policy-makers to take a systematic approach when identifying potential sustainable phosphorus measures.”

Meanwhile the Institute For Sustainable Futures also questioned current practices, asking, “Do we need national phosphorus recovery targets? Subsidies on renewable phosphate fertilisers? Phosphorus use cap and trade schemes? Perhaps it’s high time to form an Intergovernmental Panel on Phosphorus Security.”

While some of these ideas might seem radical, they are only part of the early discussion that will hopefully delay or put an end to potentially catastrophic problems if phosphorus markets begin to react in the way that today’s oil markets do.

Certainly there is pressure on governments to act to ensure that their populations have food security. One such institute applying pressure is Phosphorus Futures, an NGO that is part of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Global Partnership on Nutrient Management. In a recent report it noted that, “Food demand is on the rise globally with no slowing down in sight. More demand for meat and dairy, especially in China and other rapidly growing economies, means more demand for fertilizers. While our bodies only need around 0.4 kg of P each year, we are mining 22.5 kg of phosphate rock for each person’s diet.”

Many industries are aiming to be a part of the circular economy, but clearly phosphorus fertilizer manufacturers are some way off. With such a low rate of return from the fertilizer supplier to the consumers’ plate, perhaps everyone in the industry should be thinking less about supplying more fertilizer, and more about wasting less phosphorus.

Photo credit: White and Cordell

Photo credit: PorterIndiana

Phosphorus equals life. Nothing that lives can survive without it. It is the go-to chemical feedstock for fertilizer and animal feed, and a key chemical product in a multi-billion dollar market.

This information surprises most people, as the importance of phosphorus is little known outside of the agricultural and agriproduct industries. But what should be surprising absolutely everyone is how little we are talking about the future of phosphorus supplies.

Shouldn’t We Be Doing More to Improve Phosphorus Use Efficiency?

About a decade ago, there were numerous scare stories and theories circulating that the world was due to run out of phosphorus. Wise minds soon debunked these theories, and pointed to great untapped stockpiles of phosphorus available, such as off the coast of the US Californian and Eastern seaboards, as reported to the US Dept of the Interior. As discussed in previous articles on this blog page (here, as well as here), these stockpiles contain sufficient phosphorus for the next 200 years (give or take a hundred years).

Panic over.

Or is it? Because according to Dr Dana Cordell, of Sydney’s University of Technology, the market for phosphorus could get extremely difficult in as little as 25 years. At this point, she has calculated, “global demand for phosphorus would exceed phosphorus supply”. This situation would be the result of a growing global population, and because by the year 2032 all the easily accessible rock phosphate will have been mined.

We may be technologically able to extract phosphate from more difficult locations (such as Chatham Rise, a submarine ridge off the east coast of New Zealand) but the cost increases will be significant. It is therefore fair to predict that in 25 years time, increased phosphorus demand coupled with increased complications for extraction will be reflected in market prices.

In fact, the situation for future phosphorus supply, demand, and price, is similar to the current supply, demand, and price of oil.

According to Gilbert Masters, Stanford Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Emeritus, “current oil supplies in all nations combined would last the world for only about 41 years.” And he wrote that in 2008!

If the oil is to keep flowing, new drilling technology and oil extraction improvements will be needed; something that is quite likely if this report by the BBC is to be believed.

But think how unstable oil prices are at present; over $140 a barrel in 2008, $40 a barrel in 2009, $120 in 2011, $40 in 2017.

And this price uncertainty comes despite the fact that oil is extracted from dozens of countries all over the planet, and numerous energy alternatives are available. Phosphorus meanwhile, is extracted from only a handful of countries (95% of current supply is from the disputed Morocco/Western Sahara deserts), and it has NO known replacement products.

The world has a limited supply of a vital resource, so shouldn’t everyone be talking about phosphorus use and agricultural product efficiency?

Shouldn’t We Be Doing More to Improve Phosphorus Use Efficiency?

In recent report in the sustainability website, TheConversation, Dr Cordell also outlined how inefficient phosphorus use can be. The article explains how, “Australia uses 480 kilotonnes (kt) of phosphorus each year. The majority of it, 450kt, is used in agriculture with an average efficiency rate of 25%.
This means four units of fertiliser are applied to soil to produce one unit of phosphorus in products. Those products are exported or consumed domestically. The remaining 75% (the other three units) accumulates in agricultural soils, with a small proportion also lost to waterways.”

Meanwhile, the online scientific journal Elsevier, also highlighted the problems with phosphorus wasteage, stating that, “The phosphorus balance efficiency of the major southern Australian broadacre farm enterprises varies considerably from extremely poor (5-15% for some horticultural enterprises), through poor (20-40% for grazing industries), to moderate (45-60% in cropping enterprises).”

Clearly, these efficiency rates need to be improved. They are lost money for the consumer, result in damage to the environment through run-off and eutrophication, and mean that a valuable, limited resource is being wasted.

The agribusiness industry could wait until the price of phosphorus reaches heights that will force fertilizer manufacturers to focus on improved rates of absorption, but can the planet afford to wait? Phosphorus supply chain experts are predicting long-term price increases, something that phosphorus producers should be pleased about. But fertilizer manufacturers will be less happy about price increases to their chemical feedstocks. So shouldn’t they be doing more to improve phosphorus efficiency?

Photo credit: White and Cordell

Photo credit: Greenecoegypt