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

71. Jairath G, Mal G, Gopinath D, Singh B. A holistic approach to access the viability of cultured meat: A review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2021; 110:700–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.024 72. Letti LAJ, Karp SG, Molento CFM, Colonia BSO, Boschero RA, Soccol VT, et al. Cultivated meat: Recent technological developments, current market and future challenges. Biotechnol Res Innov. 2021; 5(1). https://doi.org/10.4322/biori.202101 73. Van Der Weele C, Tramper J. Cultured meat: Every village its own factory? Trends Biotechnol. 2014; 32(6):294–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.04.009 PMID: 24856100 74. Morais-da-Silva RL, Villar EG, Reis GG, Sanctorum H, Molento CFM. The expected impact of culti- vated and plant-based meats on jobs: The views of experts from Brazil, the United States and Europe. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1):297. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01316-z 75. Bryant C., Culture meat, and cultured meat. J Anim Sci. 2020; 98(8). https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/ skaa172 PMID: 32745186 76. Heidemann MS, Taconeli CA, Reis GG, Parisi G, Molento CFM. Critical perspective of animal produc- tion specialists on cell-based meat in Brazil: From bottleneck to best scenarios. Animals. 2020; 10 (9):1678. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091678 PMID: 32957553 77. Alotaibi A, Nadeem F. A review of applications of linear programming to optimize agricultural solutions. Int J Inf Eng Electron Bus. 2021; 13(2):11–21. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijieeb.2021.02.02 78. Acs S, Berentsen PBM, Huirne RBM. Conversion to organic arable farming in The Netherlands: A

dynamic linear programming analysis. Agric Syst. 2007; 94(2):405–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy. 2006.11.002 79. Gala´ n-Martı´n A´ , Pozo C, Guille´n-Gosa´lbez G, Anto´ n Vallejo A, Jime´ nez Esteller L. Multi-stage linear programming model for optimizing cropping plan decisions under the new Common Agricultural Policy. Land Use Policy. 2015; 48:515–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.022 80. Jeffrey SR, Gibson RR, Faminow MD. Nearly optimal linear programming as a guide to agricultural planning. Linear Programming. 1992. 81. Tro¨ster MF, Heinz M, Durst L. Determining the value of novel feedstuffs in imperfect markets, taking Lupinus albus as an example. Agric. 2023; 13(4):867. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040867 82. LfL. LfL Deckungsbeitra¨ ge und Kalkulationsdaten; Erntejahre: 2017–2021. 2023. Available from: https://www.stmelf.bayern.de/idb/default.html. 83. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2023. Available from: https:// www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data. 84. Kolbe VH, Meyer D, Schmidtke K. Schlaggenaue Analyse von 32 Betrieben des o¨ kologischen Land- baus im Freistaat Sachsen: Fruchtfolgegestaltung. 2021; 99(1). https://doi.org/10.12767/buel.v99i1 85. Soisontes S, Freund F, Laquai V. The future of protein feed: A case study of sustainable substitutes in the German livestock industry. Environ Dev Sustain. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023- 03676-1 86. Agomoh IV, Drury CF, Yang X, Phillips LA, Reynolds WD. Crop rotation enhances soybean yields and

soil health indicators. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2021; 85(4):1185–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20241 87. Greer K, Martins C, White M, Pittelkow CM. Assessment of high-input soybean management in the US Midwest: Balancing crop production with environmental performance. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2020; 292:106811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106811 88. USDA. USDA—National Agricultural Statistics Service Homepage. 2023. Available from: https://www. nass.usda.gov/. 89. Diercks R, Heitefuss R, editors. Integrierter Landbau: Systeme umweltbewußter Pflanzenproduktion; Grundlagen, Praxiserfahrungen, Entwicklungen; Ackerbau, Gemu¨ se, Obst, Hopfen, Gru¨nland. BLV- Verl.-Ges. 1990. 90. Reckling M, Hecker JM, Bergkvist G, Watson CA, Zander P, Schla¨fke N, et al. A cropping system assessment framework—Evaluating effects of introducing legumes into crop rotations. Eur J Agron. 2016; 76:186–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2015.11.005 91. Navarro DMDL, Abelilla JJ, Stein HH. Structures and characteristics of carbohydrates in diets fed to pigs: A review. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2019; 10(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-019-0345-6 PMID: 31049199 92. Durst L, Freitag M, Bellof G. Futtermittel fu¨r landwirtschaftliche Nutztiere. DLG-Verlag; 2021. 93. INRAE. INRA-CIRAD-AFZ feed tables | Tables of composition and nutritional values of feed materials. 2023. Available from: https://www.feedtables.com/content/inra-cirad-afz-feed-tables. 94. DESTATIS. Ernte- und Betriebsberichterstattung (EBE): Feldfru¨chte und Gru¨ nland. Qualita¨ tsbericht.

2020. Available from: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Methoden/Qualitaet/Qualitaetsberichte/Land- Forstwirtschaft-Fischerei/ernte-ebe.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. PLOS ONE Evaluating agricultural feedstock for cultivated meat PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316480 January 22, 2025 25 / 27