1 Introduction
1.1 Food system impacts, global picture conventional animal agriculture, and footprints
-
Climate change: 16.5–19.4% contribution to total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, making animal production by far the highest contributor within food system emissions, twice as large as plant-based sources (Crippa et al. 2021; Twine 2021; Xu et al. 2021). The contribution of ruminants to total animal agriculture emissions is significant due to their methane emissions, with enteric fermentation accounting for 27% of global anthropogenic methane emissions (Global Methane Initiative 2015; Grossi et al. 2019). Without interventions food system emissions alone could preclude Paris Agreement climate targets to limit warming at 1.5 °C by 2050 (Clark et al. 2020).
-
Water use: 41% of green and blue water use combined, although contribution to blue water use is around 6% (Heinke et al. 2020).
1.2 Impacts of CM and conventional meats
1.3 Ex-ante LCA, upscaling, and uncertainty
2 Methods
2.1 Methods and materials
2.1.1 General method
2.1.2 Data collection and handling
2.1.3 Background data, software, and allocation procedures
2.2 Goal and scope
2.2.1 Goal
2.2.2 Scope, system boundaries, and flowchart
2.2.3 Functional unit
2.3 Product systems under study and baseline scenario data
2.3.1 CM facility and production line design
2.3.2 Process parameters
2.3.3 Material and energy inputs and their scenarios
Components | Low-medium scenario (g) | Baseline scenario (g) | High-medium scenario (g) | Main ingredients |
---|---|---|---|---|
Amino acids (total), of which: | 200 | 283 | 400 | L-glutamine, L-Arginine hydrochloride, multitude of other amino acids |
Amino acids from hydrolysate | 150 | 212 | 300 | |
Amino acids from conventional production | 50 | 71 | 100 | |
Sugars (total), of which: | 320 | 400 | 500 | Glucose, pyruvate |
Sugars: Glucose | 319 | 398 | 396 | |
Sugars: Pyruvate | 1 | 2 | 4 | |
Recombinant proteins | 0.2 | 3 | 50 | Albumin (dominant in the mid- and high medium scenarios), insulin, transferrin |
Salts | 100 | 224 | 500 | Sodium chloride, sodium bicarbonate |
Buffering agent | 2 | 26 | 350 | HEPES |
Vitamins | 0.2 | 2 | 20 | i-Inositol, Choline chloride |
Growth factors | << 1 | << 1 | << 1 | |
Water | 20,000 | 44,721 | 100,000 | Ultrapure water |
Total (g) | 21,142 | 46,342 | 102,620 | |
Total (L) | 21 | 47 | 103 |
-
Ambitious Benchmark 2030: Renewable energy for scope 1, 2, and 3 (scope 3 modeling only for culture medium ingredients, scaffold, filters, and water purification)
-
Renewable scope 1 and 2: Renewable energy for scope 1 and 2 (at the facility), average mix for scope 3 (upstream)
-
Global average energy: Global average energy mix for scope 1, 2, and 3*
2.3.4 Conventional meat production and determination of ambitious benchmarks
-
Reduced methane emissions from cattle (− 15%) through the use of enzymes
-
Reduced ammonia emissions from cattle (− 5.4%) through increased outdoor grazing
-
Renewable energy at farm and feed facilities
-
No LUC and associated GHG emissions related to soybean production
2.4 Sensitivity analyses
3 Results
3.1 Carbon footprints and greenhouse gas profiles
-
Ambitious benchmark: Renewable energy for scope 1, 2, and 3*
-
Renewable scope 1 and 2: Renewable energy for scope 1 and 2 (at the facility), average mix for scope 3 (upstream)
-
Global average energy: Global average energy mix for scope 1, 2, and 3
Meat | System | Total | Contribution of GHG to carbon footprintb | Source | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
kg CO2-eq | CO2 | CH4 | N2O | dLUC | Other | |||
Cultivated meat 2030 Baseline model + energy scenarios | 2030 ambitious benchmark | 2.8 | 84% | 10% | 5% | 0% | 1% | This study |
Renewable scope 1 and 2 | 4.0 | 86% | 9% | 4% | 0% | 1% | This study | |
Global average energy | 14.3 | 91% | 7% | 2% | 0% | 0% | This study | |
Cultivated meat 2030 Sensitivity analyses best and worst case | Sensitivity analysis best case 2030 ambitious benchmark + passive cooling | 2.2 | 83% | 10% | 6% | 0% | 1% | This study |
