Post by sumaiyajannt on Feb 25, 2024 0:39:34 GMT -5
Companies pioneering laboratory meat production in bioreactors that grow animal cells without the animals themselves often claim that their technology is beneficial for the climate. They avoid emissions inherent in growing food and raising animals. But cultured meat still needs electricity to grow, so… how lower are its emissions? According to Fast Company , a new study analyzes the environmental footprint of a hypothetical large-scale "cultured meat" factory in 2030, using data from more than 15 startups in the sector. It turns out that the environmental benefits vary significantly depending on how the new food is made. If a large new production facility runs on renewable energy, the carbon footprint of cultured meat would be smaller than that of conventional beef , pork and chicken. Analysis results The analysis calculates that the footprint is approximately: 92% lower than that of beef. 52% less than that of pork. 17% less than that of chicken.
Even if conventional meat is produced more sustainably than today, for example by changing the diet so that cattle belch less methane, a potent Phone Number List greenhouse gas. (Cultured meat also reduces land and water use, avoids the use of antibiotics, and may help avoid other problems, such as future pandemics that could spread from farms.) Is the environmental impact of laboratory meat less? But if a manufacturing plant doesn't use renewable energy, cultured pork or chicken could actually have a larger carbon footprint than meat from some farms. Beef, on the other hand, requires so many resources to raise that its footprint is larger regardless of the type of energy the cultured meat factory uses. Obviously, there is going to be a big motivation for the first cultured meat manufacturing facilities to be fully renewable. Says Elliot Swartz, senior scientist at the Good Food Institute. Swartz undertook the life cycle analysis and a new analysis of the expected cost of cultured meat production together with the European non-profit organization Gaia. Dutch independent research company CE Delft conducted both analyses.
The study takes into account that since bioreactors can generate large amounts of heat, cooling an industrial-sized facility could require large amounts of energy. You can think of it as a standby refrigerator that cools the liquid being pumped through the bioreactor. Says Elliot Swartz, senior scientist at the Good Food Institute. The process could be modified to consume less energy, but renewable energy is likely to be critical to keeping the carbon footprint low. Speculations The analysis does not directly compare the environmental footprint of cultured meat to that of plant-based brands like Impossible Burger or Beyond Burger. It does show that tofu has a smaller footprint than cultured meats, and draws a comparison with Meatless, a Dutch plant-based protein brand, which also has a smaller footprint. Since products like the Impossible Burger require more processing, they may have a slightly larger footprint than cultured meat made with renewable energy.
Even if conventional meat is produced more sustainably than today, for example by changing the diet so that cattle belch less methane, a potent Phone Number List greenhouse gas. (Cultured meat also reduces land and water use, avoids the use of antibiotics, and may help avoid other problems, such as future pandemics that could spread from farms.) Is the environmental impact of laboratory meat less? But if a manufacturing plant doesn't use renewable energy, cultured pork or chicken could actually have a larger carbon footprint than meat from some farms. Beef, on the other hand, requires so many resources to raise that its footprint is larger regardless of the type of energy the cultured meat factory uses. Obviously, there is going to be a big motivation for the first cultured meat manufacturing facilities to be fully renewable. Says Elliot Swartz, senior scientist at the Good Food Institute. Swartz undertook the life cycle analysis and a new analysis of the expected cost of cultured meat production together with the European non-profit organization Gaia. Dutch independent research company CE Delft conducted both analyses.
The study takes into account that since bioreactors can generate large amounts of heat, cooling an industrial-sized facility could require large amounts of energy. You can think of it as a standby refrigerator that cools the liquid being pumped through the bioreactor. Says Elliot Swartz, senior scientist at the Good Food Institute. The process could be modified to consume less energy, but renewable energy is likely to be critical to keeping the carbon footprint low. Speculations The analysis does not directly compare the environmental footprint of cultured meat to that of plant-based brands like Impossible Burger or Beyond Burger. It does show that tofu has a smaller footprint than cultured meats, and draws a comparison with Meatless, a Dutch plant-based protein brand, which also has a smaller footprint. Since products like the Impossible Burger require more processing, they may have a slightly larger footprint than cultured meat made with renewable energy.