One of the most promising opportunities for linking farming with cultured meat production is using farm waste or by-products as ingredients. This is just one way the two industries could complement each other, and our preliminary findings suggest it is worth exploring. Economic Impact: The cost of the pharmaceutical-grade ingredients used in growth media, particularly amino acids, is a major barrier to affordable cultured meat. We wanted to explore whether there were viable alternatives from the farming sector which are currently going to waste. The sources we looked at are oilseed rape meal, hoof and horn meal and bovine blood. The results suggest that using agricultural feedstocks for media preparation could be cheaper than DMEM, and that large savings are potentially available from using food or feed grade sources. Environmental Impact: As well as lowering the cost of production, could using agricultural waste or by-products reduce the environmental footprint of cultured meat? DMEM accounts for more than half the impact of cultured meat across most categories, including water consumption and global warming potential. So, reducing the impact of DMEM could substantially reduce the impact of the finished product. We analysed the ‘cradle-to-gate’ life-cycle impact of the cultured meat produced with the same alternative formulations. This includes factors such as energy, scaffold material and oxygen, but does not include building construction or equipment manufacturing. We assumed that 140 litres of growth medium would be needed per kilogram of cultured meat. The impact of baseline DMEM was set at maximum (100%). The impact of the other media were lower, with alternative ingredients outperforming the baseline DMEM across all impact areas. While this suggests it is worth investigating further, it is important to keep in mind that the data we used came from a range of different sources, and have not all been tested experimentally.This research will critically assess the potential impact on UK agriculture of cultured meat, a technology with possibly profound and uncertain implications for the future of food and farming. Also known as 'clean', 'cell-based' and 'cultivated' meat, cultured meat is engineered animal tissue intended for people to eat. It is a type of alternative protein. Alternative proteins are strategically important to UK and global food systems because they can use less land and water than livestock products, lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, cut antibiotic use and the risk of new zoonotic diseases, and help promote animal welfare. Early data suggest that cultured meats could yield such benefits, but may struggle to compete with other meat alternatives on energy efficiency and cost. They are important because they could substitute more directly for livestock meat than other alternatives, and are at an earlier stage of development, so more open to influence by policy-makers and investors. While cultured meat is potentially transformative, its benefits therefore remain speculative. It also brings risks in nutrition, food fraud and food safety. Technical, regulatory, market and cultural uncertainties mean that the sector may not develop in the UK commercially, or may develop but fail to deliver public benefits. This project focuses on how cultured meat could affect farming in the UK. This is relevant to its environmental, economic and animal welfare impact, and to public and political attitudes that will shape how it gets regulated. Cultured meat is commonly assumed to be a threat to farmers, producing food in ways that could put some out of business. However, nobody has actually looked into this in-depth, or explored these issues with farmers in the UK. In practice, the different ways that cultured meat might develop could bring diverse risks and opportunities for farmers. The technology may create demands for new agricultural products, such as cells (donor herds for cell harvesting), feedstock for growth media (arable, forage, sugar beet), feedstock for edible scaffolds (cellulose, pea, bean, soya) and current waste streams (glucose, cellulose). In some scenarios, cultured meat might even be produced on farms, in facilities owned and operated by farmers, or could complement campaigns for 'less and better' meat. Alternatively, it may not reduce livestock meat consumption at all, or it may compete directly with high-welfare meat production. This research is designed to influence how this potentially transformative technology affects the UK food system. We will work with farmers and other people who may be affected by the technology to investigate whether they can see responsible ways of developing cultured meat. We will examine what farmers currently think of cultured meat, and explore different ways the technology could develop. We will work with farmers in a wide range of different situations to model how their businesses could get involved in or be affected by cultured meat production, and assess the environmental, social and economic consequences. We aim to answer the following questions: 1. How do UK farmers currently perceive cultured meat? 2. What threats and opportunities does the development of cultured meat pose to UK farm businesses in different scenarios? 3. Under what conditions, if any, would on-farm production of cultured meat be practical, economically viable and desirable in the UK? In answering these questions, we will consider not only the direct effects of cultured meat on farm businesses and livelihoods, but also wider ecological, nutritional, cultural and ethical implications, and how cultured meat might complement or conflict with the ways land use and diets in the UK could change to become sustainable.

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of Cultured Meat production under different scenarios pertaining to the sources of proteins derived from animal waste products was undertaken. Additionally, extraction of glucose from wheat was also modelled into the scenarios for additional insights. Comparisons were made with existing publications, in particular to the baseline scenario (CMB) in a published paper that was chosen as a reference (Tuomisto et al., 2022). The study design and LCA parameters are explained as below: Goal and scope: The purpose of this LCA was to assess the environmental impacts of cultured meat produced using bioreactors located in the UK in the year 2024. A functional unit (FU) of 1 kg of meat produced was used for the analysis. The system boundary consisted of cradle-to-gate processes from raw material extraction up to factory gate, but excluded inputs for building construction and equipment manufacturing. The use of sodium hydroxide and some electricity for cleaning bioreactor was not included in this study inputs. The LCA was performed using SimaPro software and the impacts were based on ReCiPe Midpoint 2016 (H) methodology. It is important to note that the production of cultured meat also leads to the production of lactate, which can be used for producing lactic acid. Similarly, a minute quantity of ammonia is also produced. For this analysis, 100% of the impacts will be allocated to the cultured meat which can then be compared against scenarios where allocation takes place against certain criteria (economic allocation vs mass allocation (dry mass, wet mass), substitution, etc). scenario analysis will be based on the use of valorised proteins as explained above. A TE model was developed based on Cellular Agriculture Ltd.’s proprietary bioprocess. A process model was formulated around 1 year’s operation. Operating cost (OPEX) was estimated based on this process model and capital cost (CAPEX) estimated based on requisite buildings, equipment and installation cost estimates. For each model scenario, a breakdown of OPEX and unitised CAPEX allowed for a cost of goods calculation on a per kg of cultured meat basis. No costs for conversion of the cultured biomass to final product were accounted for. Scenarios were catered for by adjusting the relevant parameters within the model to generate scenario-specific outputs. Additionally, media costs were developed based on component cost data generated within the Cultured Meat and Farmers project. Briefly, prospective formulations were developed based on DMEM as a basal media formulation baseline. A formulation model was developed to allow for bottom-up formulation of amino acids and energy source (glucose), as well as requisite buffers, salts and vitamins etc. Amino acids, identified as a key cost and carbon driver, were built up from a combination of prospective valorised amino acid sources, and balanced using pure amino acids to give an approximate match to the DMEM baseline.