See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358523167

Black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) as a feed for beef cattle: a hedonic pricing model

Article in Journal of Insects as Food and Feed · February 2022

DOI: 10.3920/JIFF2021.0166

CITATIONS READS

9 1,141

3 authors, including:

Merritt Drewery Xiangping Liu

Texas State University Texas State University
35 PUBLICATIONS 284 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 342 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Merritt Drewery on 17 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Author’s copy
provided for non-commercial and educational use only

No material published in Journal of Insects as Food and Feed may be reproduced

without first obtaining written permission from the publisher.

The author may send or transmit individual copies of this PDF of the article, to
colleagues upon their specific request provided no fee is charged, and further-
provided that there is no systematic distribution of the manuscript, e.g. posting on
a listserve, website or automated delivery. However posting the article on a secure
network, not accessible to the public, is permitted.
For other purposes, e.g. publication on his/her own website, the author must use an
author-created version of his/her article, provided acknowledgement is given to the
original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on the
Journal of Insects as Food and Feed website by referring to the DOI of the article.

For additional information

please visit
www.wageningenacademic.com/jiff.
Editor-in-chief:
Prof. Arnold van Huis, Wageningen University, the Netherlands

Associate editors:
Prof. Eraldo M. Costa-Neto, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Brazil; Dr Arnout Fischer,
Wageningen University, the Netherlands; Dr Laura Gasco, University of Turin, Italy; Dr John N.
Kinyuru, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology, Kenya; Dr Cecilia Lalander, Swedish University
of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden; Dr Dennis G.A.B. Oonincx, Wageningen University, the Netherlands;
Prof. Santos Rojo, University of Alicante, Spain; Dr Nanna Roos, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Dr
Christos I. Rumbos, University of Thessaly, Greece; Dr Birgit Rumpold, Technische Universität Berlin, Germany;
Dr Gianluca Tettamanti, University of Insubria, Italy

Editorial board:
Prof. Jérôme Casas, University of Tours, France; Dr Adrian Charlton, FERA, United Kingdom; Dr Florence
Dunkel, Montana State University, USA; Patrick Durst, Forestry and natural resources consultancy, Thailand;
Prof. Jørgen Eilenberg, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Dr Sunday Ekesi, icipe, Kenya; Prof. Kokoete Ekpo,
Federal University Otuoke, Nigeria; Prof. Ying Feng, Research Institute of Resources Insects, China; Dr Mark
Finke, Mark Finke LLC, USA; Prof. Lynn Frewer, Newcastle University, United Kingdom; Prof. Richou Han,
Guangdong Academy of Sciences, China; Dr Yupa Hanboonsong, Khon Kaen University, Thailand; Dr Marc Kenis,
CABI, Switzerland; Dr Catriona Lakemond, Wageningen University, the Netherlands; Prof. Harinder Makkar,
University of Hohenheim, Germany; Dr José Manuel Pino Moreno, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico; Prof. Benno Meyer-Rochow, Oulu University, Finland; Andong University, South Korea; Prof. Kenichi
Nonaka, Rikkyo University, Japan; Dr Søren Bøye Olsen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Prof. Maurizio G.
Paoletti, University of Padova, Italy; Prof. John Schneider, Mississippi State University, USA; Dr Oliver Schlüter,
Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim, Germany; Prof. Joop van Loon, Wageningen
University, the Netherlands; Dr Teun Veldkamp, EAAP Commission on Insects / Wageningen Livestock Research,
the Netherlands; Prof. Wim Verbeke, Ghent University, Belgium; Dr Jintana Yhoung-Aree, Institute of Nutrition,
Mahidol University, Thailand; Prof. Jibin Zhang, Huazhong Agricultural University, China; Prof. Jose Jacobo
Zubcoff Vallejo, University of Alicante, Spain

Publication information
Journal of Insects as Food and Feed
ISSN 2352-4588 (online edition)

Subscription to ‘Journal of Insects as Food and Feed’ (10 issues a year) is either on institutional (campus) basis or
on personal basis. Subscriptions can be online only. Prices are available upon request from the publisher or from the
journal’s website (www.wageningenacademic.com/jiff). Subscriptions are accepted on a prepaid basis only and are
entered on a calendar year basis. Subscriptions will be renewed automatically unless a notification of cancellation
has been received before the 1st of December before the start of the new subscription year.

Further information about the journal is available through the website www.wageningenacademic.com/jiff.

Paper submission
Manuscripts should be submitted via our online manuscript submission site, www.editorialmanager.com/jiff. Full
instructions for electronic submission, as well as the guideline for authors are directly available from this site or
from www.wageningenacademic.com/jiff.

Internet access
The online edition is available at www.wageningenacademic.com/jiff with free abstracts and keywords. A RIS alert
for new online content is available as well.

