Insects as mini-livestock: Considering insect welfare in feed production

Figures & data

Table 1. Animal welfare requirements: a brief summary.

The Brambell Commission was set up by the British government, in response to public concerns after the publication of Ruth Harrison’s book Animal Machines, which described the conditions of animals living in modern production systems. Findings in the Brambell Report were developed into the so-called Five Freedoms by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). These freedoms should safeguard the animals against: (1) thirst, hunger and malnutrition; (2) physical and physiological discomfort; (3) pain, injury and disease; (4) fear, distress and chronic stress; (5) limitation of natural behaviour. These freedoms influenced European animal welfare regulations, as this concept has served as a baseline for regulatory decisions (Simonin & Gavinelli, 2019). The Dutch Council of Animal Affairs (2018) maintain that welfare requirements for insects should follow the so-called Five Freedoms concept. However, this concept has faced criticism for its limitations, related to normative assumptions underlying the (supposed) objective measurements of animal welfare. Specifically, welfare is construed negatively, limited to the absence of negative states (Korte et al., 2007; Mellor, 2016a, 2016b; Mellor & Beausoleil, 2015; Yeates & Main, 2008). Such welfarism has been criticised for accepting most uses of animals, as long as it minimizes pain and suffering (Haynes, 2011). Moreover, it excludes definitions of welfare that focus on the whole course of an animal’s life and a wide spectrum of natural behaviours (Fraser et al., 1997). The so-called “allostasis model”, for example, illustrates that the capacity to adapt and change are important determinants of welfare and therefore, the Five Freedoms concept is too static (Korte et al., 2007; McEwen & Wingfield, 2003). Short-term stressors are not necessarily problematic, as long as the animal reaches a base level of welfare rapidly after the perturbation; challenging animals by exposing them to diverse environments is likely to contribute to positive welfare (Mellor & Beausoleil, 2015, p. 245; Spinka & Wemesfelder, 2011, p. 27). Being able to exercise one’s agency (Wemelsfelder, 1997) results in the positive experience of being in control (Mellor & Beausoleil, 2015, p. 247). Mellor and Beausoleil (2015) propose an alternative to the Five Freedoms – an “extended Five Domains model” - which is more fine-grained, takes into account positive welfare, considers both welfare experienced at a particular point in time as well as over a longer period, and distinguishes between different animal species, lifecycle stages and keeping contexts (e.g. farming, zoos, companion). Another initiative to include a wider range of criteria, in particular positive welfare as well as contextual parameters (Blokhuis et al., 2010) is offered by the Welfare Quality Network (Blokhuis et al., 2013). For example, when considering the welfare of fly larvae, it may be beneficial to prioritize factors such as substrate preference, or abiotic conditions that mimic natural day and night cycles (fluctuating temperatures and varying light exposure). Such an approach is likely to differ from one focused solely on maximizing growth, which may not align with the animals’ natural environment, behaviour and needs. The inclusion of a wider range of both negative and positive effects shifts the focus from providing minimum conditions to environmental enrichment. For example, Mallory et al. (2016) have shown that environmental enrichment affects the memory of adult house crickets (Acheta domesticus), and Julita et al. (2020) demonstrated that, under direct and full sunlight in tropical environments, the black soldier fly exhibits optimal mating and reproductive behaviour, that is, when kept in semi-outdoor conditions. Note, however, that semi-outdoor conditions in regions with temperate climates are unlikely to provide an enriching environment due to the lower temperatures and relatively low lengths of light periods. Finally, a focus on positive welfare could impact the environmental benefits, economic feasibility, and final eco-efficiency of the entire system (Spykman et al., 2021).

Figure 1. A pragmatic approach to insect welfare focusing on the black soldier fly and the house fly, combining traditional animal welfare criteria with positive welfare and animal agency.

Simonin, D., & Gavinelli, A.2019The European Union legislation on animal welfare: State of play, enforcement and future activitiesIn S. Hild & L. SchweitzerEds.Animal welfare, from science to lawpp. 59–70Retrieved fromhttps://www.fondation-droit-animal.org/documents/6-SIMONIN-et-al-AnimalWelfare2019.v1.pdf

 Google Scholar

The Dutch Council of Animal Affairs. (2018). The Emerging Insect Industry; Invertebrates as production animals. Retrieved from: https://english.rda.nl/publications/publications/2018/09/03/the-emerging-insect-industry

 Google Scholar

Korte, S. M., Olivier, B., & Koolhaas, J. M. (2007). A new animal welfare concept based on allostasis. Physiology & Behavior, 92(3), 422–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.10.018

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mellor, D. J. (2016a). Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” by updating the “Five Provisions” and introducing aligned “Animal Welfare Aims”. Animals, 6(10), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6100059

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mellor, D. J. (2016b). Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “a Life Worth Living”. Animals, 6(3), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6030021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mellor, D. J., & Beausoleil, N. J. (2015). Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare, 24(3), 241. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.3.241

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yeates, J. W., & Main, D. C. J. (2008). Assessment of positive welfare: A review. The Veterinary Journal, 175(3), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Haynes, R. P. (2011). Competing conceptions of animal welfare and their ethical implications for the treatment of non-human animals. Acta Biotheoretica, 59(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-011-9124-2

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare, 6, 187–205. Retrieved from. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=ethawel

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McEwen, B. S., & Wingfield, J. C. (2003). The concept of allostasis in biology and biomedicine. Hormones and Behavior, 43(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0018-506X(02)00024-7

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spinka, M., & Wemesfelder, F. (2011). Environmental challenge and animal agency. Animal welfare, CAB International. p27–44. Retrieved from: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=acwp_asie

 Google Scholar

Wemelsfelder, F. (1997). The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 53(1–2), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01152-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blokhuis, H. J., Veissier, I., Miele, M., & Jones, B. (2010). The welfare quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science, 60(3), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2010.523480

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blokhuis, H. J., Veissier, I., Jones, B., & Miele, M. (2013). The welfare quality® vision. In H. Blokhuis, M. Miele, I. Veissier, & B. Jones Eds., Improving farm animal welfare Wageningen Academic Publishers https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7_4

 Google Scholar

Mallory, H. S., Howard, A. F., Weiss, M., & Raine, N. E. (2016). Timing of Environmental Enrichment Affects Memory in the House Cricket, Acheta domesticus. Plos One, 11(4), e0152245. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152245

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Julita, U., Lusianti F, L. L., Putra, R. E., & Permana, A. D. (2020). Mating success and reproductive behavior of black soldier fly Hermetia illucens l. (Diptera, Stratiomyidae) in Tropics. Journal of Entomology, 17(3), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.3923/je.2020.117.127

 Google Scholar

Spykman, R., Hossaini, S. M., Peguero, D. A., Green, A., Heinz, V., & Smetana, S. (2021). A modular environmental and economic assessment applied to the production of Hermetia Illucens larvae as a protein source for food and feed. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(10), 1959–1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01986-y

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar