Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Life cycle assessment of cricket farming in north-eastern Thailand
A. Halloran a, *, Y. Hanboonsong b, N. Roos a, S. Bruun caDepartment of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark
Department of Entomology, Khon Kaen University, 123 Mitapab Road, 40002, Khon Kaen, ThailandcDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Thorvaldsensvej 40, 1871, Frederiksberg C, Denmarkb

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 6 November 2016
Received in revised form
3 April 2017
Accepted 3 April 2017
Available online 10 April 2017

Over the last few years, edible insect species have been heralded as an environmentally sustainable
solution to current and future food crises. However, the few existing studies that aim to evaluate theenvironmental performance of insect farming systems are extremely limited in scope. This paper presents the ﬁrst case of a life cycle assessment (LCA) performed on an existing production system of Gryllus
bimaculatus De Geer (ﬁeld cricket) and Acheta domesticus (house cricket) production in north-eastern
Thailand and compares it with broiler production in the same region. The system boundaries of the
production system considered the entire production cycle of edible crickets as well as processing. The
study included two functional units (1 kg of edible mass and 1 kg of protein in edible mass). Irrespectiveof the functional unit, larger impacts were associated with broiler production. Major hotspots for cricket
and broiler production were related to the production soybean meal and maize grain for feed. A scaledup cricket farming system which was considered as a possible 'future' scenario demonstrated a reduction
in overall environmental impacts when compared to current cricket production and industrial broiler
production. While scaled-up cricket farming showed fewer overall environmental impacts, intensiﬁed
systems could potentially have reduced socioeconomic impacts on rural areas in Thailand. Improvement
options could be adopted by undertaking further research into the formulation of local feeds andacquiring improved knowledge about cricket nutrition.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

^ as deHandling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo
AlmeidaKeywords:
LCA
Crickets
Environmental impact
Insect farming
Entomophagy

1. Introduction
Cricket farming is emerging as a ‘mini-livestock’ production
system. The environmental impact of farming crickets may be lessthan that of traditional livestock due to their poikilothermic nature,
which allows more efﬁcient feed conversion, and could therefore
be a more sustainable kind of animal-source food. For this reason,
the consumption of insects has been heralded as anenvironmentally-sustainable solution to current and future foodcrises. However, there is limited scientiﬁc evidence to support this(Halloran et al., 2016a). Empirical studies have analysed the environmental impacts associated with the production of insects, forexample, by quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of ﬁve different
insect species (Oonincx et al., 2010); conducting a life cycle
assessment (LCA) on mealworm production (Oonincx and de Boer,2012) and industrial production of black soldier ﬂies (Smetana
et al., 2016); assessing crickets fed waste from different side-* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: aha@nexs.ku.dk, aftonhalloran@gmail.com (A. Halloran).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.017
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

streams such as municipal food waste (Lundy and Parrella, 2015);
performing a water footprint analysis on mealworm production(Miglietta et al., 2015); and conducting a LCA on meat and meatalternatives (including insects) (Smetana et al., 2015). Other studies
have used the LCA technique to examine the potential of using
insects to convert waste products such as food waste and manureand subsequently produce larvae which can be used in animal feed
(Roffeis et al., 2015; Salomone et al., 2017). (For a more detailed
review of LCA studies conducted on insect production systems,
please refer to Halloran et al., 2016a). According to Halloran et al.
(2016a), only six LCA studies have been conducted on a total ofﬁve different insect species intended for food and animal feed as of
October 2016 and all studies have been carried out with foregrounddata from Europe.
There are over 2000 insect species that are regularly eaten, of
which most are mainly harvested from the wild (Jongema, 2015),
and nine insect species are currently farmed for food and feed according to the European Food Safety Scientiﬁc Committee (2015).
The farming systems have not yet been optimised for large-scale
production and therefore there is very little information available

84

A. Halloran et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

about their environmental sustainability.
Cricket farming systems in Thailand are among the mostadvanced in the world at present. These farms e numbering over
20,000 (Hanboonsong et al., 2013) e support the livelihoods ofmany rural farmers (Halloran et al., 2016b, 2017), but have neverbeen studied with respect to their environmental impacts. Whilecricket farming represents a million-dollar industry, the total
quantity of insects produced and consumed is unknown(Hanboonsong et al., 2013). In Thailand, cricket farmers preferrearing two species of crickets: house crickets (Acheta domesticus)
and two-spotted crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus) (Halloran et al.,2016b; Hanboonsong et al., 2013). Production systems are smallscale in nature with limited inputs (Hanboonsong et al., 2013;
Durst and Hanboonsong, 2015) and are easy to implement andmaintain (Halloran et al., 2017).
This paper presents the ﬁrst case of an attributional LCA performed on an existing production system of Gryllus bimaculatus De
Geer and Acheta domesticus production in north-eastern Thailand
and compares it with broiler production in the same region. The
aim of this study was: i) to investigate the environmental impactsof cricket farming systems in north-eastern Thailand, ii) to identify
the processes associated with the most signiﬁcant impacts within
the production chain, iii) to conduct a comparative study in relation
to another animal production system, which in this case was abroiler farm, iv) to model a future, scaled-up scenario of cricket
farming and assess the associated impacts, and v) to formulate
recommendations as to how to achieve sustainable insect production systems.

the C and N contents were determined on a CNS analyser (vario
MACRO cube 88 CNS, Elementar). To estimate the content phosphorous (P) and potassium (K), the biofertiliser samples were takenfrom the farm and analysed using an inductively coupled plasma
optical emission spectrometry (ICPeOES, Optima 5300 DV, Perkin
Elmer, Ontario, Canada).
The selected cricket farm was a medium-scale production system of 2720 m2 located in the village of Nacheung (Fig. 1). The
buildings contained a total of 78 pens of various sizes (average of
9.43 m2). The farm reared both G. bimaculatus (48% of total production by mass) and A. domesticus (52% of total production bymass). Thirty-eight of the pens were dedicated to the production of
G. bimaculatus and the remaining 38 were used for A. domesticus.
The average life cycles of G. bimaculatus and A. domesticus were
estimated as 42 and 49 days respectively. The farm produced
approximately 8.5 cycles of crickets per year.
Primary data (input materials, energy use, output products andwaste) were collected at farm level. The questionnaire covered thefarm structure (buildings, machinery and equipment), the management (colony composition, housing system, biofertiliser management, feed composition) and data on the input and output mass
ﬂow (feed, water, meat, biofertiliser). Total annual cricket yield(G. bimaculatus and A. domesticus) on the farm was 36,741 kg(17,636 kg and 19,105 kg respectively, wet weight). Data on cricket
processing were obtained from a wholesale trader in Maka,

2. Methods
This study uses LCA to compare the full range of environmental
effects assignable to products (in the case of this study crickets andbroilers) by quantifying all inputs and outputs of material ﬂows andassessing how these material ﬂows may affect the environment.
LCA consists of four main phases: goal and scope; life cycle inventory; life cycle impact assessment; and interpretation(Baumann and Tillmann, 2004).
2.1. Systems studied
This study compared cricket farming and broiler farming in
north-eastern Thailand. A future cricket production system, inwhich production has been optimised, was also modelled.
Broiler production was chosen as a benchmark for cricket production as they both are animal-source foods. In many low- andmiddle-income regions of the world, chicken is a signiﬁcant source
protein source. Crickets and broilers have a similar percentage
protein in their edible mass (See Section 2.4).
2.1.1. Thai cricket farm description
The study took place in Mahasalakam Province in north-eastern
Thailand. A medium-scale cricket farm was identiﬁed and surveyed
to estimate all ﬂows including feed, biofertiliser1 and crickets toand from the farm. The farm was analysed in detail by ﬁeld
investigation as well as through an in-depth face-to-face survey
carried out in November 2014. In order to estimate the content themost important elements of the different products in the system,
samples of feed, crickets, and biofertiliser (manure) were taken and1
In this study, biofertiliser consisted of cricket frass (excrement) in addition to
any matter that falls to the ﬂoor of the cage, including wings, body parts, pumpkinseeds/stems, rice husks, pests, particles of uneaten feed, dust, shredded egg carton
etc.

Fig. 1. The cricket farm represented in this study.

A. Halloran et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

Mahasalakam.
2.1.2. Future scaled-up cricket production system
In order to estimate the impacts generated by a possible future
scaled-up production system, a future scenario was modelled. The
future farm scenario was assumed to be more efﬁcient with a feed
conversation ratio (FCR) of 1.47 (based on Lundy and Parrella, 2015).
This FCR assumes the total amount of feed, including unconsumed
feed. The following assumptions were also made: crickets consume
the same kind of feed, production cycles are 33 days to harvest,
under optimised circumstances the farm has 11 cycles per year, andthere are three vertical production levels in this system. As
specialisation was assumed, only A. domesticus were farmed under
the future scenario. This was also due to a preference towards thisspecies for their taste (Hanboonsong et al., 2013). To achieve thisincreased efﬁciency in the future scenario, walls and climate control were required to create a contained, temperature-regulated
system. This requires more building materials and higher electricity consumption.
2.1.3. Thai broiler farm description
Thailand is one of the largest poultry meat producers in Asia.
The majority of broilers are reared in strictly controlled facilities
that are standardised according to the integrators (Chantong andKaneene, 2011). Chicken companies are largely vertically integrated with all the actors within the value chain, including feed
producers, hatcheries and broiler farms that are either owned orhave contacts to the parent company (Mungkung et al., 2012). In
most cases, broiler farmers are contracted out by the integrators(Chantong and Kaneene, 2011).
Data were collected from a contract broiler farm in Banfang,
Khon Kaen Province (Fig. 2). This farm is representative of broiler
farms contracted by a large Thai agribusiness corporation to produce broilers which are used for a speciﬁc type of Thai-style grilled
chicken. This type of chicken is sold when it reaches a live weight ofapproximately 1 kg. This breed of chicken is characterised by85

slower growth and a higher FCR when compared to other industrial
broiler breeds. The regular industrial broiler breeds in Thailand
have higher bodyweight at slaughter (2.8e3.2 kg), grow faster andexhibit a lower FCR.
The selected broiler farm was a medium-scale production system of 3120 m2. The total yearly broiler yield (live weight) was
calculated as 150,000 kg. The average life expectancy of a broiler
was 59 days and the farm produced ﬁve cycles of broilers per year.
Data on broiler processing were obtained from the World Bank
Poultry Processing Guidelines (World Bank, 2007). Data on thehatchery and breeding farm were obtained from expert opinion(Sukontarattanasook, pers. comm., 2017). The breeder farm,
hatchery and broiler farm are grouped together under one processes called broiler production.
2.2. Functional units
Two functional units e one mass-based and one nutritionallybased e were chosen: 1 kg of edible mass and 1 kg of protein in
edible mass. It can be debated whether it is realistic that the consumption of chicken is actually decreased as a consequence of the
production of crickets, and that the crickets are therefore truly
substituting chicken production. In north-eastern Thailand, meals
are presented as a range of shared dishes which are served at thesame time. These dishes can include crickets and chicken among
other foods. It is therefore difﬁcult to say exactly how the introduction of crickets will affect the consumption of other dishes.
However, as production amounts increase in the region it is likelythat the crickets could replace chicken to some extent. Therefore, it
is argued that they can be compared on the basis of edible mass andprotein in edible mass, depending on whether the food is considered to be a dietary component (edible mass) or a nutritional
component (protein in edible mass). Due to limited studies, digestibility was not factored into the functional unit of 1 kg of protein in edible mass. This issue will be discussed in further details in
section 4.3.

Fig. 2. The broiler farm represented in this study.

86

A. Halloran et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

2.3. Systems boundaries
The study covered the production of construction materials,
energy, transportation and the feed production process at mills.
Processing and transportation processes were also included. Thus,
the systems boundaries did not cover farm gate to retail (Fig. 3).
2.4. Life cycle inventory
For all three scenarios, secondary data from background input
ﬂows and processes were extracted from EcoInvent Integrated SP
22 (v. 6.110) and Gabi databases (see supplementary materials forfurther information).

2.4.1. Cricket production (current scenario)
Detailed data related to cricket production (current scenario)
are given in Table 1 and in the description following the table.
Further information can be found in the supplementary data.
2.4.1.1. Feed input. As cricket feed is very similar to broiler feed, thefeed composition was estimated from typical industrial broiler diets and according to listed ingredients found on feed bags
(Sukontarattanasook, pers. comm., 2015). Feed ingredients
included ﬁsh meal, soybean meal, grain maize, palm oil, calcium
carbonate and salt (Table 2). From the feed input and cricket output,
the FCR was calculated as 2.50 for the crickets (both species combined). Pumpkins supplemented the feed at the end of the cricket

Fig. 3. a) Systems boundary of the cricket farm and b) systems boundary of the broiler farm (* denotes functional unit).

A. Halloran et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

87

Table 1
Annual data for the cricket farm.

Total number of concrete pens
Number of concrete pens, Gryllus bimaculatus
Number of concrete pens, Acheta domesticus
Number of cycles in a year
InputsFeed (kg)
DM of feed (%)
Total amount of pumpkins (kg)
DM of pumpkin (%)
N content of feed (%)
C content of feed (%)
N content of pumpkin (%)
C content of pumpkin (%)
Water (L)
Biofertiliser production
Acheta domesticus biofertiliser (kg)
Gryllus bimaculatus biofertiliser (kg)
DM of biofertiliser (%)
N content of Gryllus bimaculatus biofertiliser (%)
N content of Acheta domesticus biofertiliser (%)
C content of Gryllus bimaculatus biofertiliser (%)
C content of Acheta domesticus biofertiliser (%)
Cricket production
Acheta domesticus (kg)
Gryllus bimaculatus (kg)
DM of crickets (%)
Edible portion (%)
N content of Gryllus bimaculatus (%)
N content of Acheta domesticus (%)
C content of Gryllus bimaculatus (%)
C content of Acheta domesticus (%)

AmountData source

78
38
38
8.5

Data from study farm
Data from study farm
Data from study farm
Data from study farm

74,23787
20,400
12
3.04
44
79
50
19,843

Data from study farm
Data from study farm
Data from study farm
(Fedha et al., 2010)
Measured from farm samples
Measured from farm samples(DTU Fødevareinstituttet, 2009)(DTU Fødevareinstituttet, 2009)
Data from study farm

26,64816,150
89
2.58
2.27
38.08
38.38

Calculated (See 2.4.1d)
Calculated (See 2.4.1d)
Measured from farm sample
Measured from farm sample
Measured from farm sample
Measured from farm sample
Measured from farm sample

18,976
17,765
26
100
9.02
10.05
54.28
53.29

Data from study farm
Data from study farm
Measured from farm sample
Observational data
Measured from farm sample
Measured from farm sample
Measured from farm sample
Measured from farm sample

future cricket scenario.

Table 2Feed composition.
Feed ingredients

Percentage of total content

Fish meal
Soybean meal
Grain maize
Rice bran
Palm oilCalcium carb powder
Calcium carb 2e4 mm
Salt

5%
28%
51%
9%
3%
1%
2%
1%

lifecycle in order to give the inside of the cricket a desired orangelike colour.

2.4.1.2. Input of construction materials, energy and transportation.
The life expectancies of each of the construction materials andconsumables were factored into the speciﬁc input amounts
included in the lifetime of the buildings. Life expectancies were
calculated based on literature values (Hanboonsong et al., 2013;
Ruskulis, 2009). Information regarding the energy, heat and waterrequired for feed production was derived from the LCA Food
Database (2007). Electricity, heat and chemical inputs required
for the production of ﬁshmeal also came from the same database(LCA Food Database, 2007). Compared with the chicken farm, fewer
construction materials are needed on the cricket farm as temperature control is not needed (see supplementary materials for more
information). Electricity was estimated from farm records. The
transport of feed materials and the transport of the crickets toprocessing were included in each different production stage
assuming regional and global supply. Non-regional feed materials
were transported by cargo ship. Regional feed materials weretransported by diesel truck. The same method was applied to the

2.4.1.3. Cricket output. To use the functional unit of 1 kg of protein
in edible mass the protein content of the edible mass had to be
estimated. The amount of protein was calculated as the amount of N
(determined by the Kjeldahl method) divided by 6.25. The protein
content in the edible mass of the Acheta domesticus in this study
was found to be 63% and 56% for Gryllus bimaculatus (on a dry
weight basis). Both cricket species are considered 100% edible.2
2.4.1.4. Biofertiliser. The total annual quantity of biofertiliser
generated on the cricket farm was 26,414.5 kg. G. bimaculatus and
A. domesticus converted feed into biofertiliser with a respective 38%
and 62% percent of the total mass ending up as biofertiliser. Basedon the samples taken, total nitrogen (N) was found to be 2.58%(G. bimaculatus) and 2.27% (A. domesticus). Total phosphorus (P)was found to be 1.55% (G. bimaculatus) and 2.02% (A. domesticus).
Total potassium (K) was found to be 1.78% (G. bimaculatus) and2.26% (A. domesticus) (Table 3). Due to large discrepancy in theannual amount of biofertiliser that the cricket farm produced, thetotal annual amount of C was calculated from the calculated
amount of N in the biofertiliser and the measured C:N ratio of thebiofertiliser.
Subsequently, the application of fertiliser was calculated basedon the measured N, P and K of A. domesticus manure only as
opposed to both species in the cricket farm scenario.
The use of cricket biofertiliser was assumed to substitute theapplication of mineral fertiliser on key crops in the region (e.g. ricepaddies). Avoided ammonium nitrate, triple superphosphate and2
According to Nakagaki and Defoliart (1991) 80% of A. domesticus is considered
edible. However, during this study the removal of wings and legs before consumption was not observed in north-eastern Thailand.

88

A. Halloran et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

Table 3
N, P, K of G. bimaculatus and A. domesticus biofertiliser (measured) and broiler
manure (from literature).
Elements

Farmed species% in biofertiliser

NitrogenG. bimaculatus
A. domesticus
Broilers (CP Brown)
G. bimaculatus
A. domesticus
Broilers (CP Brown)
G. bimaculatus
A. domesticus
Broilers (CP Brown)

2.58%
2.27%
1.7%
1.55%
2.02%
1.33%
1.78%
2.26%
1.58%

Phosphorous

Potassium

potassium chloride were modelled by system expansion assuming
100% substitution of N, P and K in the biofertiliser. Emissions suchas nitrate leaching and P losses associated with the use of thebiofertiliser were assumed to be the same for the saved fertiliser, sothey cancelled each other out.
2.4.1.5. Emissions. CO2 emissions were calculated from a carbon
mass balance. The direct nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4)emissions at cricket farm level were estimated from a pilot experiment. 140 g of live crickets were added to a 1300 mL vacuum
container (Exetainer ©LABCO) and provided with 8 g of feed and 8 gof water. Air samples were taken by a 5 ml syringe (Braun Omniﬁx)
in 10-min intervals for 80 min. All gas samples were analysed using
gas chromatography (Greenhouse Gas Analyser, 450-GC, Bruker,
Germany). From the GHG calculations, N2O and CH4 were found tobe 0.066 kg and 0.034 kg per year respectively, which was insigniﬁcantly higher than the control and therefore ignored.
The estimation of ammonia (NH3) emissions from the cricket
biofertiliser after application was assumed to be minimal since thebiofertiliser was already very dry and the majority of the ammonia
and water had already evaporated. Ammonia emissions were
therefore assumed to be zero. Ammonia emissions were therefore
assumed to be zero. During cricket production, however, NH3
emissions are likely to be high and therefore were assumed to be as
high as for chicken, with 23% of annual input feed N (EPA, 2004).
This assumption was made based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Emissions Inventory eAmmonia Emissions from Animal Husbandry, which estimates that
23% of input N leaves poultry production houses as NH3-N. All of
the carbon held in the biofertiliser was considered to be released as
CO2 after land application and thus sequestration of CO2 in the soil
was not considered.
2.4.2. Cricket production (future scenario)
Detailed data related to cricket production (future scenario) are
given in Table 4 and elaborated below. Further information can befound in the supplementary data.
2.4.2.1. Feed input. The feed composition and subsequent analysis
was the same for cricket production (current scenario) (Table 1 and2.4.1a). FCR was assumed to be 1.47 based on Lundy and Parrella(2015). After this, the amount of feed was calculated as:
Feed ¼ crickets produced  FCR: The total annual amount of feed
was thus estimated to be 223,522 kg. Pumpkins were not used tosupplement the feed in the future scenario as they were in thecurrent cricket farm scenario.
2.4.2.2. Input of construction materials and energy. The future
cricket farm scenario differed from the current scenario because
the production facility was contained. The facility was constructedin a similar way to the broiler facility. The pens were made fromplywood instead of concrete (see supplementary material forfurther information). The inputs used during the processes of thecrickets were assumed to be the same in both the current andfuture cricket scenarios.
2.4.2.3. Cricket output. The number of crickets in the future scenario were calculated based on a life cycle of 33 days (Lundy andParrella, 2015) growing in 234 pens (three times that of the current scenario). The amount of crickets per cycle per pen was
assumed to be the same as in the current scenario. Continuous(back-to-back) production was assumed.
2.4.2.4. Biofertiliser. The amount of biofertiliser was calculated as
Biofertiliser ¼ feed  ð1  digestibilityÞ where digestibility wascalculated from the assumed feed conversion ratio. The use ofcricket biofertiliser in the future scenario was also assumed to
substitute the application of mineral fertiliser (see 2.4.1d for further
details).
2.4.2.5. Emissions. The emissions were calculated in the same way
as for the current scenario.
2.4.3. Broiler production
Data about input and outputs from broiler production weremainly estimated based on information collected from the study
farm or based on mass balances. Additional information about thecomposition of the ﬂows was derived from the literature. Further
information about the foreground data is given in Table 5.
2.4.3.1. Feed input. The feed composition and subsequent analysis
was the same as for the cricket production (current scenario)(Table 1). The total amount of feed consumed was 310,475 kg. The
FCR was assumed to be 1.83 for the broilers based on an industry
standard (Sukontarattanasook, pers. comm., 2015).

Table 4
Additional information for the future cricket farm scenario.
Future scenario (Acheta domesticus only)

AmountSourceFuture scenario FCR
Length of lifecycle of Acheta domesticus (days)
Cycles per year
Amount of total pens
InputsFeed (kg)
Water (L)
Biofertiliser
Biofertiliser
Cricket production
Crickets

1.47
33
11
234

Based on Lundy and Parrella, 2015
Based on Lundy and Parrella, 2015
Based on Lundy and Parrella, 2015
Based on 3 times the amount of current scenario

223,52256,991

Calculated (see 2.4.2a)
Data from study farm

128,860

Calculated (see 2.4.1d)

152,056

Calculated (see 2.4.2c)

A. Halloran et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

89

Table 5
Annual data for the broiler farm.

Total number of pens
Number of cycles in a year
FCR
Lifespan (days)
Total number of birds per cycle
Average weight of broiler (kg)
InputsFeed (kg)
DM of feed (%)
N of feed (%)
C of feed (%)
Water (L)ManureManure production (kg)
DM of manure (%)
g N/kgC content of broiler manure (%)
Ammonia emission (% of total feed N)
Broilers
Broilers (kg)
DM of broilers (%)
N content of broilers (%)
Ash content broilers (%)
C in volatile solids (%)

AmountSource

333
5
1.83
59
30,0001

Data from study farm
Data from study farm
Sukontarattanasook, pers. comm., 2015
Data from study farm
Data from study farm
Data from study farm

310,475
87
3.04
43.91
1,104,398

Data from study farm
Data from study farm
Measured from farm sample
Measured from farm sample
Data from study farm

137,726
72
30.46
42
23

Data from study farm
(Grifﬁths, 2011)
line, 2005)(Guiziou and Be(Grifﬁths, 2011)(USEPA, 2004)

150,000
34
7.80
2.7
50

Assumed from industry standard(USDA, 2011)(DTU Fødevareinstituttet, 2016)(Latshaw and Bishop, 2001)
Assumed2.4.3.2. Input of construction materials, energy, other materials andtransportation. Construction materials consisted of metal cages,
wall/rooﬁng materials and reinforcements. Electricity was estimated based on farm records. Minor staple supplies such as antibiotics and vitamin supplements (broiler farms only) were omitted
from the LCA. The transport of feed materials and the transport ofthe chickens to processing were included in each different production stage assuming regional and global supply. Non-regional
feed materials were transported by cargo ship. Regional feed materials were transported by diesel truck.
2.4.3.3. Broiler output. Broiler by-products including blood, gibletsand chicken feet in addition to the meat were all considered as
edible mass. These were considered to contain approximately 58%
edible mass (Sukontarattanasook, pers. comm., 2016). Feathers,
heads, intestines, fat, leg skin and bones were considered to be
broiler by-products processed into animal feed. The nutritional
functional unit of protein in edible mass was calculated based on
the same equation used in 2.4.1c. The protein content of broiler
meat in the edible mass was calculated as 63% on a dry weight basis(DTU Fødevareinstituttet, 2016). The broiler by-products wereassumed to replace the production of poultry by-product meal,
which can subsequently be used as a feed ingredient, thus avoiding
ﬁshmeal3 production.
2.4.3.4. Biofertiliser output. The nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium contents of the broiler manure were estimated to be 1.7%,
1.33% and 1.58% respectively (Grifﬁths, 2011; Temple et al., 2007)(Table 3). The carbon content of manure was assumed to be 42%(Grifﬁths, 2011). The use of chicken manure was assumed to substitute the application of mineral fertiliser on key crops (see 2.4.1d
for further details).
2.4.3.5. Emissions. CH4 and N2O emissions are very minimal inline, 2005) and werebroiler production systems (Guiziou and Be

3
The use of poultry by-product meal can serve as an alternative dietary protein
source, such as ﬁshmeal.

therefore omitted from the broiler inventories. CO2 was estimatedthrough carbon balance equations of inputs (feed) and outputs(biofertiliser/manure). NH3 emissions during broiler production
were assumed to be 23% of annual input feed N (EPA, 2004). All of
the carbon held in the chicken manure was considered to bereleased as CO2. No sequestration of CO2 in the soil was considered.
2.5. Allocation
Allocation was used to avoid output of several by-products.
Allocation by mass was used for rice husks and ﬁshmeal andtheir by-products’ production. According to Ayer et al. (2006), therelative masses of edible rice, rice bran and rice husk are 92%, 3%
and 5% respectively. According to Shepherd and Jackson (2013), theprocessing of whole ﬁsh catches and ﬁsh processing by-products
yields an average of 22.2% ﬁshmeal and 5% oil.
2.6. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
To assess the environmental impacts of the systems, the set of
impact categories included in the International Reference Life Cycle
Data System (ILCD) method were used: climate change (Global
warming potential), ozone depletion, human toxicity (cancer effects), human toxicity (non-cancer effects), particulate matter/respiratory inorganics, ionising radiation, photochemical ozone
formation, acidiﬁcation, terrestrial eutrophication, aquatic eutrophication, ecotoxicity, water resource depletion and mineral andrenewable resource depletion. The ILCD method (EU Commission
Joint Research Centre, 2010) is the result of a consensus work inwhich it has been assessed with impact assessment method is thebest for assessing each impact category. The method provides
characterization factors which can be used to convert emissions
and resource consumption into potential environmental impacts.
The formula used to calculate the impact potential of the impactP
category j is IPðjÞ ¼ ni¼1 CFi ei where CFi is the characterization
factor for substance i and ei is the emission of substance i (EUCommission Joint Research Centre, 2012).
GaBi ts software (2015, compilation 7.0.0.19) was used to assess
the environmental impact of the systems under consideration.

90

A. Halloran et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

Table 6Comparison (mid-point) of environmental impacts of 1 kg of edible mass (FU) and 1 kg of protein in edible mass (FU).
Impact category

Acidiﬁcation
Climate change, excl. biogenic carbon
Climate change, incl. biogenic carbon
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial eutrophication
Human toxicity, cancer effects
Human toxicity, non-cancer effects
Ionizing radiation, human health
Ozone depletion
Particulate matter/Respiratory inorganics
Photochemical ozone formation, human health
Water depletion
Resource depletion, mineral, fossils and renewables

Unit

Mole of Hþ eq
kg CO2 eq
kg CO2 eq
CTUe
kg P eqkg N-Equiv
Mole of N eq
CTUh
CTUh
kBq U235 eq
kg CFC-11 eq
kg PM2,5-Equiv
kg NMVOC
m3 eq
kg Sb-Equiv

1 kg edible component

1 kg edible protein content

Broilerfarm

Current cricket
farm

Future cricket
farm

Broilerfarm

Current cricket
farm

Future cricket
farm

0.12
3.90
4.06
35.45
0.00052
0.031
0.49
0.00000013
0.00000075
0.19
0.00000010
0.00860.021
0.44
0.000020

0.08
2.57
2.29
26.41
0.000470.020
0.40
0.00000010
0.00000050
0.19
0.00000013
0.00500.013
0.42
0.000026

0.05
1.71
1.55
17.40
0.000310.013
0.20
0.000000087
0.00000034
0.13
0.000000062
0.00350.00880.30
0.000015

0.25
8.21
8.57
74.81
0.00110.065
1.02
0.00000028
0.0000016
0.40
0.00000023
0.018
0.043
0.94
0.000041

0.14
4.35
3.87
44.64
0.00075
0.033
0.55
0.00000017
0.00000085
0.32
0.00000027
0.00850.022
0.71
0.000043

0.079
2.71
2.46
27.60
0.000500.021
0.32
0.00000014
0.00000054
0.21
0.000000099
0.00560.014
0.47
0.000024

3. Results
Overall, the environmental impacts associated with broiler
production were greater than for cricket production. Considering
1 kg of edible mass as the functional unit, broiler production had
the greatest impacts in the majority of the impact categories, except
for ozone depletion and resource depletion (Table 6). Notably,
broiler production resulted in an acidiﬁcation potential of 0.12 Moleof Hþ eq compared to 0.08 Mole of Hþ eq on the current cricket
farm respectively, GWP of 3.90 kg CO2 eq compared to 2.57 kg CO2
eq, freshwater ecotoxicity of 35.45 CTUe compared to 26.41 CTUe,and terrestrial eutrophication of 0.49 Moles of N eq compared to0.40 Moles of N eq. The impact of the ionizing radiation category
was the same (0.19 kBq U235 eq) on the broiler farm and on thecurrent cricket farm (Table 6). The current cricket farm resulted inslightly higher ozone depletion of 0.00000013 kg CFC-11 eq
compared to 0.00000010 kg CFC-11 eq, and 0.000026 kg Sb-eqv ofnatural resource depletion compared to 0.000020 kg Sb-eqv
respectively (Table 6).
When considering 1 kg of protein content as the functional unit,
the broiler production was still associated with the greatest environmental impacts compared with the cricket production in the
majority of the impact categories. Only ozone depletion andresource depletion were higher under the current cricket farming
scenario (Table 6).
As cricket farming becomes more resource efﬁcient (i.e. a higher
FCR and therefore less feed consumed per kg of crickets produced)
under the future cricket farming scenario, the environmental impacts become reduced and less than those of the broilers for all
impact categories.
For broiler and cricket production (both current and futurescenarios), the process of feed production was responsible for amajor part of the environmental impacts (Fig. 4). The only categories where the animal production itself was dominating were theterrestrial eutrophication and acidiﬁcation categories. Ammonia
volatilisation was responsible for the majority of acidiﬁcation andterrestrial eutrophication in broiler farm (80% and 87% respectively), current cricket farm (82% and 91% respectively) and future
cricket farm scenarios (79% and 87% respectively). The estimates ofammonia emissions based on a simple assumption of 23% of feed N
were eventually emitted as ammonia N from broiler production.
Whether this is a good assumption for crickets is uncertain, but it
remains valid that increasing efﬁciency of the production system isalso likely to decrease ammonia volatilisation.
Non-biogenic CO2 emissions were responsible for the majorityof climate change impacts (78%, 81% and 81% for broiler, current
cricket and future cricket farms respectively) and were mainly due
to maize production and land use change caused by soybean production. Pesticide run-off, especially those used in soybean production, was responsible for between 75% and 87% freshwater
ecotoxicity in the three scenarios. Nitrate leaching to fresh water(mainly from maize grain production) was the leading cause ofmarine eutrophication (80%, 86% and 87% on the broiler, current
cricket and future cricket farms respectively). No nitrate emissions
were associated with application of biofertiliser because it was
assumed to replace an equal amount of mineral fertiliser, leading to
the same amounts of saved nitrate leaching. Phosphorous andphosphate losses e mainly from soybean production e were
responsible for 99.5% of freshwater eutrophication in all scenarios.
Again, this result was heavily dependent on the assumption thatapplication of biofertiliser replaces a similar amount of phosphorous mineral fertiliser and that the chances of losses are the same.
Human toxicity (cancer) was mainly caused by heavy metal losses
into freshwater (52%, 51% and 39% on the broiler, current cricket
and future cricket farms respectively) primarily during maize
production. Human toxicity (non-cancer) was mainly caused byheavy metal to the soil (72%, 70% and 66% on the broiler, current
cricket and future cricket farms respectively), primarily duringmaize production.
A sensitivity analysis was carried out to check how a 20% increase in transportation distance and a 20% substitution of ﬁshmeal
for soymeal would affect the ﬁnal results. No substantial variability
was found across the three scenarios (broiler production, current
cricket production and future cricket production) (Table 7). As such,
uncertainty associated with transport distances and the composition of the feed in terms of protein rich ingredients would therefore
have very little effect on the conclusion of this LCA.
4. Discussion
When comparing the results of this study to mealworm production, the GWP of the current cricket farm scenario is comparable
to two LCAs of mealworm production with ﬁndings of 2.7 kg CO2eq. per kg of fresh weight (Oonincx and de Boer, 2012) and2.84e3.02 CO2-eq. per kg of fresh weight4 (Smetana et al., 2015).
One of the major hotspots in these two studies was also identiﬁed
as the feed production phase. The second largest impact identiﬁed

4This study used data from Oonincx and de Boer, 2012.

A. Halloran et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

91

Fig. 4. Contribution of different life stages to the impact potentials at midpoint for current cricket production, future cricket production and broiler production (positive impacts are
scaled to 1).

Table 7
Sensitivity analysis applied to a) 20% increase in transportation distance and b) substitution of 20% of ﬁshmeal for soymeal for 1 kg of edible mass.
Impact category

Acidiﬁcation [Mole of Hþ eq.]
Climate change, excl biogenic carbon [kg CO2Equiv.]
Climate change, incl biogenic carbon [kg CO2Equiv.]
Ecotoxicity freshwater [CTUe]
Eutrophication freshwater [kg P eq]
Eutrophication marine [kg N-Equiv.]
Eutrophication terrestrial [Mole of N eq.]
Human toxicity, cancer effects [CTUh]
Human toxicity, non-cancer effects [CTUh]
Ionizing radiation, human health [kBq U235 eq]
Ozone depletion [kg CFC-11 eq]
Particulate matter/Respiratory inorganics[kg PM2,5-Equiv.]
Photochemical ozone formation, human health[kg NMVOC]
Resource depletion water [m3 eq.]
Resource depletion, mineral, fossils andrenewables[kg Sb-Equiv.]

Broiler production

Current cricket production

Future cricket production

BAU

Sensitivity
test A

Sensitivity
test B

BAU

Sensitivity
Test A

Sensitivity
test B

BAU

Sensitivity
test A

Sensitivity
test B

1.20E-01
3.90Eþ00

0.8% BAU
1.1% BAU

0.2% BAU
1.2% BAU

8.01E-02
2.58Eþ00

0.8% BAU
1.9% BAU

0.2% BAU
1.0% BAU

4.98E-02
1.71Eþ00

0.8% BAU
1.0% BAU

0.2% BAU
1.1% BAU

4.06Eþ00

1.0% BAU

0.1% BAU

2.29Eþ00

1.1% BAU

0.1% BAU

1.55Eþ00

1.1% BAU

0.1% BAU

3.55Eþ01
5.25E-04
3.08E-02
4.86E-01
1.34E-07
7.53E-07
1.89E-01
1.10E-07
8.56E-03

0.0% BAU
0.0% BAU
0.8% BAU
0.8% BAU
0.2% BAU
0.4% BAU
0.0% BAU
0.0% BAU
0.4% BAU

2.8% BAU
1.9% BAU
0.8% BAU
0.2% BAU
0.7% BAU
0.5% BAU
0.4% BAU
0.9% BAU
1.5% BAU

2.64Eþ01
4.46E-04
1.96E-02
3.30E-01
1.01E-07
5.03E-07
1.89E-01
1.34E-07
5.03E-03

2.2% BAU
1.3% BAU
1.4% BAU
0.8% BAU
0.6% BAU
0.5% BAU
0.3% BAU
0.4% BAU
1.8% BAU

2.2% BAU
1.3% BAU
0.7% BAU
0.1% BAU
0.6% BAU
0.4% BAU
0.3% BAU
0.4% BAU
1.4% BAU

1.74Eþ01
3.14E-04
1.29E-02
2.02E-01
8.74E-08
3.42E-07
1.32E-01
6.22E-08
3.52E-03

0.0% BAU
0.0% BAU
0.8% BAU
0.8% BAU
0.1% BAU
0.4% BAU
0.0% BAU
0.0% BAU
0.4% BAU

2.4% BAU
1.3% BAU
0.8% BAU
0.2% BAU
0.5% BAU
0.4% BAU
0.3% BAU
0.6% BAU
1.5% BAU

2.06E-02

1.7% BAU

1.6% BAU

1.25E-02

3.0% BAU

1.5% BAU

8.83E-03

1.6% BAU

1.5% BAU

4.44E-01
1.95E-05

0.0% BAU
0.1% BAU

0.9% BAU
0.8% BAU

4.19E-01
2.55E-05

0.5% BAU
0.3% BAU

0.5% BAU
0.3% BAU

2.96E-01
1.52E-05

0.0% BAU
0.0% BAU

0.5% BAU
0.4% BAU

BAU ¼ business as usual; Sensitivity test A ¼ 20% increase in transportation distance; Sensitivity test B ¼ Substitution of 20% of ﬁshmeal for soymeal.

by Smetana et al. was fossil depletion (2015) which is similar to thesigniﬁcant energy use measured by Oonincx and de Boer (2012).
Miglietta et al. (2015) found that mealworms required 4.3 m3 ofwater per kg of edible mass, a value which is approximately 10
times more than the current cricket farm in Thailand. The water
footprint of mealworms can be attributed mostly to the feed.

For broiler production, a Danish LCA study found much lower
GWP per 1 kg of edible mass5 (2.31 kg CO2-eq.) (Nielsen et al.,5
In this study, edible mass was deﬁned as carcass weight for human consumption, i.e. meat, bones, liver, heart, kidneys, feet and neck were included whilefeathers, head, blood and intestines were excluded.

92

A. Halloran et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

2012). The large difference between broiler production in Denmark
and Thailand was due in part to the difference in the broiler breeds
in question, leading to different production times (38 days vs. 59days) and slaughter weights (2.13 kg vs. 1 kg). In a study in the UK,
Leinonen et al. found that standard indoor broiler production
produces 4.41 kg CO2-eq. per 1 kg of edible carcass weight, a value
higher than the broiler farm in this study. Pelletier (2008) also
found that the majority of impacts of broiler production in the USA
are associated with the feed production: 82% of greenhouse gas
emissions, 98% of ozone depleting emissions, 96% of acidifying
emissions and 97% of eutrophying emissions.
The chosen broiler production system is not the most efﬁcient
production system that can be found in Thailand. However, it isrepresentative of a production system for a speciﬁc kind of chicken
meat which is eaten throughout the Isan region. Had a more efﬁcient production system been chosen, the results could have beendifferent.
4.1. Inputs
Similar to the ﬁndings of this study, Smetana et al. (2016) foundthat protein diets are responsible for high environmental impacts
and high insect yields. Major improvements can be made in thesourcing of local feed ingredients. In fact, one of the advantages of
insects over traditional livestock is that they are able to live on feedfrom other sources (van Huis et al., 2013). As other studies haveshown, these sources could come from surplus production andperhaps even waste side streams or ingredients that cannot be used
for feeding traditional livestock species (Collavo et al., 2005; Lundy
and Parrella, 2015; Oonincx et al., 2015; Smetana et al., 2016).
Current trials at Khon Kaen University aim to ﬁnd alternative feed
ingredients to replace the commercial chicken feed commonly usedon small and medium-scale cricket farms in Thailand. Farmers arerecommended to increase the amount of vegetables in order toreduce the reliance on commercial chicken feed (Hanboonsong,unpublished research). Future recommendations for improving theenvironmental sustainability of cricket and broiler feeds should bein line with the conceptual framework of sustainable animal diets(StAnD) of Makkar and Ankers (2014). StAnD integrates theimportance of using natural resources efﬁciently, generating socioeconomic beneﬁts for farmers, and generating safe, nutritionaland economically-viable animal feeds. As such, this presents bothan opportunity and a challenge for the expanding cricket farming
industry in Thailand.
4.2. Outputs
This study assumed the impacts or beneﬁts of the cricket biofertiliser and the broiler manure to be the same as the substituted
fertiliser as there has never been a study published on the impacts
or beneﬁts of cricket biofertiliser. Biofertiliser application may havenegative environmental impacts that are greater than the ones
from the substituted fertiliser in several impact categories, forexample freshwater eutrophication and climate change, especially
if the nutrients in the fertiliser are not substituted 100%, but may
also have beneﬁts over mineral fertiliser, such as in terms of carbon
sequestration in the soil and improved yields. Further studies into
this area would greatly help complete the picture of the overall
cradle-to-cradle life cycle assessment.
According to McFarlane and Distler (1982), frass (insect faeces)production by A. domesticus equals 33% of the feed consumed. In
this present study, the biofertiliser equalled 35% percent of the feed
consumed. This indicates that there is still room for efﬁciency improvements and that industrial entomology, which focuses on thefarming of edible insect species, is in its infancy. The efﬁciency

improvement as stipulated in the future scenario is clearly a majoradvantage in terms of reducing the environmental impacts associated with cricket production.
4.3. Functional unit
In this study, we chose 1 kg protein in edible mass as one of thefunctional units. As stated in section 2.2, this did not include digestibility. The quality of the protein, and consequentially thenutritional value, is determined by the amino acid composition andthe digestibility of the proteins. The protein digestibility of somecricket species (Acheta domesticus and Anabrus simplex) has been
estimated to be superior to soy protein in trials with rats (Finke
et al., 1989). However, according to Klunder et al. (2012), themeasured amounts of nitrogenous substances found in insects may
be higher than their actual protein content since some nitrogen isalso bound in the chitin of the exoskeleton, which consists of bothchitin and protein (Finke, 2013). For populations without chitinases, digestibility was found to be comparable to meat when theexoskeleton is removed (Paoletti et al., 2007). It is therefore expected that the digestibility of nitrogenous compounds may beslightly lower than in meat. Sonesson et al. (2017) note that protein
as FU in food LCA was found to affect conclusions when compared
to a mass-based FU.
There are many studies that highlight the importance of using
more than one functional unit, especially when comparing foodfrom different categories (see, for example, Heller et al., 2013;
Notarnicola et al., 2015; Sonesson et al., 2017; van der Werf andSalou, 2015). However, there is little consensus on which types of
FUs to include. Halloran et al. (2016a, b) recommend including atleast two FU categories e mass-, nutritional, and/or economicbased e in order to provide a better overview of the impact of
the FU on the conclusion when evaluating edible insect production
systems for food. Our study has exempliﬁed the need for multiple
FUs; for example, the values under each impact category doubled
under the broiler farm scenario. On the other hand, the values of
the impact categories increased by 37e70% under the two cricket
farm scenarios when comparing the FU of 1 kg of edible mass and
1 kg of protein in edible mass.
4.4. Limitations
A major difference between industrial broiler production andsmall-scale cricket farming is the use of antibiotics and other inputs
such as vitamins and vaccines. Antibiotics and pharmaceuticals are
ignored in this LCA, mainly due to the lack of impact assessment
methodology (Opio et al., 2013). These inputs are associated withspecial risks such as the development of resistant strains of pathogenic microorganisms, which is not easily assessed using currently
available impact assessment methods. In addition, they represent a
substantial cost for contract broiler farmers. Whether future cricket
production systems will also adopt antibiotics to increase efﬁciency
or prevent disease or whether they can be optimised without theuse of antibiotics is still an open question.
The data used in this study were derived from a medium-scale
farm in Thailand. Insect production in tropical and sub-tropicalregions of the world consists of a very diverse set of production
systems, both in terms of methods and species, and therefore
generalisations should be made with caution and consideration of
the site-speciﬁc requirements. Materials used as feed ingredients
may especially inﬂuence the overall environmental impacts associated with the feed ingredients.
Although a cooking phase was not included within this study,
possible hotspots may occur in the cooking phase of the two foodcategories. In Thailand, broilers are traditionally prepared as gai

A. Halloran et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

yang (lit. grilled chicken) on a charcoal barbeque. Crickets, on theother hand, are often stir-fried together with salt, fragrant leaves
and oil over a stove fuelled by liqueﬁed petroleum gas.
4.5. Socio-economic considerations
Resource efﬁciency in scaled-up future scenarios may indeed
improve the environmental sustainability of cricket farming in
north-eastern Thailand. However, as Halloran et al. (2016b, 2017)
suggest, such a scenario may marginalise small-scale farmers andhave fewer positive socioeconomic impacts than exist today as
scaled-up facilities may incur greater start-up costs which are offlimits to small-scale farmers. To date, small-scale cricket farming
has improved the lives of farmers in northern and north-eastern
Thailand (Halloran et al., 2017), and in this context the other options for a future production system described above, where surplus and waste production from the vegetable industry is used inless intensive production systems, may be even more advantageous. No matter what direction the production systems take, there
is considerable potential for optimisation and future research ofsmall and medium-scale cricket production systems.
5. Future considerations and conclusion
The results of this study depended heavily on the data and assumptions about the efﬁciency with which feed is converted into
animal-based food. Large differences can be seen in studies that use
different feed sources for experiments with crickets (Halloran et al.,2016a) and therefore the conclusions are also uncertain, especiallythe ones related to the future scenario. While it may be possiblethat farmed crickets can have similar or lower FCRs thanindustrially-farmed broilers, as stipulated in the future scenario,
such ratios have not yet been realised in situ. In the future scenarios
it was stipulated that this required temperature control, but in fact
it is not really known what is required to optimise cricket production and it may in fact require completely different strategies,
such as changes in diet. Further research into this area is needed.
The high cost of commercial feed is already one of the main
disadvantages of rearing crickets (Hanboonsong et al., 2013;
Caparros Megido et al., 2016). Another future scenario that may
be more economically viable could therefore involve extensiﬁcation of the production using surpluses and waste from vegetable production. This may also be more desirable from anenvironmental perspective. This is because although high-protein
feeds result in the lowest feed conversion ratios and are thus
most efﬁcient (Tongpool et al., 2012), the high impact associatedwith the production of the feed could mean that alternative feedsources could help decrease the environmental impacts. The resultsof the present analysis clearly demonstrated that the environmental burden of feed ingredients is signiﬁcant in both broiler andcricket farming. In agreement with this, Tongpool et al. (2012)
found that the most signiﬁcant impact of broiler feeds is the production of soybean meal, rapeseed meal, ﬁshmeal, and meat andbone meal. Traditional protein sources such as soybean meal andﬁshmeal are also expensive. Cricket feeds, which are similar incomposition to commercial chicken feed, are preferred by farmers
because the crickets have shorter life cycles and therefore can besold more quickly; farmers who use only fresh vegetables haveexperienced longer life cycles. When the ﬁrst cricket farmers in
Thailand were trained, they were taught to use a variety of vegetables combined with 10% broiler feed, however this practice haslargely been abolished in order to increase productivity. Future
research into the economics and environmental consequences ofalternative feed sources for cricket production is highly relevant.
This paper has presented the ﬁrst known LCA study of a93

medium-scale cricket farm in north-eastern Thailand. By including
a future scenario a preliminary assessment was made of the additional impacts associated with scaling up production. Current
medium-scale cricket farming systems have fewer environmental
impacts when compared to industrial broiler farming systems inmost impact categories. However, the environmental impacts are
reduced compared to current cricket farming systems and broiler
farming systems in Thailand by intensifying cricket production. The
environmental impacts of cricket farming are mainly associatedwith the feed production. The major hotspots associated with thefeed were soybean and grain maize production. Thus, future
research should be focused on identifying alternative feed sources
to the conventional chicken feed that is currently used by many
cricket farmers in Thailand. Social, cultural and economic sustainability must also be considered when promoting insect farming inrural communities. The results of this research have both practicaland academic implications on the improvement of insect farming
systems in the future.
Funding sources
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Doctoral grant number 7522015-0271) and the Consultative Research Committee for Development Research (FFU), Danish International Development Assistance (Danida), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark(GREEiNSECT Grant no. 13-06KU).
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the following people: Martin Roffeis, Monsikan Baosri, Noppadon Sukontarattanasook, Marieke ten Hoeve,
Jan Julien Josef van Hecke, Sean Case, Torsten Arendrup, and Inge
Birgit Rasmussen. Sincere thanks to all of the farmers who participated in the study. The authors would also like to thank the fouranonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on how
to improve this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.017.
References
Ayer, N.W., Tyedmers, P.H., Pelletier, N.L., Sonesson, U., Scholz, A., 2006. Co-productallocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: review ofproblems and strategies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 480e487. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1065/lca2006.11.284.
Baumann, H., Tillmann, A.-M., 2004. The Hitch Hikers's Guide to LCA: an Orientation in Life Cycle Assessment Methodology and Application. Studentlitteratur
AB, Lund.
Caparros Megido, R., Alabi, T., Nieus, C., Blecker, C., Danthine, S., Bogaert, J., Francis, F., 2016. Optimisation of a cheap and residential smallHaubruge, E.,
scale production of edible crickets with local by-products as an alternative
protein-rich human food source in Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia: local production of edible crickets in Cambodia. J. Sci. Food Agr 96, 627e632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7133.
Chantong, W., Kaneene, J., 2011. Poultry raising systems and highly pathogenic
avian inﬂuenza outbreaks in Thailand: the situation, associations, and impacts.
Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 42, 596e608.
Collavo, A., Glew, R.H., Huang, Y.S., Chuang, L.T., Bosse, R., Paoletti, M.G., 2005. House
cricket small-scale farming. In: Paoletti, Maurizio G. (Ed.), Ecological Implications of Minilivestock: Potential of Insects, Rodents, Frogs and Snails. Science
Publishers, Enﬁeld, pp. 519e544.
DTU Fødevareinstituttet, 2016. Kylling, kød, rå [WWW Document]. URL. http://frida.
fooddata.dk/ShowFood.php?foodid¼795&2 (Accessed 17 April 2016).
Durst, P., Hanboonsong, Y., 2015. Small-scale production of edible insects forenhanced food security and rural livelihoods: experience from Thailand and Lao
People's Democratic Republic. J. Insect Food Feed 1, 25e31. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3920/JIFF2014.0019.

94

A. Halloran et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 156 (2017) 83e94

EFSA Scientiﬁc Committee, 2015. Risk proﬁle related to the production and consumption of insects as food and feed. EFSA J. 4257 (13), 1e60. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4257.
EPA, 2004. National Emission Inventory: Ammonia Emissions from Animal Husbandry Operations. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
EU Commission, 2010. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD)
Handbook - General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed Guidance. Joint
Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, ﬁrst ed. Publications Ofﬁce of the European Union, Luxembourg.
European Commission, 2012. Characterisation Factors of the ILCD Recommended
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Database and Supporting Information.
Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, ﬁrst ed.
Publications Ofﬁce of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Fedha, M., Mwasaru, M., Njoroge, C., Ojijo, N., Ouma, G., 2010. Effect of drying on
selected proximate composition of fresh and processed fruits and seeds of two
pumpkin species. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am. 1, 1299e1302. http://dx.doi.org/10.5251/
abjna.2010.1.6.1299.1302.
Finke, M.D., 2013. Complete nutrient content of four species of feeder insects. Zoo.
Biol. 32, 27e36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21012.
Finke, M.D., DeFoliart, G.R., Benevenga, N.J., 1989. Use of a four-parameter logistic
model to evaluate the quality of the protein from three insect species when fed
to rats. J. Nutr. 119, 864e871.
Grifﬁths, N., 2011. Best Practice Guidelines for Using Poultry Litter on Pastures.
Department of Industry Development, Agriculture & Forestry, New South Wales
Government, Australia, Sydney.
line, F., 2005. In situ measurement of ammonia and greenhouse gas
Guiziou, F., Be
emissions from broiler houses in France. Bioresource Technology, the 10th International Conference on Recycling of Agricultural. Munic. Industrial Residues
Agric. 96, 203e207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.05.009.
Halloran, A., Roos, N., Eilenberg, J., Cerutti, A.K., Bruun, S., 2016a. Life cycle assessment of edible insects for food protein: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0392-8 (in press).
Halloran, A., Roos, N., Flore, R., Hanboonsong, Y., 2016b. The development of theedible cricket industry in Thailand. J. Insect Food Feed 2, 91e100. http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2015.0091.
Halloran, A., Roos, N., Hanboonsong, Y., 2017. Cricket farming as a livelihood
strategy in Thailand. Geogr. J. 183, 112e124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
geoj.12184.
Hanboonsong, Y., Jamjanya, T., Durst, P.B., 2013. Six-legged Livestock: Edible Insect
Farming, Collecting and Marketing in Thailand. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Ofﬁce Asia and the Paciﬁc, Bangkok.
Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., Willett, W.C., 2013. Toward a life cycle-based, diet-level
framework for food environmental impact and nutritional quality assessment: acritical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 12632e12647. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1021/es4025113.
Jongema, Y., 2015. World List of Edible Insects [WWW Document]. World list of
edible insects. URL. http://www.wageningenur.nl/upload_mm/7/4/1/ca8baa25b035-4bd2-9fdc-a7df1405519a_WORLD%20LIST%20EDIBLE%20INSECTS%
202015.pdf (Accessed 28 April 2016).
Klunder, H.C., Wolkers-Rooijackers, J., Korpela, J.M., Nout, M.J.R., 2012. Microbiological aspects of processing and storage of edible insects. Food control.. 26,628e631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.02.013.
Latshaw, J.D., Bishop, B.L., 2001. Estimating body weight and body composition ofchickens by using noninvasive measurements. Poult. Sci. 80, 868e873.
LCA Food Database, 2007. LCA Food [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.lcafood.
dk/ (Accessed 14 April 2016).
Lundy, M.E., Parrella, M.P., 2015. Crickets are not a free lunch: protein capture fromscalable organic side-streams via high-density populations of Acheta domesticus. PLoS ONE 10, e0118785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118785.
Makkar, H.P.S., Ankers, P., 2014. Towards sustainable animal diets: a survey-based
study. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 198, 309e322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.anifeedsci.2014.09.018.
McFarlane, J., Distler, M., 1982. Effect of rutin on growth, fecundity and food utilization in Acheta domesticus. J. Insect Physiol. 28, 85e88.
Miglietta, P., De Leo, F., Ruberti, M., Massari, S., 2015. Mealworms for food: a water
footprint perspective. Water 7, 6190e6203. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
w7116190.
Mungkung, R., Gheewala, S.H., Kanyarushoki, C., Hospido, A., van der Werf, H.,
Poovarodom, N., Bonnet, S., Aubin, J., Teresa Moreira, M., Feijoo, G., 2012.
Product carbon footprinting in Thailand: a step towards sustainable consumption and production? Enviro. Dev. 3, 100e108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envdev.2012.03.019.
Nakagaki, B.J., Defoliart, G.R., 1991. Comparison of diets for mass-rearing Acheta

domesticus (Orthoptera: gryllidae) as a novelty food, and comparison of foodconversion efﬁciency with values reported for livestock. J. Econ. Enomol 84,891e896.
Nielsen, N., Jørgensen, M., Bahrndorff, S., 2012. Greenhouse Gas Emission from theDanish Broiler Production Estimated via LCA Methodology (Agrotech, Arhus).
Notarnicola, B., Salomone, R., Petti, L., Renzulli, P.A., Roma, R., Cerutti, A.K. (Eds.),
2015. Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector. Springer International
Publishing, Switzerland.
Oonincx, D.G.A.B., de Boer, I.J.M., 2012. Environmental impact of the production of
mealworms as a protein source for humans e a life cycle assessment. PLoS ONE
7, e51145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051145.
Oonincx, D.G.A.B., van Broekhoven, S., van Huis, A., van Loon, J.J.A., 2015. Feed
conversion, survival and development, and composition of four insect species
on diets composed of food by-products. PLoS ONE 10, e0144601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144601.
Oonincx, D.G.A.B., van Itterbeeck, J., Heetkamp, M.J.W., van den Brand, H., vanLoon, J.J.A., van Huis, A., 2010. An exploration on greenhouse gas and ammonia
production by insect species suitable for animal or human consumption. PLoS
One 5, e14445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014445.
Opio, C., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., MacLeod, M., Vellinga, T.,
Henderson, B., Steinfeld, H., 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emmission from Ruminant
Supply Chains: a Global Life Cycle Assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Paoletti, M.G., Norberto, L., Damini, R., Musumeci, S., 2007. Human gastric juicecontains chitinase that can degrade chitin. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 51, 244e251.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000104144.
Pelletier, N., 2008. Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: life
cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions. Agric. Syst. 98, 67e73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.agsy.2008.03.007.
squez, Y.,
Roffeis, M., Muys, B., Almeida, J., Mathijs, E., Achten, W.M.J., Pastor, B., Vela
Martinez-Sanchez, A.I., Rojo, S., 2015. Pig manure treatment with houseﬂy (Musca domestica ) rearing e an environmental life cycle assessment. J. Insect
Food Feed 1, 195e214. http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2014.0021.
Ruskulis, O., 2009. School Buildings in Developing Countries. Practical Action,
Rugby, UK.
Salomone, R., Saija, G., Mondello, G., Giannetto, A., Fasulo, S., Savastano, D., 2017.
Environmental impact of food waste bioconversion by insects: application ofLife Cycle Assessment to process using Hermetia illucens. J. Clean. Prod. 140,890e905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.154.
Shepherd, C.J., Jackson, A.J., 2013. Global ﬁshmeal and ﬁsh-oil supply: inputs, outputs and marketsa. J. Fish. Biol. 83, 1046e1066. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
jfb.12224.
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A., Heinz, V., 2015. Meat alternatives: life cycle
assessment of most known meat substitutes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20,
1254e1267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6.
Smetana, S., Palanisamy, M., Mathys, A., Heinz, V., 2016. Sustainability of insect use
for feed and food: life Cycle Assessment perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 137,
741e751. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.148.
€, A., Gustavsson, J., Wittho€ft, C., 2017. Protein quality as
Sonesson, U., Davis, J., Flysjo
functional unit e a methodological framework for inclusion in life cycle
assessment of food. J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.115. Towards eco-efﬁcient agriculture and food systems: selected
papers addressing the global challenges for food systems, including thosepresented at the Conference “LCA for Feeding the planet and energy for life” (68 October 2015, Stresa & Milan Expo, Italy) 140, Part 2, 470e478.
Temple, W., Bomke, A., Milligan, E., 2007. Factsheet: Poultry Litter as a Replacement
Fertilizer and Spreader Evaluations [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.
certiﬁedorganic.bc.ca/contacts/extension/p_litter.pdf.
Tongpool, R., Phanichavalit, N., Yuvaniyama, C., Mungcharoen, T., 2012. Improvement of the environmental performance of broiler feeds: a study via life cycle
assessment.
J.
Clean.
Prod.
35, 16e24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2012.05.007.
USEPA, 2004. National Emission Inventorydammonia Emissions from Animal
Husbandry Operations. United States Envrionmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
van der Werf, H.M.G., Salou, T., 2015. Economic value as a functional unit forenvironmental labelling of food and other consumer products. J. Clean. Prod. 94,
394e397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.077.
van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Muir, G.,
Vantomme, P., 2013. Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
World Bank, 2007. Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Poultry Processing. World Bank, Washington, D.C.