Editorial office
jiff@wageningenacademic.com

Orders and claims

P.O. Box 220, 6700 AE Wageningen
The Netherlands Wageningen Academic
jiff_cr@wageningenacademic.com P u b l i s h e r s
Tel: +31 317 476516
 Wageningen Academic
Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 2022; 8(7): 743-751 P u b l i s h e r s

Black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) as a feed for beef cattle: a hedonic pricing model

M.L. Drewery1* , X. Liu1 and T.A. Wickersham2

1Texas State University, 601 University Dr., San Marcos, TX 78666, USA; 2Texas A&M University, 2471 TAMU, College

Station, TX 77843, USA; m_d553@txstate.edu

Received: 20 September 2021 / Accepted: 2 December 2021

© 2022 Wageningen Academic Publishers

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Abstract

Black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae (BSFL) have potential to be utilised as livestock feed. Cattle, specifically,
may be an ideal market for BSFL due to their specialised digestive physiology and the size of the cattle feeding
industry. Currently, however, the market value of BSFL as cattle feed is unknown. This creates a critical limitation
to evaluating the feasibility of BSFL as feed and deters the insect rearing industry from pursuing cattle as a potential
outlet for products. Accordingly, the objective of our study was to predict the market value of BSFL as a nutrient
source for cattle. To achieve this, we developed a hedonic model that established a quantitative relationship between
the nutrient content of 13 conventional cattle feeds and their mean quarterly price. The model was then used to
estimate the market value of BSFL based on its nutrient composition (94% dry matter, 109% total digestible nutrients,
38% crude protein, 35% ether extract, 10% ash). Using the Chicago market and 2021-U.S. dollar values, we predicted
the price of BSFL for the cattle feed market to be $312.30±4.90/short ton, which was greater than the actual market
price of all feeds included in our analysis. Significant drivers of price in our model were total digestible nutrients
(P≤0.01) and crude protein (P≤0.05); with all else held constant, each additional unit of total digestible nutrients was
valued at $4.08 and each additional unit of crude protein at $4.68. These data provide insights into the economic
value of BSFL as a cattle feed and indicate that, to optimise market value of BSFL as cattle feed, rearing processes
increasing total digestible nutrient and crude protein content should be developed.

Keywords: Hermetia illucens, insect protein, economic model, alternative feeds, protein supplement

1. Introduction feeds (Allegretti et al., 2018; Smetana et al., 2016; Zanolli,

If global population projections are realised, there will be
historic growth in food demand by 2050, requiring increased
crop and livestock production and placing pressure on
natural resources. Many feeds conventionally used in the
livestock sector can also be utilised directly by humans; it
has been estimated that 33% of global cereals produced are
fed to livestock (Mottet et al., 2017). Accordingly, there is
a pressing need to identify alternative feeds that improve
the environmental, social, and economic sustainability of
livestock production.
Insects are gaining attention as potential food or feed as
they efficiently convert nutrient-deplete substrates into
more nutrient dense biomass (reviewed by Wang and
Shelomi, 2017) and their production is estimated to have
a smaller environmental footprint than conventional
2014). Further, the competition between food and feed will
likely be minimal in societies that do not widely practice
entomophagy (Yen, 2009) or have negative attitudes about
insects as human food (Higa et al., 2021). In a recent study
on U.S. consumers, Higa et al. (2021) reported that 66%
of respondents were willing to eat chicken meat reared on
insects and that U.S. consumers were generally more willing
to eat insects indirectly as animal feed than directly as food.
Thus, insects have potential to be incorporated in livestock
diets in the U.S., sparing cereal grains for human food.
The insect rearing market in the U.S. is small relative to
markets in similar, developed regions; in 2018, the U.S.
accounted for approximately 2% ($8 million USD) of the
global market value ($406 million USD) of edible insects
(Shahbandeh, 2019). However, the North American insect
rearing market is expected to grow more than any other

