Understanding the factors influencing citizens’ willingness-to-accept the use of insects to feed poultry, cattle, pig and fish in Brazil

The increase in world’s population will cause a high demand of animal-sourced food, which will require a boost in the production of protein, because protein is an important component of animal feed. A higher production of protein, however, might contribute for the depletion of environmental resources. In this scenario, the use of insects as an alternative source of protein to feed animals could be a solution. However, citizens’ willingness-to-accept insect as a source of protein to feed animals is unknown, particularly in developing countries, such as Brazil. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors influencing citizens’ willingness-to-accept the use of insects to feed poultry, cattle, pig and fish. To reach this aim, we conducted an online survey with Brazilian citizens. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics and four logistic regression models. In each of logistic models, the dependent variable was citizens’ willingness-to-accept the use of insects to feed either poultry, or cattle, or pig or fish. A set of independent variables including socio-demographic characteristics, attitudes, perceived benefits, perceived risks, and perceived concerns were used to explain citizens' willingness-to-accept the use of insect to feed animals. Results showed that most citizens would accept that poultry, pig, and fish receive insect-based diets, and half of the citizens would accept and half would not accept that cattle receive such diet. Results of the logistic regression models showed that citizens who had a positive attitude about using insects to feed animals were more willing-to-accept the use of insect to feed poultry, cattle, pig, and fish compared to those who had a negative attitude. Citizens who perceived the benefits of using insect to feed animals were less willing-to-accept the use of insects to feed poultry compared to those who didn’t perceive the benefits. Citizens who perceived the benefits of using insects to feed animals were more willing-to-accept the use of insect to feed fish compared to those who didn’t perceive the benefits. Citizens who were more concerned about using insect to feed animals were more willing-to-accept the use of insects to feed poultry compared to those who were less concerned. Finally, citizens who were more concerned about using insects to feed animals were less willing-to-accept the use of insect to feed pigs compared to those who were less concerned. These results revealed important insights that can be used to design strategies to increase the acceptance of the use of insects to feed poultry, cattle, pig, and fish.

towards the use of insect to feed animals, perceived benefits, perceived risks and perceived concerns about the use of We developed four similar questionnaires. Each questionnaire focuses in a specific specie (i.e. poultry, cattle, group, we measured socio-demographic characteristics (i.e. gender, age, income, educational level, local of residence 105 and region). We also measured previous contact with the specific specie. In the same group of questions, we measured 106 willingness-to-accept the use of insects to feed animals in a binary response '0 = no', '1 = yes'. All these variables are 107 presented in Table A1.

108
In the second group, we measured general attitudes towards rearing insects instead of crops to use in animal 109 feed, and of using insects as an ingredient in animal feed (see Table A2; Attitude 1 -8). To measure these questions, we 110 used a five-point semantic differential scales with four items each, namely 'bad-good', 'negative-positive', 'uneasy-111 easy' and 'not satisfied-satisfied'. Next, we used statements to measure attitudes towards using insects to feed specific 112 species (poultry, cattle, pig, and fish) (see Table A2; Attitude 9 -12). These statements were measured using five-point 113 semantic differential scales with four response items per specie, namely 'not meaningful-meaningful', 'not desirable-114 desirable', 'not feasible-feasible' and 'not acceptable-acceptable'.

115
In the third group, we used statements to measure perceptions related to five possible benefits and seven 116 possible risks about the use of insects to feed animals (see Table A3). These statements were measured on a five-point indicate that there is a high degree of internal reliability among the items measuring each of these factors (Hair et al., 133 2010).

134
Statistical analysis was conducted in two steps. In a first step, we used factor analysis to reduce the number of 135 items used to represent citizens' attitudes, citizen's perceived benefits, citizens' perceived risks, and citizens' perceived 136 concerns about the use of animals to feed animals. Principal component was used as the extraction method. The 137 criterion to define the number of factors was an eigenvalue greater than one (Hair et al., 2010). Items were included in a 138 factor when they presented factor loadings greater than 0.5. Factors scores were generated for subsequent analysis (Hair

140
In a second step, we run four logistic regression models. The dependent variable was citizens' willingness-to-141 accept the use of insects to feed animals. We tested the impact of five groups of independent variables: socio-142 demographic characteristics, attitudes, perceived benefits, perceived risks, perceived concerns about the use of insects 143 to feed animals. The significance level was p<0.05. We assessed multicollinearity by running multiple regressions, each 144 with a different item as the dependent variable and all the rest of the items as independent variables, and then checking 145 the tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) (Kline, 2011). We found high multicollinearity between the items that 146 measured general attitudes and the variables that measured attitudes towards specific specie. Thus, we decided to 147 maintain in the analysis only the variables that measure attitudes towards using insects to feed specific species   Table 1. In the four questionnaires, socio-demographic characteristics of 152 the samples were similar except for gender, income, and type of contact with the specific specie. In the poultry and fish 153 questionnaires, the majority of respondents were males. The samples in the poultry and cattle questionnaires had a 154 lower income compared to the samples in the pig and fish questionnaires. The type of contact with the different specie 155 was similar between poultry and fish questionnaires and between cattle and pig questionnaires. Results showed that 156 most citizens would accept that poultry, pig, and fish receive insect-based diets, and half of the citizens would accept indicated that there is a high degree of internal reliability among the items measuring each of these factors.

