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
  • [41] Questions and Concerns Re: Blue Water Footprints Reported in "Water Footprint of Meat Analogs: Selected Indicators According to Life Cycle Assessment"
    Santo, Raychel E.
    Kim, Brent F.
    Nachman, Keeve E.
    WATER, 2020, 12 (05)
  • [42] Life cycle of meats: An opportunity to abate the greenhouse gas emission from meat industry in Japan
    Roy, Poritosh
    Orikasa, Takahiro
    Thammawong, Manasikan
    Nakamura, Nobutaka
    Xu, Qingyi
    Shiina, Takeo
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2012, 93 (01) : 218 - 224
  • [43] Anticipatory Life Cycle Analysis of In Vitro Biomass Cultivation for Cultured Meat Production in the United States
    Mattick, Carolyn S.
    Landis, Amy E.
    Allenby, Braden R.
    Genovese, Nicholas J.
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2015, 49 (19) : 11941 - 11949
  • [44] Environmental impacts of combined milk and meat production in Norway according to a life cycle assessment with expanded system boundaries
    Roer, Anne-Grete
    Johansen, Astrid
    Bakken, Anne Kjersti
    Daugstad, Kristin
    Fystro, Gustav
    Stromman, Anders Hammer
    LIVESTOCK SCIENCE, 2013, 155 (2-3) : 384 - 396
  • [45] Evaluation of environmental impact of two ready-to-eat canned meat products using Life Cycle Assessment
    Perez-Martinez, M. M.
    Noguerol, R.
    Casales, B. I.
    Lois, R.
    Soto, B.
    JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING, 2018, 237 : 118 - 127
  • [46] Life cycle assessment and relations with triple bottom line in meat production: a systematic approach about cleaner production
    Fritsch Denes, Queli Regina
    de Souza Schneider, Rosana de Cassia
    Kipper, Liane Mahlmann
    MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2022, 33 (06) : 1528 - 1552
  • [47] Analysis of the Nutritional Composition of Ready-to-Use Meat Alternatives in Belgium
    Mertens, Evelien
    Deriemaeker, Peter
    Van Beneden, Katrien
    NUTRIENTS, 2024, 16 (11)
  • [48] The environmental impacts of commercial poultry production systems using life cycle assessment: a review
    Kheiralipour, Kamran
    Rafiee, Shahin
    Karimi, Mahmoud
    Nadimi, Mohammad
    Paliwal, Jitendra
    WORLDS POULTRY SCIENCE JOURNAL, 2024, 80 (01) : 33 - 54
  • [49] Comparative life cycle assessment of deinking sludge utilization alternatives
    Deviatkin, Ivan
    Kapustina, Viktoriia
    Vasilieva, Elena
    Isyanov, Lev
    Horttanainen, Mika
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2016, 112 : 3232 - 3243
  • [50] Life Cycle Assessment of Urban Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Alternatives
    Pasqualino, Jorgelina C.
    Meneses, Montse
    Castells, Francesc
    JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 2011, 15 (01) : 49 - 63