ISSN 2352-4588 online, DOI 10.3920/JIFF2021.0166743

M.L. Drewery et al.
region, an estimated 28% by 2023 (Shahbandeh, 2019)
and there are currently 32 U.S. start-ups related to insect
rearing (Tracxn, 2021). The United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), a federal executive department, has
supported insect rearing studies with a focus on insects
used as livestock feed (USDA-NIFA, 2021). Further,
another independent federal agency, the National Science
Foundation (NSF), recently awarded funds to establish the
Center for Environmental Sustainability through Insect
Farming (NSF, 2021). Therefore, although relatively small,
the U.S. insect rearing industry is progressively emerging.
There are thousands of edible insects; the black soldier fly
(Hermetia illucens) has emerged as the one with greatest
potential for large scale utilisation in feed applications –
specifically, the larval phase is the physiological phase of
interest. Whole black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) contain
approximately 40% crude protein (CP) on a dry matter
(DM) basis (Feedinamics, 2021). Feeding trials in fish, swine,
and poultry have yielded promising results (Al-Qazzaz
et al., 2016; Driemeyer, 2016; Lock et al., 2016). Albeit
preliminary, BSFL have also been evaluated as a feed for beef
cattle (Jayanegara et al., 2017, 2020; Kathcart, 2020). Due to
the specialised digestive physiology of cattle, it is reasonable
to assume that they may be more efficient utilisers of the
chitin portion of BSFL than fish or swine (Kathcart, 2020).
Further, given the vast size of the beef and dairy industry
(USDA-NASS, 2021) and the concomitant ability to of each
individual to utilise relatively large amounts of feed, cattle
may be an attractive outlet for BSFL.
Although dried BSFL reared on food or feed grade substrates
is an approved feed for salmonids, poultry, and swine in
the U.S. (AAFCO, 2021), it is not yet approved for cattle.
Economic analyses indicate that BSFL can be economically
incorporated into the aquaculture (Oppong, 2017; Rawski
et al., 2021) and poultry (Onsongo et al., 2018) industries
when animal performance is considered, despite the price of
the meal being more expensive than other feeds. However,
the market value of BSFL as cattle feed is unknown. This
creates a critical limitation to evaluating the feasibility of
BSFL as an alternative feed and deters the insect rearing
industry from pursuing cattle as a potential outlet for their
products. Accordingly, the objective of our study is to predict
the market value of BSFL as a nutrient source for cattle.
2. Materials and methods
To predict the market value of BSFL as cattle feed, a hedonic
model using prices for 13 conventional cattle feeds was
developed, following the methodology of Bryant et al.
(2012). Hedonic models offer a statistical method for
estimating the implicit market value for the components
of a product based on the market price for the product and
proportion of each component in the product (Maisashvili
et al., 2015). From the hedonic model, a quantitative
744
relationship between the nutrient content of the selected
feeds and their market value was established. The developed
model was then used to estimate market value of BSFL
based on its nutrient composition.
The analysis included a sample of 13 feeds found in
conventional cattle rations: rice bran, cottonseed meal
(CSM), choice white grease, corn, dried distillers’ grains
(DDG), linseed meal, wheat middlings, prime tallow,
soybean meal (SBM) high protein (hi), SBM low protein
(lo), soybean hulls, whole cottonseed, and yellow grease.
These feeds were chosen because they are common in cattle
rations and the market value of each was available over time.
Weekly prices for the 13 feeds were collected from October
2016 to July 2020 using the Chicago market as reported in
an industry-accepted online outlet (https://www.feedstuffs.
com/ingredient-market-prices). The Chicago market was
selected as it consistently reported prices for each feed.
The price of each feed was converted into 2021-dollar
value (USD) per short ton (907 kg) using Producer Price
Index for Farm Products, Processed Foods, and Feeds (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). Weekly prices that were
extremely high (i.e. at least double the mean price for that
commodity) or extremely low (i.e. at least half the mean
price for that commodity) were identified as outliers and
excluded. Weekly prices were then appended into mean
quarterly prices (Table 1) for a total of 16 observations per
feed. Mean quarterly prices were the dependent variable
of our hedonic model.
Nutrient compositions of feeds were obtained from the
NRC (2000) and of BSFL from Feedinamics (2021). The
selected nutrient composition of each feed and BSFL are in
Table 2. The full list of nutrients included in our analysis and
an explanation are in Table S1 (supplementary material).
Nutrients included were selected based on their importance
in driving animal performance (i.e. growth). Nutritive values
were considered static across time.
Before determining specifications for the hedonic model,
a nonparametric method, locally weighted scatterplot
smoothing (LOWESS), was used to evaluate the relationship
between feed price and nutrient content. The scatter
and smooth line graphs from LOWESS demonstrate the
quantitative relationship between our dependent variable
(i.e. mean quarterly price), and individual nutrients (Figure 1).
The relationship between mean quarterly price and nutrient
level was linear in all cases, except for total digestible
nutrients (TDN), CP, Cl, and K. Nonlinearity for these
nutrients was likely caused by a small number of feeds
having low amounts of those nutrients. Accordingly, we
included a squared term of each nutrient (regressor) and
allowed the Bayes model specification search to determine if
the squared term should be included in the hedonic model.
Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 8(7)
 Economic value of BSFL to beef cattle industry

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of quarterly price for each feed.

Feed Mean quarterly price ($/short ton)1 Standard deviation Min Max

Rice bran 117.60 11.2 100.1 133.3

Cottonseed meal 257.50 25.7 210.9 299.8
Choice white grease 499.60 59.3 418.9 657.4
Corn 125.30 9.0 111.8 142.2
Dried distillers grains 128.20 22.7 91.3 165.4
Linseed meal 268.50 33.8 221.5 324.4
Wheat middlings 92.60 10.1 79.9 114.0
Prime tallow 575.50 39.7 475 619.0
Soybean meal high protein 303.60 23.0 284.1 367.9
Soybean meal low protein 290.50 23.3 272.7 356.9
Soybean hulls 131.70 21.1 105.2 178.5
Whole cottonseed 211.90 24.0 179.3 273.2
Yellow grease 424.96 39.0 355.3 505.8