221
a All the statements were measured using a Likert-type scale (1: not concern at all; 2: rather not concerned; 3:neither 222 agree nor disagree, 4: rather concerned, and 5: very much concerned); b The words 'poultry or broiler' was replaced 223 by the word 'beef or cattle' in the beef questionnaire, by the word 'pig or pork' in the pig questionnaire and by the 224 word 'fish' in the fish questionnaire.

Logistic regression models 226
We tested whether socio-demographic characteristics, attitudes, perceived benefits, perceived risks, and reported a lower income were less willing-to-accept the use of insect to feed fish compared to those citizens who 238 reported a higher income. Citizens who reported previous contact with pig' farms were more willing-to-accept the use 239 of insects to feed pigs compared to citizens who had not reported previous contact. Citizens who had a positive attitude 240 towards the use of insect to feed animals were more likely to accept the use of insects to feed poultry, pig, cattle, and 241 fish compared to those who had a negative attitude. Citizens who perceived the benefits of using insect to feed animals 242 were less willing-to-accept the use of insects to feed poultry compared to those who didn't perceive the benefits.

243
Citizens who perceived the benefits of using insects to feed animals were more willing-to-accept the use of insect to 244 feed fish compared to those who didn't perceive the benefits. Citizens who were more concerned about using insect to 245 feed animals were more willing-to-accept the use of insects to feed poultry compared to those who were less concerned.

246
Finally, citizens who were more concerned about using insects to feed animals were less willing-to-accept the use of 247 insect to feed pigs compared to those who were less concerned.  animals. In addition, citizens who reported previous contact with pigs were more willing-to-accept the use of insects to 284 feed pigs than those who did not report previous contact.

285
Results of the logistic models showed that citizens' attitude towards the use of insects to feed animals 286 consistently explain citizens' willingness-to-accept the use of insects to feed animals, regardless of the specie fed. These 287 results are in line with previous literature that found that individuals holding more positive attitudes were more willing 288 to accept new food technologies ( Van huis, 2013;Verbeke et al., 2015;Vidigal et al., 2015;Hartmann et al., 2015; 289 Sogari et al., 2019). Such result is important, because personal attitudes related to the use of insects to feed animals 290 might outweigh the adverse impact of perceived uncertainty and perceived concern related to it (Verbeke et al., 2015).

291
Results of the logistic models also showed that the perceived benefits impact on citizens' willingness-to-accept 292 the use of insects to feed poultry and fish. Surprisingly, citizens who perceived the benefits of using insect to feed 293 animals were less willing-to-accept the use of insect to feed poultry. This result is hard to explain. A possible consumers are unable to decide on the choice and be hesitant to accept new food technologies when it is associated with 297 unclear benefits. In contrast, our results showed that citizens who perceived the benefits of using insect to feed animals 2009;Van Huis, 2013;Verbeke et al., 2015;Vidigal et al., 2015;Hartmann et al., 2015). Therefore, we recommend 301 further studies exploring the role of perceived benefits on citizens' willingness to accept the use of insects to feed 302 animals.

303
In our logistic regression models we also found that perceived concerns impact on citizens' willingness-to-304 accept the use of insects to feed poultry and pig. Again, results for poultry are difficult to interpret, because citizens who

305
were more concerned about using insect to feed animals were more willing-to-accept the use of insects to feed poultry 306 compared to those who were less concerned. A possible explanation is that individuals who are presented to unfamiliar 307 food technologies might not understand it, causing some resistance and concerns (Vidigal et al., 2015). However, 308 citizens who were more concerned about using insect to feed animals were less willing-to-accept the use of insects to 309 feed pigs compared to those who were less concerned, which makes much more sense.

310
From a private and public policies perspective, our results provide insights that can be used to design strategies 311 to increase the acceptance of the use of insects to feed poultry, cattle, pig, and fish. The strong and consistent impact of 312 attitudes on citizens-willingness to accept highlights the importance of design strategies to disseminate the benefits of 313 using insects to feed animals. For instance, we believe that important benefits to be disseminated by information 314 campaigns are, for instance, 'the use of insects to feed animals decrease environmental impact of food production' and

315
'the use of insects to feed animals increase animal productivity'. In addition, academia and industries should collaborate 316 closely to develop more research and technology related to the use of insect to feed animals and the population should 317 be engaged in this process, which might increase the willingness to accept this technology.