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

But the consumption of protein-rich foods is marked by their substantial land and resource demands [9–12]. In addition to complex concerns surrounding animal welfare and ethical considerations [13–15], the resource utilization of animal-sourced foods has become a focal point in both everyday discourse and academic research. Increasing consumption rates in lower-income countries and the Global South also lead to dependencies and geographically detached environmental influences due to imported animal feed [16, 17]. Pork is the most consumed meat globally, and its production alone covers more than 5% of all croplands worldwide. The feed conversion ratio and environmental impact of pig farming are highly dependent on effective management practices and the quality of feed used. Profi- cient management can significantly enhance the sustainability of pig farming operations [18]. Based on feed conversion ratios, pork production efficiency lies between that of chicken and beef [19, 20]. Life cycle assessments (LCAs) accentuate the extensive environmental footprint of pork production, encompassing factors like greenhouse gas emissions, land and energy use [21]. Feed production and mixture, which influence land use, as well as waste management, which affect methane emissions and nitrate pollution, are the most critical factors impacting the environmental footprint of pork production [22]. These environmental concerns, also linked to meat production in general, have amplified the quest for sustainable alternatives, especially those with a rich protein content [23–25].

A subset of these innovations are animal proteins made from cell cultivation, which directly mimic traditional animal products in flavor, appearance, and composition. Cultivated meat (CM) represents one of those technologies [26–28]. Using in-vitro techniques, animal cells are cultivated in a controlled setting, obviating animal rearing, slaughter, and thereby animal wel- fare issues [29–31]. Notably, the CM domain witnessed significant strides with the unveiling of the first CM burger in 2013 [32]. Consumers are generally open to eating CM [33, 34]. Especially ethical advantages in terms of environmental sustainability and animal welfare are influencing consumers’ willingness to try and eat CM [35]. On the other hand, perceived risks and unnaturalness make consumers critical [36]. Existing LCAs on CM present a spectrum of conclusions, from overtly skeptical [37–39] to decidedly optimistic [40–42]. While CM emanates promise as a greener substitute for tradi- tional meat, the sector remains nascent with pronounced information voids [23, 30, 43]. Par- ticularly, there is a dearth of clarity on how emerging countries, where meat demand is rising, can develop the necessary capabilities to integrate CM technology, as most startups are based in developed countries [44]. Given the elevated demand for meat–and possibly CM–substantial input commodities will be required for the nourishment of CM cells. Consequently, agricultural production could play a pivotal role in this supply chain [45]. Central to CM’s efficacy is cell media, which is a

composite vital for in-vitro cellular growth [41, 46]. The cost-effective synthesis of cell media is pivotal for ensuring efficiency in resource and monetary terms. The cost of cell media which is 55%–95% of CM’s total cost, is mainly caused by cytokines and transferrine production [47, 48]. The cause of these high costs is mainly the lack of industry scaling [49]. Current research posits agricultural crops, predominantly maize and soy, as feasible crop-based nutrient sources for CM’s media [40, 41, 50]. But some parts of the feedstock are also added by precision fer- mentation microbial or chemical production in the case of Sinke et al., 2023 [41] for instance 25%, while 75% from soy hydrolysate. The production of cell culture medium ingredients has high influence on the environmental impact of CM [42]. Contrary to Sinke et al. (2023) [41], Tuomisto et al. (2022) [42] further recommend exploring amino acid production using hydro- lysates from legumes among other things. PLOS ONE Evaluating agricultural feedstock for cultivated meat PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316480 January 22, 2025 2 / 27 Funding: Funding for the authors’ research position, which supported the completion of this study, was provided by the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and the Arts as part of the High-Tech Agenda Bavaria. This article was additionally funded by the Open Access Publication Fund of Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Sciences. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.