1 Each feed has 16 observations (1 per quarter).

Table 2. Selected nutrient composition of feeds.1

Feed TDN, % CP, % ADF, % EE, % K, % Cl, %

Rice bran 70 17 14 4 1.4 0.05

Cottonseed meal 77 46 20 2 1.6 0.05
Choice white grease 177 0 0 99 0.0 0.00
Corn 88 9 3 4 0.4 0.05
Dried distillers grains 84 33 20 10 0.3 0.28
Linseed meal 77 39 17 2 1.5 0.04
Wheat middlings 177 17 11 5 1.2 0.05
Prime tallow 177 0 0 99 0.0 0.00
Soybean meal high protein 87 54 6 1 2.3 0.08
Soybean meal low protein 84 49 10 2 2.2 0.07
Soybean hulls 74 12 51 2 1.3 0.02
Whole cottonseed 93 23 38 20 1.1 0.06
Yellow grease 177 0 0 99 0.0 0.00
Black soldier fly larvae 109 38 7 35 1.2 0.14

1 Values obtained from the NRC (2000) and Feedinamics (2021) and expressed on an as-is basis.
2 TDN = total digestible nutrients; CP = crude protein; ADF = acid detergent fibre; EE = ether extract.

Cook’s distance
To determine if there were outliers influencing our hedonic
estimation results, we calculated the Cook’s distance for
each feed to measure the effect of removing that feed from
the model (Table 3). Feeds with Cook’s distance values
larger than the rest of the data have disproportionate
leverage. Following Bollen and Jackman (1990), we used a
cut-off value of 4/N, where N is our sample size, to identify
outliers. This analysis indicated that we did not outliers in
our dataset as the Cook’s distance did not exceed the cut-
off value for the mean Cook’s distance or the majority of
associated observations.
Bayes analysis
To determine what nutrients should be included in our
hedonic model, we examined the correlation coefficient
(CORR) amongst feeds and conducted a Bayes analysis.
Specifically, we examined the CORR of nutrients that

Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 8(7) 745

M.L. Drewery et al.

800 800

600 600
Price ($/short ton)

Price ($/short ton)

400 400

200 200

0 0
50 100 150 200 0 20 40 60
Total digestible nutrients (%) Crude protein (%)

800 800

Price ($/short ton)

600 600
Price ($/short ton)

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Chloride (%) Potassium (%)

Figure 1. Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing of feed prices and select nutrients.

Table 3. Mean Cook’s distance by feed.

correlated with ADF (CORR>0.9). As such, we included
Feed Mean Cook’s distance only ADF in our Bayes analysis.
• CP and UIP both reflect feed protein characteristics and
Rice bran 0.00875 have a fair to high degree of correlation (CORR=0.65).
Cottonseed meal 0.00098 As a result, we included only CP in our Bayes analysis.
Choice white grease 0.00193 • DM is highly correlated with TDN (CORR>0.99). As we
Corn 0.00140 previously determined TDN should be included in our
Dried distillers grains 0.00202 Bayes analysis, we excluded DM.
Linseed meal 0.00187 • Lastly, ash measures the inorganic content of a feed,
Wheat middlings 0.00800 which is the total mineral content. As a result, we can
Prime tallow 0.00419 include ash as the measure of mineral content or some
Soybean meal high protein 0.00769 combination of Ca, P, K, Cl, S, and Zn in our Bayes
Soybean meal low protein 0.00495 analysis. As there is a strong correlation between P and
Soybean hulls 0.00461 Zn (CORR=0.9), we opted to include either ash or some
Whole cottonseed 0.00150 combination of Ca, P, K, Cl, and S, excluding Zn.
Yellow grease 0.00464
Ultimately, this analysis indicates we should include TDN,
ADF, CP, and either ash or some combination of Ca, P, K,
Cl, and S in our Bayes analysis specification search. We
measure similar feed characteristics and kept only one also included ether extract (EE) as it is the only measure
from a group that was highly correlated. This analysis of fat in the nutrient list.
indicated that:
• TDN can substitute for NEI, NEM and NEG as they are The Bayes analysis specification search procedure was
estimates of the energy content of a feed and the CORR used to determine which of these nutrients should be
amongst them exceeds 0.77. Thus, we included only included in the hedonic analysis. Variables were tested in
TDN in our Bayes analysis. the following order: TDN and its squared term, CP and its
• acid detergent fibre (ADF), neutral detergent fiber squared term, ADF and its squared term, EE and its squared
(NDF), and CF measure fibre. ADF and NDF are highly term, and either ash or some combination of Ca, P, K, Cl,
correlated with a CORR exceeding 0.83 and CF is highly and S with their corresponding squared terms. Our model

746 Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 8(7)

 Economic value of BSFL to beef cattle industry

automatically dropped either the linear term or squared
terms for each nutrient.
This analysis began from a simple Bayes model using TDN,
its squared term, and year and quarter dummies (Model 1).
This simple model was compared with another model with
the same independent variables plus one more coefficient,
CP (Model 2).
We then computed the posterior probabilities to compare
Model 1 and Model 2. If Model 2 had a posterior probability
that was larger than Model 1, then Model 2 would be
preferred over Model 1 and we would include CP in the
hedonic model. If the posterior probability of Model 1
were larger than that of Model 2, we would exclude CP
from our regression.
panel model allows us to control for unobserved cross-
sectional heterogeneity (i.e. cross feed). Besides the above
independent variables, we also included year-fixed effects
and quarter-fixed effects in the model.
3. Results
Quarterly feed price varied in our final sample (Table
4), ranging from $80 to $657/short ton with a mean of
$263.65±152.30/short ton. This variation reflects the
variation in nutrients in the feeds included in our model,
also displayed in Table 4. Our feeds had a mean TDN of
103.08±41.10% with a range from 70.0 to 177.0%. Similarly,
the mean CP content of our feeds was 23.00±18.70% with a
range from 0.0 to 54.0%. Mean Cl and K were 0.06±0.07%
and 1.02±0.78%, respectively.

The Bayes specification search procedure indicated we The estimated effects of nutrients on feed price are
should include TDN, CP, Cl, and K in our hedonic model. presented in Table 5. The coefficients TDN and CP are
Our Bayes analysis also indicates that the specification both statistically significant at the 95% or greater level while
ash was less preferred than Cl and K. To verify this, we Cl and K did not reach statistical significance. Overall, the
proceeded with ash as a model specification and observed a presence of TDN and CP increase feed price while Cl and
wider confidence interval for predicted prices of BSFL using K contribute to price reductions. The r2 for the model is
the hedonic model than from the model specifications Cl 0.92, indicating a good fit.
and K used in our final model and presented here. Thus,
the final specifications were:
Table 5. Results of hedonic model.1
Pit = μ + θi = α × TDNi + β × CPi + γ × Cli + δ × Ki + εit (1)
Variables (units) Estimated effect Standard error
In Equation 1, Pit is the quarterly mean price of feed i in on price2
period t. TDNi, CPi, Cli, and Ki are the nutrients for feed
i. μ is the intercept of the hedonic model. θi is the feed Total digestible nutrients (%) 4.079* 0.580
specific effect, and εit is the individual idiosyncratic effect Crude protein (%) 4.683** 1.909
on Pit that vary through both feed i and time t but are not Chloride (%) -535.5 339.0
correlated to our explanatory variables. α is the coefficient Potassium (%) -9.517 53.29
for TDNi and β, γ, and δ are the coefficients for CPi, Cli, Constant -230.2** 95.3
and Ki, respectively.
1 Year and quarter fixed effects are included; no. of feeds = 13; total
Since our data consists of repeated price observations obs. = 208; r2=0.9163.
on the same feed over time, we used a random effect 2 * indicates P<0.01, ** indicates P<0.05.

panel model to estimate the coefficients in Equation 1.

Compared to a cross-sectional model, the random effect

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for final sample.1

Variable Explanation (units) Mean Standard deviation Min Max

Price Quarterly price ($/short ton) 263.65 152.30 79.9 657.4

TDN Total digestible nutrients (%) 103.08 41.10 70.0 177.0
CP Crude protein (%) 23.00 18.70 0.0 54.0
Cl Chloride (%) 0.06 0.07 0.0 0.3
K Potassium (%) 1.02 0.78 0.0 2.3

1 No. of feeds = 13; total obs. = 208.

Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 8(7) 747

M.L. Drewery et al.
Marginal effects
The estimated effect of TDN is statistically significant
at the 99% level. Our model indicates that, with each
additional percent of TDN ceteris paribus, a given feed’s
price will increase by $4.08/short ton. The TDN content
from BSFL is 109% which is 6% higher than our sample
mean. Accordingly, the market price of BSFL is expected
to be $24.50 higher per short ton than the mean predicted
price of our sample (Figure 2). Assuming ceteris paribus for
all nutrients other than TDN, the predicted price of BSFL
ranges from $263.40 to $312.20/ short ton.
The marginal effect of CP on feed price is $4.68, indicating
that, ceteris paribus, feed price will increase by $4.68 with
each additional 1% increment in CP. The CP content of
BSFL is 38%, which is 15% higher than our sample mean
(23%). Similar to TDN, this indicates that the price for
BSFL is expected to be $70.25 higher per short ton than
the mean predicted price of our sample. The estimated
coefficients for Cl and K are negative, indicating price
deductions for increased content of these minerals in
a given feed. However, neither of these effects reached
statistical significance.
Although our hedonic model had a strong r2 (0.92), we
conducted additional analyses to ensure the model had
adequate predictive power of feed price before using it
to predict the price of BSFL. The graphs in Figure S1
(supplementary material) display, for each feed, its actual
market price, the price predicted with our hedonic model,
500
400
Predicted price ($/short ton)
300
Fitted price range by TDN
200
100
69 79
Figure 2. Predicted feed price by total digestible nutrients and 95% confidence interval. Verifying predictive power of hedonic model.
748
and the corresponding 95% confidence interval for the
predicted price. When calculating the 95% confidence
interval for the predicted price, we used the same standard
error for all feeds. The graphs in Figure S1 demonstrate
that the predicted prices are close to market price and, in
most instances, those market prices fall in the predicted
95% confidence interval, excepting those of prime tallow
and yellow grease. This is due to the quality and use of these
products in markets other than the livestock industry. Prime
tallow is overpriced relative to energy content because it is a
premium product with wide applications in other industries.
Conversely, yellow grease is underpriced relative to energy
content as it is a low-quality, waste product that can also
be used as biodiesel.
Predicting the price of black soldier fly larvae
We used the fitted hedonic model to predict the price of
BSFL where TDN was 109%, CP was 38%, Cl was 0.14%,
and K was 1.2% (Feedinamics, 2021). The hedonic model
predicted a mean price of $312.30±4.90/short ton for BSFL
(Figure 3). The predicted price for BSFL was most similar to
the actual price of SBM but slightly higher, a consequence
of higher TDN.
4. Discussion and conclusions
This study used the known price and nutrient content of
feeds used in cattle rations to predict the market value of
BSFL as cattle feed. This evaluation is valuable and timely
because, as the insect rearing industry expands, outlets
89 99 109 119 129 139
Total digestible nutrients (%)
Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 8(7)
 Economic value of BSFL to beef cattle industry
400
350
Price ($/short ton)
300
250
2016q3 2017q3 2018q3 2019q3
Year_Quarter
Fitted price BSFL
Upper bound BSFL
Lower bound BSFL
Market price: Soybean meal low protein
Figure 3. Comparison of predicted price for black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) and actual price of soybean meal.
for products need to be identified. Although preliminary,
recent feeding trials in cattle indicate BSFL can be fed as a
mixed protein supplement to stimulate forage intake and
digestion (Kathcart, 2020).
Feeding BSFL to non-ruminant livestock (e.g. poultry, fish,
swine) is accompanied by the need to supplement amino
acids due to BSFL having an imbalanced essential amino
acid profile (Makkar et al., 2014; Newton et al., 1977).
However, cattle, which are ruminants, have specialised
digestive physiology that lessens or eliminates their dietary
requirement for essential amino acids. Further, the chitin
content of BSFL can negatively impact digestion (Razdan
and Pettersson, 1994), especially when the animal has
no to low ability to digest chitin (Kroeckel et al., 2012).
Ruminants rely heavily on fermentation as a digestive
strategy, chitinolytic bacteria have been identified in
the rumen (Kopecny et al., 1996), and ruminants have a
demonstrable ability to digest chitin (Patton, 1971). Thus,
the chitin in BSFL will likely not pose as significant of a
challenge to cattle as it does fish and swine. Ultimately, the
combination of these physiological aspects of cattle and
the vast size of the beef and dairy industry (USDA-NASS,
2021) indicates that, within the livestock feeding industry,
BSFL may be best suited for cattle.
We estimated the mean price of BSFL to be $312.30/short
ton, which was 1.028 times greater than SBM hi (54% CP)
and 1.075 times greater than SBM lo (49% CP). SBM is the
most common protein supplement in dairy cow rations
and is the standard for determining the value of other
protein supplements. Although ruminal fermentation
lessens the need for dietary essential amino acids, dairy
cows require intake of specific essential amino acids to
Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 8(7)
400
350
Price ($/short ton)
300
250
2020q3 2016q3 2017q3 2018q3 2019q3 2020q3
Year_Quarter
Fitted price BSFL
Upper bound BSFL
Lower bound BSFL
Market price: Soybean meal high protein
maximise productivity. SBM hi contains 0.775% methionine
and 3.38% lysine (NRC, 2001) with lysine typically being
more limiting for dairy cows. The amino acid profile of
BSFL is inferior to SBM, with a methionine content of
2.38% and lysine of 0.74% (Feedinamics, 2001). Thus, the
price of BSFL for dairy rations may be closer to or lower
than SBM due to this exacerbated amino acid imbalance.
