The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Exploration on Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Production by Insect Species Suitable for Animal or Human Consumption
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Greenhouse gas (GHG) production, as a cause of climate change, is considered as one of the biggest problems society is currently facing. The livestock sector is one of the large contributors of anthropogenic GHG emissions. Also, large amounts of ammonia (NH(3)), leading to soil nitrification and acidification, are produced by livestock. Therefore other sources of animal protein, like edible insects, are currently being considered. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: An experiment was conducted to quantify production of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and average daily gain (ADG) as a measure of feed conversion efficiency, and to quantify the production of the greenhouse gases methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) as well as NH₃ by five insect species of which the first three are considered edible: Tenebrio molitor, Acheta domesticus, Locusta migratoria, Pachnoda marginata, and Blaptica dubia. Large differences were found among the species regarding their production of CO₂ and GHGs. The insects in this study had a higher relative growth rate and emitted comparable or lower amounts of GHG than described in literature for pigs and much lower amounts of GHG than cattle. The same was true for CO₂ production per kg of metabolic weight and per kg of mass gain. Furthermore, also the production of NH₃ by insects was lower than for conventional livestock. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study therefore indicates that insects could serve as a more environmentally friendly alternative for the production of animal protein with respect to GHG and NH₃ emissions. The results of this study can be used as basic information to compare the production of insects with conventional livestock by means of a life cycle analysis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Scaling of insect metabolic rate is inconsistent with the nutrient supply network model
CHOWN, S. L., MARAIS, E., TERBLANCHE, J. S., KLOK, C. J., LIGHTON, J. R. B., & BLACKBURN, T. M. (2007) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01245.x · Cited by 253
Cited by
Review of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) as animal feed and human food.
Wang, Y.-S., & Shelomi, M. (2017) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods6100091 · Cited by 812
EFSA Scientific Committee (2015) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4257 · Cited by 804
Barragan-Fonseca, K. B., Dicke, M., & van Loon, J. J. A. (2017) · Journal of Insects as Food and Feed · doi:10.3920/jiff2016.0055 · Cited by 771
Salomone, R., Saija, G., Mondello, G., Giannetto, A., Fasulo, S., & Savastano, D. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.154 · Cited by 529
Gold, M., Tomberlin, J. K., Diener, S., Zurbrügg, C., & Mathys, A. (2018) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2018.10.022 · Cited by 528
Metadata
- Authors
- Oonincx, D. G. A. B., van Itterbeeck, J., Heetkamp, M. J. W., van den Brand, H., van Loon, J. J. A., & van Huis, A.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2010-12-29
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e14445
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2110822964
- Cited by
- 853
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Exploration on Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Production by Insect Species Suitable for Animal or Human Consumption. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0014445
- The paper
- Oonincx, D. G. A. B., van Itterbeeck, J., Heetkamp, M. J. W., van den Brand, H., van Loon, 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014445
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.