In the world of sustainable agriculture and alternative protein sources, insect protein has emerged as a revolutionary contender. Often praised for its efficient conversion rates, ability to be fed on waste, and minimal land usage, it seems like the perfect eco-friendly solution to feeding our planet. Yet, amid all this optimism lies an underexamined question: Could the climate impact of insect protein—under certain real-world conditions—actually exceed that of soy or fishmeal?
This is not a trivial inquiry. The agricultural world is shifting toward circular economies and low-carbon supply chains. If insect protein is misrepresented as a climate fix-all, we risk trading one unsustainable system for another. In this post, we delve deep into the climate metrics of insect farming, soy cultivation, and fishmeal production to uncover the nuanced truth.
🐛 What Is Insect Protein, Really?
Insect protein refers to high-protein products derived from insects, primarily black soldier fly larvae (BSFL), mealworms, and crickets. These insects are farmed at scale, processed into dried meals or oils, and used in livestock feed, aquaculture, pet food, and even some human foods.
Proponents highlight its benefits: insects grow rapidly, reproduce prolifically, require little space, and can digest organic waste. This makes them seem inherently sustainable. But as we’ll see, the sustainability of insect protein depends heavily on how and where it is produced—and what it is fed.
🔬 Life Cycle Assessment: The Climate Metric That Matters
To accurately assess environmental impact, we rely on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This method accounts for all emissions and environmental costs from cradle to grave—including feed sourcing, energy use during rearing, processing, and transport.
While insect protein can have a very low carbon footprint when raised on waste and powered by renewables, it can also have a dramatically high footprint when produced industrially using grains, fossil fuel energy, and inefficient processes.
One peer-reviewed study found that emissions for insect meal ranged from 1 kg to 14 kg of CO₂ equivalents per kg of protein, depending on production methods. That range is astonishing—and significantly overlaps or even surpasses soy and fishmeal in some scenarios.
🌾 Soymeal: A Mixed Bag of Efficiency and Ecological Damage
Soybean meal is a byproduct of oil extraction and has become the world’s primary plant-based protein for animal feed. While its carbon footprint per kilogram of protein can be relatively moderate (around 2 to 3.5 kg CO₂/kg protein), the land-use impact is profound.
Vast stretches of the Amazon and Cerrado have been cleared for soy cultivation, releasing massive amounts of carbon from deforestation. The application of synthetic fertilizers further drives up emissions through nitrous oxide release, a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO₂.
Soy does benefit from existing infrastructure and large-scale economies. However, it’s deeply implicated in biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and water pollution—issues that aren’t easily solved by improved farming methods alone.
🐟 Fishmeal: Ocean Depletion With Moderate Emissions
Fishmeal is produced by rendering down forage fish like anchovies, mackerel, or sardines. In terms of direct carbon emissions, fishmeal can seem benign, often ranging between 3 to 5 kg CO₂ per kg of protein. Yet its sustainability breaks down when we consider marine ecosystem destruction.
Industrial fishing for fishmeal depletes wild fish stocks, destabilizes aquatic food chains, and undermines the livelihoods of small-scale fishermen. Although fishmeal does not require land or irrigation, it contributes significantly to oceanic biodiversity loss, which carries indirect environmental costs not always captured in LCAs.
As fish stocks diminish, fishmeal becomes both unsustainable and unethical, even if its carbon metrics appear favorable.
🔥 When Insect Farming Turns Into a Climate Problem
The sustainability advantage of insects vanishes when farms abandon organic waste streams in favor of conventional grain-based feeds. Using soy, wheat, or corn as inputs recreates the exact agricultural externalities insect farming is supposed to avoid—land use, pesticide application, and high embedded carbon emissions.
Furthermore, insect farming is often highly energy-intensive. Unlike terrestrial livestock that self-regulate body temperature, insect colonies require climate-controlled environments. Maintaining optimal heat and humidity—especially in temperate regions—demands continuous energy. Drying insect biomass, a necessary step for shelf-stable protein, also consumes substantial electricity or gas.
In pilot and small-scale facilities, inefficiencies in heating, processing, and labor make emissions skyrocket. These farms may require 10–15 times more energy per kg of protein than scaled operations.
Lastly, infrastructure and packaging also contribute to insect farming’s footprint. Startup insect farms often overbuild with steel, plastic, and automation that carry a high environmental cost during the construction phase.
✅ When Insect Protein Actually Works for the Planet
Despite these challenges, insect protein can outperform soy and fishmeal under a different set of circumstances. The most crucial factor is the input feed source. When insects are raised on post-consumer waste, spent grain from breweries, or manure, their net emissions plummet. These feedstocks would otherwise emit methane or require costly disposal—so diverting them to insect farms creates a climate-positive loop.
Second, location matters. In tropical countries where insects can grow without artificial heating, energy use drops significantly. If farms also utilize renewable power sources—solar, biogas, or geothermal—their carbon footprint shrinks further.
Third, the closer the insect farm is to its end market (e.g., a poultry farm using on-site BSFL protein), the fewer emissions occur from transportation and cold storage. This localization effect is powerful and is rarely possible with soy or fishmeal, which are typically shipped internationally.
🧬 Nutritional Value: More Than Just Emissions
Climate is only part of the equation. Insect protein offers a complete amino acid profile with high bioavailability. For monogastric animals like pigs, chickens, and fish, it can match or exceed the nutritional value of soy.
BSFL meal, for instance, contains up to 60–75% protein, along with beneficial fats, calcium, and antimicrobial peptides. Unlike soy, which must be heat-treated to remove anti-nutritional factors, insect meal is biologically ready for consumption after drying.
This makes insects especially suitable for young chicks, piglets, or fish fry—stages where protein quality directly affects survival and growth.
🌍 Global Adoption: What’s the Limit?
Currently, insect protein represents a tiny fraction of global feed markets. As of 2025, the total global production is under 1 million metric tons per year, compared to over 250 million tons of soymeal.
Scaling insect protein means overcoming major barriers:
- Cost: At $3–5/kg, insect protein is still much more expensive than soy ($0.50–1.50/kg).
- Regulation: Many regions restrict insects in livestock feed, especially for ruminants.
- Supply Chain Complexity: Waste-sourcing, biosecurity, and quality control require rigorous systems not yet standardized globally.
Yet the future looks promising. Several African and Southeast Asian nations are investing in community-scale insect farms that process local waste into usable protein and fertilizer—a model that sidesteps both carbon and cost challenges.
🧠 Conclusion: A Systemic Perspective Is Essential
So, can insect protein’s climate impact exceed soy or fishmeal?
Yes—if poorly managed. But no—if managed well.
Insect protein is not inherently sustainable. It becomes a solution only when part of a thoughtful, circular, and localized system. When fed with food waste, powered by renewables, and integrated into local feed chains, insect protein is one of the best tools we have to lower agriculture’s carbon footprint.
But if insect farming mimics industrial livestock systems—grain-based diets, fossil fuel heating, long-distance logistics—it may well produce worse climate outcomes than soy or fishmeal.
Ultimately, it’s not about replacing one protein source with another. It’s about rethinking the entire supply chain—what we feed our food, how we process it, and what kind of food system we want to build.