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

95. Tuomisto HL, Ellis MJ, Haastrup P. Environmental impacts of cultured meat: Alternative production scenarios. 2014. 96. Bo¨hm VJ, de Witte T, Plaas E. PV-Freifla¨chenanlagen: Rahmenbedingungen und Wirtschaftlichkeit. Ber Landwirtsch. 2022; 100(2). 97. Dourmad JY, Ryschawy J, Trousson T, Bonneau M, Gonzàlez J, Houwers HWJ, et al. Evaluating envi- ronmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment. Anim. 2014; 8 (12):2027–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002134 PMID: 25170767 98. Reckmann K, Traulsen I, Krieter J. Life cycle assessment of pork production: A data inventory for the case of Germany. Livest Sci. 2013; 157(2–3):586–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.09.001 99. Nguyen TLT, Hermansen J, Mogensen L. Environmental assessment of Danish pork. Aarhus Univer- sity; 2011. Available from: https://dcapub.au.dk/djfpdf/ir_103_54761_indhold_internet.pdf. 100. Wiedemann SG, McGahan EJ, Murphy CM. Environmental impacts and resource use from Australian pork production determined using life cycle assessment. 2. Energy, water and land occupation. Anim Prod Sci. 2018; 58(6):1153. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16196 101. Hayat MB, Ali D, Monyake KC, Alagha L, Ahmed N. Solar energy–A look into power generation, chal- lenges, and a solar-powered future. Int J Energy Res. 2019; 43(3):1049–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/ er.4252 102. Lu X, Chen S, Nielsen CP, Zhang C, Li J, Xu H, et al. Combined solar power and storage as cost-com- petitive and grid-compatible supply for China’s future carbon-neutral electricity system. Proc Natl Acad

Sci U S A. 2021; 118(42). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2103471118 PMID: 34635590 103. Crippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D, Monforti-Ferrario F, Tubiello FN, Leip A. Food systems are respon- sible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food. 2021; 2(3):198–209. https://doi. org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9 PMID: 37117443 104. Searchinger T, Peng L, Zionts J, Waite R. The global land squeeze: Managing the growing competition for land. World Resources Institute. 2023. https://doi.org/10.46830/wrirpt.20.00042 105. Wirsenius S, Searchinger T, Zionts J, Peng L, Beringer T, Dumas P. Comparing the life cycle green- house gas emissions of dairy and pork systems across countries using land-use carbon opportunity costs. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2020. 106. US EPA. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator [Data and Tools]. 2015 Aug 28. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator. 107. DonauSoja. DS-LCA-Soybeans.pdf. Austrian Development Agency; 2022. Available from: https:// www.donausoja.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/DS-LCA-Soybeans.pdf. 108. Fehrenbach H, Bu¨ rck S. CO2-Opportunita¨ tskosten von Biokraftstoffen in Deutschland. 2022. ifeu– Institut fu¨r Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg gGmbH. https://www.ifeu.de/fileadmin/uploads/ pdf/CO2_Opportunita¨tskosten_Biokraftstoffe_1602022__002_.pdf 109. El Wali M, Rahimpour Golroudbary S, Kraslawski A, Tuomisto H L. Transition to cellular agriculture reduces agriculture land use and greenhouse gas emissions but increases demand for critical materi-

als. 2024. Communications Earth & Environment, 5(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024- 01227-8 110. Moritz J, Mazac R, Ueta M H., Ra¨ty N, Tuomisto H L, Ryyna¨ nen T. Prospects of Justice for Cellular Agriculture: A just Transition or Reinvesting in Unsustainability? 2024. Food Ethics, 9(2), 22. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s41055-024-00156-8 111. Augustin M A, Hartley C J, Maloney G, Tyndall S.Innovation in precision fermentation for food ingredi- ents. 2023. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398. 2023.2166014 PMID: 36640107 112. Rangel A E T, Go´ mez Ramı´rez J M, Gonza´lez Barrios A F. From industrial by-products to value-added compounds: The design of efficient microbial cell factories by coupling systems metabolic engineering and bioprocesses. 2020. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 14(6), 1228–1238. https://doi.org/10. 1002/bbb.2127 113. Jordon M W, Willis K J, Bu¨rkner P-C, Haddaway N R, Smith P, Petrokofsky G. Temperate Regenera- tive Agriculture practices increase soil carbon but not crop yield—A meta-analysis. 2022. Environmen- tal Research Letters, 17(9), 093001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8609 114. Li Y, Chen J, Drury C F, Liebig M, Johnson J M F, Wang Z, et al. The role of conservation agriculture practices in mitigating N2O emissions: A meta-analysis. 2023. Agronomy for Sustainable Develop- ment, 43(5), 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00911-x 115. Goodwin C M, Aimutis W R, Shirwaiker R A. A scoping review of cultivated meat techno-economic

analyses to inform future research directions for scaled-up manufacturing. 2024. Nature Food. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01061-3 PMID: 39424999 PLOS ONE Evaluating agricultural feedstock for cultivated meat PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316480 January 22, 2025 26 / 27