The climate impact and land use of cultivated meat: Evaluating agricultural feedstock production

demand for traditional pork production is lower than that for CM production. To estimate the energy demands, we utilized data from several sources. For CM, an average value was obtained from three separate studies: 205.50 MJ/kg [40], 106.00 MJ/kg [50], and 48.00 MJ/kg [95], yield- ing an average of 119.83 MJ/kg. We averaged data from pork production LCAs by Mattick et al. (2015) [50], Dourmad et al. (2014) [97], Reckmann et al. [98], Nguyen et al. (2011) [99], and Wiedemann et al. (2018) [100], which led to a value of 17.16 MJ/kg for pork meat. This led to a differential of 102.67 MJ/kg comparing pork and CM production. In light of the substantial energy differential between CM and pork production, we explored the prospect of integrating solar energy into the CM production process. Solar power was con- sidered as the technology is mostly independent from location factors and most easy to scale, making it more flexible than other renewable energy sources like wind energy. Projected fore- casts indicate the expansion of battery infrastructure in forthcoming years due to technological advancements and increased renewable energy integration [101, 102]. Recent trends have shown the performance of solar panels in the case study region of southern Germany to be approximately 1.35 ha MW/p [96] implying an estimated performance of 851,111.1 kWh/ha/ yr for solar panels in this region. This energy yield was then implemented as part of the crop rotation within our linear programming model. With this approach, we aim to navigate the energy challenge faced by CM production, pre-

senting a holistic picture of the energy requirements and potential strategies for optimizing resource use in this emerging industry. 3.5 Scenarios We present four CM production scenarios, each differing in crop extraction methods and solar energy integration to evaluate efficiency. Four scenarios were developed, each differing in the use of photovoltaic systems for energy supply and the extraction source for protein and sugar. Scenario 1 (max. extraction/no solar energy) involves the production of CM without the integration of photovoltaic systems. Instead, it relies solely on maximal extraction from crops for glucose and amino acids. This could be difficult to apply since it is challenging to fully extract both sugars and hydrolysates from crops. Scenario 2 (max. extraction/solar energy) enhances this approach by incorporating photovoltaic systems, harnessing solar energy to potentially reduce the carbon footprint and reliance on traditional energy sources, while maxi- mizing crop extraction. Scenario 3 (specific extraction/no solar energy), in contrast, excludes photovoltaic systems and instead adopts a more targeted but less efficient extraction approach, utilizing protein-rich plants specifically as protein source and separate energy crops for the required glucose inputs, aiming for resource optimization. Scenario 4 (specific extraction/solar energy) combines the methodologies of Scenarios 2 and 3, employing photovoltaic systems for electricity production and distinctly utilizing protein plants for amino acids and energy crops for glucose sourcing.

The results are compared to several studies that conducted LCAs for pork production. 3.6 Consideration of carbon opportunity costs The carbon opportunity cost of land use for CM is examined, incorporating forgone carbon sequestration into climate impact assessments. Food production and agriculture are responsi- ble for a significant share, namely one-third, of all global greenhouse gas emissions, with the majority emanating from land use and land use change [103]. Carbon opportunity cost is an approach that integrates the forgone carbon sequestration potential of land allocated to specific uses like agriculture rather than allowing it to remain in or revert to a natural state. Every par- cel of land has an intrinsic ability to capture and store carbon, particularly ecosystems like PLOS ONE Evaluating agricultural feedstock for cultivated meat PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316480 January 22, 2025 14 / 27