Sensitivity analysis worst case Global average energy + high medium scenario | 24.8 | 90% | 8% | 2% | 0% | 0% | This study | |
Chicken | 2030 ambitious benchmark | 2.7 | 58% | 9% | 21% | 13% | 0% | This study |
Current ambitious benchmark | 6.0 | 34% | 4% | 9% | 52% | 0% | Agri-Footprint 5.0 | |
2018 global average | 9.0 | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a | Poore and Nemecek (2018) | |
Pork | 2030 ambitious benchmark | 5.1 | 35% | 31% | 23% | 11% | 0% | This study |
Current ambitious benchmark | 6.9 | 34% | 23% | 17% | 26% | 0% | Agri-Footprint 5.0 | |
2018 global average | 11.4 | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a | Poore and Nemecek (2018) | |
Beef (dairy cattle) | 2030 ambitious benchmark | 8.8 | 16% | 54% | 27% | 2% | 0% | This study |
Current ambitious benchmark | 11.0 | 18% | 49% | 22% | 11% | 0% | Agri-Footprint 5.0 | |
2018 global average | 32.4 | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a | Poore and Nemecek (2018) | |
Beef (beef cattle) | 2030 ambitious benchmark | 34.9 | 16% | 46% | 37% | 1% | 0% | This study |
Current ambitious benchmark | 39.8 | 17% | 46% | 32% | 5% | 0% | Agri-Footprint 5.0 | |
2018 global average | 98.6 | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a | Poore and Nemecek (2018) |
3.2 Comparison of ambitious benchmarks
Resource type | Description | Cultivated meat | Chickena | Porka | Beef (dairy cattle)a | Beef (beef cattle)a |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biotic | Primary feed | 0.8 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 3.7 | 4.6 |
By-product feed | 0.2 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 1.1 | |
Grass | 7.5 | 31.6 | ||||
Mineral | Salts and other | 0.2 | ||||
Total biotic + mineral (incl. grass) | 1.3 | 2.8 | 4.6 | 13.4 | 37.3 | |
Total biotic + mineral (excl. grass) | 1.3 | 2.8 | 4.6 | 5.8 | 5.7 | |
Total biotic (excl. grass) | 1.0 | 2.8 | 4.6 | 5.8 | 5.7 |
3.3 Sensitivity analyses
Scenario | Carbon footprint (CO2-eq./kg meat) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2030 ambitious benchmark | Renewable scope 1 and 2 | Global average energy | ||||
Baseline scenario (reference) | 2.8 | ref. | 4.0 | ref. | 14.3 | ref. |
A1: Shorter production run time (− 25%: 32 days, 3 harvests) | 2.6 | − 7% | 3.7 | − 8% | 13.6 | − 5% |
A2: Longer production run time (+ 25%: 52 days, 3 harvests) | 3.0 | 6% | 4.3 | 7% | 15.0 | 4% |
B1: Higher cell density (x1.4: 7.1E7 cells/ml) | 2.8 | − 1% | 4.0 | − 1% | 14.0 | − 2% |
B2: Lower cell density (× 10: 5E6 cells/ml) | 3.9 | 37% | 5.3 | 30% | 20.9 | 46% |
C1: Larger cell volume (5000 µm3) | 2.8 | − 1% | 4.0 | − 1% | 14.1 | − 2% |
C2: Smaller cell volume (500 µm3) | 3.6 | 27% | 5.0 | 23% | 18.8 | 31% |
D1: Low medium (more efficient medium usage, removal of albumin, largely reduced HEPES use) | 2.3 | − 17% | 2.9 | − 28% | 12.9 | − 10% |
D2: High medium (less efficient medium usage, full use of albumin and HEPES) | 5.0 | 78% | 13.8 | 241% | 24.8 | 73% |
E1: More harvests from proliferation vessel (5 harvests) | 2.5 | − 10% | 3.8 | − 7% | 12.2 | − 15% |
E2: Less harvests from proliferation vessel (1 harvest—batch process) | 3.6 | 28% | 4.8 | 20% | 20.4 | 43% |
E3: More harvests from proliferation vessel (10 harvest—going towards continuous process) | 2.3 | − 18% | 3.5 | − 13% | 10.4 | − 28% |
F1: Smart cooling (active + passive, 50% electricity reduction for cooling) | 2.2 | − 21% | 3.4 | − 15% | 9.6 | − 33% |
4 Discussion
4.1 Comparison of cultivated and conventional meats
4.2 Insights from 10 years of cultivated meat LCAs
4.3 Environmental hotspots in cultivated meat production and technology development
4.3.1 Energy
-
Using a refrigeration cycle, for ambient temperatures up to 27 °C
-
Using cooling water and an evaporating cooling tower, for ambient temperatures up to 22 °C
-
Using cooling water and an air fin cooler with mechanical air circulation, for ambient temperatures up to 17 °C
-
Using cooling water and an air fin cooler without mechanical air circulation, for ambient temperatures up to 12 °C