Sustainability targets set by the United Nations, such as Zero Hunger by 2030, encourage the search for innovative solutions to enhance food production while preserving the environment. Alternative protein sources for feed, while conventional resources like soymeal and fishmeal become more expensive and scarcer, is one of the possibilities. Studies on substituting fishmeal with insect meal show promising results in terms of animal growth and feed efficiency. This paper aims to assess the socio-economic benefits and costs of insect meal substituting fishmeal in feed and to highlight the factors influencing performance most. The study evaluates the economic value of insect-based products, waste reduction, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions as socio-economic benefits. It combines empirical data derived from laboratory trials and two case studies covering black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) and yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor). Current analyses reveal negative socio-economic balances, emphasizing that reduction of operating and investment costs through upscaling and technological advancements can give a positive move, as well as factors such as current market valuations for nutrients can change significantly. Thus, a negative balance at the moment does not mean that insect rearing, and larva processing are not desirable from a long-term socio-economic perspective.

Climate change is one of the major challenges of our time, and particularly so for agriculture. Agriculture is a significant contributor to climate change and, according to projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will experience alterations in production conditions in the future. The Norwegian government’s 2009 White Paper on climate policy for agriculture is based on the point of view that the agricultural sector can and should contribute to Norway fulfilling its climate policy commitments. This requires changes in farm operations and production methods, making the farmer an important agent when it comes to the implementation of climate change mitigation measures. In this article, I study Norwegian farmers’ climate change perceptions and priorities, and examine what it would take for them to consider implementing mitigation measures on their own farms. The analysis is based on a survey focusing on climate change from a representative sample of Norwegian farmers in 2011, the only survey of its kind conducted on this group so far. The results show that even if farmers perceive climate change as real and manmade, they do not appear to experience the changes as requiring immediate action. Moreover, farmers seem to view adapting to new environmental policy as a greater challenge than adapting to climate change itself. Farmers also appear to place production-related goals and managing the farm economy higher on the agenda than curbing emissions. Financial incentives, in the form of public support schemes or higher prices for food produced in a more environmentally friendly way, are factors which could increase the likelihood of implementing environmental measures on their own farms. A majority of farmers also believe that sectors other than agriculture should contribute more to cuts in greenhouse gases. Factors that most clearly explain the variation in attitudes to climate change are education levels, political or ideological factors, and the feeling of proximity; that is to say, to what extent one perceives climate change to be something that will affect one’s own productivity in the future. In order to fulfill environmental policy commitments in the agricultural sector, farmers’ motivation must be strengthened, and the focus should be placed on measures that view productivity goals, farm economies and mitigation measures in a wider context.