Previous Article in Journal
Spectral-Spatial Fusion for Soybean Quality Evaluation Using Hyperspectral Imaging
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Animal Feed Formulations Containing Conventional and Insect-Based Protein Sources

by
Anna Vatsanidou
1,
Styliani Konstantinidi
1,*,
Eleftherios Bonos
2 and
Ioannis Skoufos
2
1
Department of Agricultural Development, Agri-Food & Management of Natural Resources, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 34400 Evia, Greece
2
Laboratory of Animal Production, Nutrition and Biotechnology, Department of Agriculture, School of Agriculture, University of Ioannina, 47132 Arta, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
AgriEngineering 2025, 7(9), 275; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7090275
Submission received: 25 July 2025 / Revised: 9 August 2025 / Accepted: 13 August 2025 / Published: 26 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Bioresource and Bioprocess Engineering)

Abstract

The environmental burden of widely used protein sources in animal feeds, such as soybean and fishmeal, has raised concerns about the sustainability of current livestock production systems. In response, alternative protein sources are being explored, with insect meal emerging as a promising candidate. This study conducted a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of four compound pig feed formulations differing in protein composition, incorporating soybean meal, fishmeal, and Tenebrio molitor (insect) meal. The LCA followed ISO 14040/44 standards and applied both mass-based and protein-based functional units (FUs) to examine how FU choice influences environmental outcomes. Results showed that crop-derived ingredients, particularly soybean meal, drove most environmental burdens due to land use change and fertilizer inputs. Replacing soybean with insect meal led to impact reductions in key environmental categories. Insect meal’s scalability, efficient land use, and potential waste valorisation supported its role as a sustainable alternative. The study also highlighted key sustainability issues not assessed by LCA, such as overfishing and ecosystem disruption, associated with fishmeal. Overall, insect meal appeared to be a strong replacement for soybean and fishmeal, with soy substitution proving key to reducing environmental burdens. Finally, the protein-based FU was more relevant given the study’s nutritional focus.
Keywords: life cycle assessment (LCA); sustainable protein; pig feed formulations; soybean meal; fishmeal; insect meal; environmental impacts; functional unit choice life cycle assessment (LCA); sustainable protein; pig feed formulations; soybean meal; fishmeal; insect meal; environmental impacts; functional unit choice

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vatsanidou, A.; Konstantinidi, S.; Bonos, E.; Skoufos, I. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Animal Feed Formulations Containing Conventional and Insect-Based Protein Sources. AgriEngineering 2025, 7, 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7090275

AMA Style

Vatsanidou A, Konstantinidi S, Bonos E, Skoufos I. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Animal Feed Formulations Containing Conventional and Insect-Based Protein Sources. AgriEngineering. 2025; 7(9):275. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7090275

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vatsanidou, Anna, Styliani Konstantinidi, Eleftherios Bonos, and Ioannis Skoufos. 2025. "Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Animal Feed Formulations Containing Conventional and Insect-Based Protein Sources" AgriEngineering 7, no. 9: 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7090275

APA Style

Vatsanidou, A., Konstantinidi, S., Bonos, E., & Skoufos, I. (2025). Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Animal Feed Formulations Containing Conventional and Insect-Based Protein Sources. AgriEngineering, 7(9), 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7090275

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop