Hide table of contents

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

Key points

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

Executive summary

  • Significant investment has flowed into black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) farming, where producers have ambitions to create feed ingredients for aquaculture (aquafeed).
    • Since 2014, over $1 billion has been invested into black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) farming.
    • At present, BSFL producers mainly sell ingredients to the premium pet food market.
    • But they have ambitions to position BSFL ingredients as a more sustainable alternative to fishmeal, an important feed commodity for farmed fish and shrimp.
    • If these ambitions are realized, it could unlock growth in the aquaculture sector.
  • But the prospects of BSFL producers displacing fishmeal in aquafeed remain uncertain.
  • To shed light on this issue, we estimated production costs across four of the largest BSFL producers (by funds raised).
  • We estimate that production costs for these BSFL producers will be too high to meaningfully displace fishmeal.
    • Our research suggests BSFL producers would need to keep production costs below $1,600 per tonne of dried insects in order to displace fishmeal at a meaningful scale.
    • For a hypothetical ‘average producer’, we estimated median production costs to be double this: around $3.7K per metric tonne of dried insects (see Chart 1).
    • We also estimated production costs at six current and planned production facilities, where median costs ranged from $2.3K to $6.1K per tonne.
    • Notably, none of the evaluated facilities demonstrated a 90% subjective confidence interval for production costs that undercut the $1,600 per tonne threshold.
  • It’s also unclear whether BSFL producers will be able to get production costs as low as our estimates.
    • Our cost estimates above are conditional on facilities operating at full capacity.
    • But given deteriorating investor sentiment and a constrained funding outlook, it remains an open question whether existing facilities will ever reach full capacity.
    • It is also uncertain whether firms will be able to raise sufficient capital to complete construction at sites that have been announced but are not yet in operation.
  • We anticipate a smaller, less sustainable BSFL sector focused on high-value market segments. 

    The results of this analysis have led us to believe that the BSFL sector will:

    • end up much smaller by 2030 than many previous industry forecasts;
    • focus on high-value applications rather than compete with feed commodities on price;
    • struggle to live up to sustainability claims predicated on displacing fishmeal.
  • Our analysis has lots of caveats and uncertainties
    • Our cost estimates are based on centralized, mass-production business models in Europe and North America, which rely heavily on grain-based substrates.
    • Findings may not be universally generalizable across different business models or geographic contexts.
  • Further details are available in the full report.
    • The full report contains detailed information on the calculation methodology and facility-specific cost estimates.
    • To request access to the full report, please fill out this form.

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

Acknowledgments

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

Request access to the full report
Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for sharing!

The results of this analysis have led us to believe that the BSFL sector will:

It looks like there is one bullet missing.

Hey Vasco! This is a formatting glitch, which we'll fix, but there's no missing content :)

Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f