Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes

被引:316
|
作者
Smetana, Sergiy [1 ,2 ]
Mathys, Alexander [1 ]
Knoch, Achim [1 ]
Heinz, Volker [1 ]
机构
[1] German Inst Food Technol DIL eV, D-49610 Quakenbruck, Germany
[2] Univ Vechta, Inst Struct Anal & Planning Areas Intens Agr, D-49364 Vechta, Germany
关键词
Insect meal; LCA; Meat substitute; Mycoprotein; Soy meal; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; WATER FOOTPRINT; GREENHOUSE-GAS; ASSESSMENT LCA; PERSPECTIVES; EFFICIENCY; EMISSIONS; PRODUCTS;
D O I
10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Food production is among the highest human environmental impacting activities. Agriculture itself accounts for 70-85 % of the water footprint and 30 % of world greenhouse gas emissions (2.5 times more than global transport). Food production's projected increase in 70 % by 2050 highlights the importance of environmental impacts connected with meat production. The production of various meat substitutes (plant-based, mycoprotein-based, dairy-based, and animal-based substitutes) aims to reduce the environmental impact caused by livestock. This article outlined the comparative analysis of meat substitutes' environmental performance in order to estimate the most promising options. The study considered "cradle-to-plate" meal life cycle with the application of ReCiPe and IMPACT 2002+ methods. Inventory was based on literature and field data. Functional unit (FU) was 1 kg of a ready-to-eat meal at a consumer. The study evaluated alternative FU (the equivalent of 3.75 MJ energy content of fried chicken lean meat and 0.3 kg of digested dry matter protein content) as a part of sensitivity analysis. Results showed the highest impacts for lab-grown meat and mycoprotein-based analogues (high demand for energy for medium cultivation), medium impacts for chicken (local feed), and dairy-based and gluten-based meat substitutes, and the lowest impact for insect-based and soy meal-based substitutes (by-products allocated). Alternative FU confirmed the worst performance of lab-grown and mycoprotein-based analogues. The best performing products were insect-based and soy meal-based substitutes and chicken. The other substitutes had medium level impacts. The results were very sensitive to the changes of FU. Midpoint impact category results were the same order of magnitude as a previously published work, although wide ranges of possible results and system boundaries made the comparison with literature data not reliable. The results of the comparison were highly dependable on selected FU. Therefore, the proposed comparison with different integrative FU indicated the lowest impact of soy meal-based and insect-based substitutes (with given technology level development). Insect-based meat substitute has a potential to be more sustainable with the use of more advanced cultivation and processing techniques. The same is applicable to lab-grown meat and in a minor degree to gluten, dairy, and mycoprotein-based substitutes.
引用
收藏
页码:1254 / 1267
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Red Meat Production in Australia: Life Cycle Assessment and Comparison with Overseas Studies
    Peters, Gregory M.
    Rowley, Hazel V.
    Wiedemann, Stephen
    Tucker, Robyn
    Short, Michael D.
    Schulz, Matthias
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2010, 44 (04) : 1327 - 1332
  • [22] Allocation of greenhouse gas production between wool and meat in the life cycle assessment of Australian sheep production
    Cottle, David J.
    Cowie, Annette L.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2016, 21 (06) : 820 - 830
  • [23] A life cycle assessment of processed meat products supplied to Barrow Island: A Western Australian case study
    Biswas, Wahidul K.
    Naude, Gary
    JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING, 2016, 180 : 48 - 59
  • [24] The Italian meat production and consumption system assessed combining material flow analysis and life cycle assessment
    Ferronato, Giulia
    Corrado, Sara
    De laurentiis, Valeria
    Sala, Serenella
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2021, 321
  • [25] Carbon emission oriented life cycle assessment and optimization strategy for meat supply chain
    Zhang, Xiaoshuan
    Jiang, Dongsheng
    Li, Jun
    Zhao, Qinan
    Zhang, Mengjie
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2024, 439
  • [26] Assessment of the attributes that most affect the choice of minced meat and hamburgers
    Cardona, Maria
    Hernandez, Maria
    Fuentes, Ana
    Barat, Jose M.
    Fernandez-Segovia, Isabel
    MEAT SCIENCE, 2023, 198
  • [27] Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market - A review
    Lee, Hyun Jung
    Yong, Hae In
    Kim, Minsu
    Choi, Yun-Sang
    Jo, Cheorun
    ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCES, 2020, 33 (10): : 1533 - 1543
  • [28] Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Healthcare Waste Valorisation Alternatives
    Zlaugotne, Beate
    Zandberga, Anda
    Gusca, Julija
    Kalnins, Silvija Nora
    ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES, 2025, 29 (01) : 51 - 67
  • [29] Environmental Impact of Meat Protein Substitutes: A Mini-Review
    Lee, Da Young
    Mariano, Ermie, Jr.
    Choi, Yeongwoo
    Park, Jin Mo
    Han, Dahee
    Kim, Jin Soo
    Park, Ji Won
    Namkung, Seok
    Li, Qiang
    Li, Xiangzi
    Venter, Colin
    Hur, Sun Jin
    FOOD SCIENCE OF ANIMAL RESOURCES, 2025, 45 (01) : 62 - 80
  • [30] Is India Ready for Alt-Meat? Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Meat Alternatives
    Arora, Rashmit S.
    Brent, Daniel A.
    Jaenicke, Edward C.
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2020, 12 (11)