Rearing strategy – especially feed substrate – affects the
amino acid composition of BSFL (reviewed by Barragan-
Fonseca et al., 2017). Accordingly, this should be considered
when rearing BSFL to optimise its amino acid profile and,
thus, value as a dairy cow feed.
The main competitor of BSFL in the beef feeding industry
will be CSM and DDG, which were 82 and 41% of the
predicted price of BSFL, respectively. Further, BSFL is
nutritionally most similar to whole cottonseed, but priced
1.474 times greater than this commodity. This reflects the
lower CP and/or TDN values of CSM, DDG, and whole
cottonseed relative to BSFL. In our hedonic model, CP
and TDN were significant, positive drivers of feed price.
Our analyses assumed BSFL contained 38% CP, 35% EE,
and 109% TDN. Thus, BSFL was not defatted. As the BSFL
rearing industry emerges, there is interest in extracting
the oil for cosmetic and other applications. However,
this would negatively affect the price of BSFL as livestock
feed as it would lower TDN while increasing CP. As oil
extraction becomes efficient and economically viable,
additional analyses should be conducted to determine the
discounted price of defatted BSFL as livestock feed and if
these reductions are offset by the price of the oil. Practically,
we anticipate freight charges could pose a challenge for
BSFL as cattle feed; anecdotally, we have observed major
U.S. insect rearing companies developing in urban areas
749
M.L. Drewery et al.
that are not dense cattle feeding regions. As the insect
rearing industry expands, ensuring proximity to feed yards
(feedlots) will be economically advantageous if products will
be funnelled to the cattle feeding industry. Insect rearing
companies should also ensure adequate volume of product;
assuming BSFL is included in rations at 10%, feed yards with
1000-head of cattle (80-85% of fed cattle; USDA-ERS, 2021)
have capacity to utilise 10.5 short tons of BSFL per week.
Given our findings and previous studies that indicate
BSFL can be fed to cattle (Kathcart, 2020), we recommend
additional research to investigate the viability of feeding
BSFL to cattle in the U.S. Although BSFL is approved for
other livestock in the U.S. (AAFCO, 2021), it is not approved
for cattle. This presumably reflects a lack of research; as
additional studies are conducted, policymakers should
expand the approvals for BSFL and BSFL derivatives
(e.g. oil) to cattle. Further, BSFL fed to livestock in the
U.S. must be reared on feed-grade or better materials
(AAFCO, 2021). This limits the physiological capability
of the larvae to upcycle organic waste and, thus, diminishes
the environmental benefit associated with production of
BSFL. Policymakers should, thus, consider environmental
sustainability while ensuring food safety when developing
policies about BSFL.
Care should be taken in interpreting our data. Notably,
we used feed prices from the Chicago market. Feed prices
vary by market and this should be considered when valuing
BSFL for non-Chicago markets.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.3920/JIFF2021.0166
Table S1. Nutrients included in analysis.
Figure S1. Predicted price for individual feeds.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for Fiona Suoerga’s assistance in
collecting data for our analyses.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Allegretti, G., Schmidt, V., Bogorni, P.C., Talamini, E. and Ortega,
E, 2018. Insect as feed: an emergy assessment of insect meal as a
sustainable protein source for the Brazilian poultry industry. Journal
of Cleaner Production 171: 403-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.09.244
750
Al-Qazzaz, M.F.A., Ismail, D., Akit, H. and Idris, L.H., 2016. Effect
of using insect larvae meal as a complete protein source on
quality and productivity characteristics of laying hens. Revista
Brasileira de Zootecnia 45: 518-523. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-
92902016000900003
Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), 2021.
Ingredient definitions committee report. AAFCO, Champaign, IL,
USA. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/2p9xcye8
Barragan-Fonseca, K.B., Dicke, M. and Van Loon, J.J.A., 2017.
Nutritional value of the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens L.) and
its sustainability as an animal feed – a review. Journal of Insects as
Food and Feed 3(2): 105-120. https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2016.0055
Bollen, K.A. and Jackman, R.W., 1990. Regression diagnostics: an
expository treatment of outliers and influential cases. In: Fox, J. and
Long, J.S. (eds.) Modern methods of data analysis. SAGE, Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA, 257-291 pp.
Bryant, H.L., Gogichaishvili, I., Anderson, D., Anderson, J.W., Sawyer,
J., Wickersham, T. and Drewery, M.L., 2012. The value of post-
extracted algal residue. Algal Research 1: 185-193. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.algal.2012.06.001
Driemeyer, H., 2016. Evaluation of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens)
larvae as an alternative protein source in pig creep diets in relation
to production, blood and manure microbiology parameters. MSc-
thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Feedinamics, 2021. Nutritional value of black soldier fly larvae, fat
>20%, dried. Available at: https://www.feedtables.com/content/
black-soldier-fly-larvae-fat-20-dried-0
Higa, J.E., Ruby, M.B. and Rozin, P., 2021. Americans’ acceptance
of black soldier fly larvae as food for themselves, their dogs, and
farmed animals. Food Quality and Preference 90: 104119. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104119
Jayanegara, A., Haryati, R.P., Nafisah, A., Suptijah, P., Ridla, M. and
Laconi, E.B., 2020. Derivatization of chitin and chitosan from black
soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) and their use as feed additives: an
in vitro study. Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 8(5):
472-477. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2020/8.5.472.477
Jayanegara, A., Novandri, B., Yatina, N. and Ridla, M., 2017. Use of
black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens) to substitute soybean
meal in ruminant diet: an in vitro rumen fermentation study.
Veterinary World 10(12): 1439-1446. https://doi.org/10.14202/
vetworld.2017.1439-1446
Kathcart, E.P., 2020. Evaluation of black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia
illucens) as a protein supplement for beef steers consuming low
quality King Ranch bluestem hay. BSc-thesis, Texas State University,
San Marcos, TX, USA.
Kopecny, J., Hodrova, B. and Stewart, C.S., 1996. The isolation and
characterization of a rumen chitinolytic bacterium. Letters in
Applied Microbiology 23: 195-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-
765X.1996.tb00063.x
Kroeckel, S., Harjes, A.-G.E., Roth, I., Katz, H., Wuertz, S., Susenbeth,
A. and Schulz, C., 2012. When a turbot catches a fly: evaluation of
a pre-pupae meal of the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) as fish
meal substitute – growth performance and chitin degradation in
juvenile turbot (Psetta maxima). Aquaculture 364-365: 345-352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.08.041
Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 8(7)
 Economic value of BSFL to beef cattle industry
Lock, E.R., Arsiwalla, T. and Waagbø. R., 2016. Insect larvae meal
as an alternative source of nutrients in the diet of Atlantic salmon
(Salmo Salar) postmolt. Aquaculture Nutrition 22: 1202-1213.
https://doi.org/10.1111/anu.12343
Maisashvili, A., Bryant, H., Richardson, J., Anderson, D., Wickersham,
T. and Drewery, M., 2015. The values of whole algae and lipid
extracted algae meal for aquaculture. Algal Research 9: 133-142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2015.03.006
Makkar, H.P.S., Tran, G., Heuze, V. and Ankers, P., 2014. State-of-the-
art on use of insects as animal feed. Animal Feed Science Technology
197: 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.07.008
Mottet, A., De Haan, C., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., Opio, C. and Gerber,
P., 2017. Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new
analysis of the feed/food debate. Global Food Security 14: 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001
National Research Council (NRC), 2000. Nutrient requirements of
beef cattle, 7th revised edition. The National Academies Press,
Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.17226/9791
National Research Council (NRC), 2001. Nutrient requirements of
dairy cattle, 7th revised edition. The National Academies Press,
Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.17226/9825
National Science Foundation (NSF), 2021. IUCRC phase I IUPUI:
center for environmental sustainability through insect farming
(CEIF). NSF, Alexandria, VA, USA. Available at: https://tinyurl.
com/2p8h77sw.
Newton, G.L., Booram, C.V., Barker, R.W. and Hale, O.M., 1977.
Dried Hermetia illucens larvae meal as a supplement for swine.
Journal of Animal Science 44: 395-400. https://doi.org/10.2527/
jas1977.443395x
Onsongo, V.O., Osuga, I.M., Gachuiri, C.K., Wachira, A.M., Miano,
D.M., Tanga, C.M., Ekesi, S., Nakimbugwe, D. and Fiaboe, K.K.M.,
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. Journal of
Economic Entomology 111(4): 1966-1973.
Oppong, M., 2017. Black soldier fly larvae-based fish feed production:
financial feasibility and acceptability analysis. MSc-thesis, University
of Ghana, Legon, Ghana.
Patton, R.S., 1971. Evaluation of chitinous materials as a feed for
ruminants. PhD dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 8(7)
Rawksi, M. Mazurkiewicz, J., Kierończyk, B. and Józefiak, D., 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 GIT development. Animals 11: 604.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030604
Razdan, A. and Pettersson, D., 1994. Effect of chitin and chitosan on
nutrient digestibility and plasma lipid concentrations in broiler
chickens. British Journal of Nutrition 72: 277-288. https://doi.
org/10.1079/BJN19940029
Shahbandeh, M., 2019. Edible insects – statistics & facts. Statista
Inc., New York, NY, USA. Available at: https://www.statista.com/
topics/4806/edible-insects/#dossierKeyfigures
Smetana, S., Palanisamy, M., Mathys, A. and Heinz, V., 2016.
Sustainability of insect use for feed and food: life cycle assessment
perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 137: 741-751. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.148
Tracxn, 2021. Insect farming tech startups in Untied States. Tracxn,
Karnataka, India. Available at: https://tracxn.com/explore/Insect-
Farming-Tech-Startups-in-United-States.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021. Producer price index
by commodity: farm products, processed foods and feeds. Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. Available at: https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU01PLUS02.
United States Department of Agriculture – Economic Research Service
(USDA-ERS), 2021. Cattle & beef – sector at a glance. USDA-ERS,
Washington, DC, USA. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/
topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/sector-at-a-glance/.
United States Department of Agriculture – National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA-NASS), 2021. Animals and animal
products: livestock (cattle). USADA-NASS, Washington, DC, USA.
Available at: https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/
h702q636h?locale=en.
United States Department of Agriculture – National Institutes of
Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA), 2021. NIFA update: fly larvae
studied as potentially novel livestock feed. Available at: https://
content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDANIFA/bulletins/2cf5474.
Wang, Y-S. and Shelomi, M., 2017. Review of black soldier fly (Hermetia
illucens) as animal feed and human food. Foods 6(10): 91. https://
doi.org/10.3390/foods6100091.
Yen, A.L., 2009. Edible insects: traditional knowledge or western
phobia? Entomology Resesarch 39: 289-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1748-5967.2009.00239.x
Zanolli, L., 2014. Insect farming is taking shape as demand for animal
feed rises. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/2p92wf99
751
View publication stats