Validity of Negative Impacts of Beef Production on the Environment

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Potential to curb the environmental burdens of American beef consumption using a novel found-based beef substitute

• Benjamin Goldstein,
• Rebekah Moses,
• Norman Sammons,
• Morten Birkved

ten

• Published: December vi, 2017
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189029

Figures

Abstract

The food demands of the U.s.a. (United states) impart significant environmental pressures. The loftier charge per unit of consumption of beef has been shown to exist the largest driver of nutrient-borne greenhouse gas emissions, water utilise and state occupation in the United states of america nutrition. The environmental benefits of substituting brute products with vegetal foods are well documented, but significant psychological barriers persist in reducing meat consumption. Here we use life cycle cess to appraise the environmental functioning of a novel vegetal poly peptide source in the mean United states diet where information technology replaces ground beef, and in vegetarian and vegan diets where it substitutes for legumes, tofu and other protein sources. We find that relative to the hateful U.s.a. diet, vegetarian and vegan diets significantly reduce per-capita food-borne greenhouse gas emission (32% and 67%, respectively), blue water apply (70% and 75%, respectively) and land occupation (seventy% and 79%, respectively), primarily in the course of rangeland. The substitution of 10%, 25% and 50% of ground beef with found-based burger (PBB) at the national scale results in substantial reductions in annual United states of america dietary greenhouse gas emissions (4.55–45.42 Mt CO₂ equivalents), water consumption (one.30–12.00 km³) and land occupation (22300–190100 km²). Despite PBB'south elevated ecology pressures compared to other vegetal protein sources, we demonstrate that minimal risk exists for the disservices of PBB commutation in non-meat diets to outweigh the benefits of ground-beef substitution in the omnivorous American diet. Demand for plant-based oils in PBB production has the potential to increase state use pressures in biodiversity hotspots, though these could be obviated through responsible land stewardship. Although the apparent environmental benefits of the PBB are contingent on actual uptake of the production, this study demonstrates the potential for non-traditional protein substitutes to play a role in a transition towards more than sustainable consumption regimes in the US and potentially abroad.

Citation: Goldstein B, Moses R, Sammons N, Birkved Thousand (2017) Potential to curb the ecology burdens of American beef consumption using a novel plant-based beef substitute. PLoS Ane 12(12): e0189029. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189029

Editor: Gotthard Kunze, Leibniz-Institut fur Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben, GERMANY

Received: December eight, 2016; Accepted: November 17, 2017; Published: December 6, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Goldstein et al. This is an open up access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Information Availability: All relevant data are within the newspaper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: Impossible Foods provided back up in the form of salaries for authors RM and NS, simply did non have any additional office in the study pattern, data collection and assay or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the 'author contributions' section. The CEO of Incommunicable Foods had minor say on the final decision to publish, but this did not affect the manner in which information collection, calculations, results estimation or manuscript drafting were performed.

Competing interests: RM and NS are employees of Impossible Foods. This commercial affiliation does not modify our adherence to PLOS 1 policies on sharing data and materials, with the exception of fine details on the formulation and production of the PBB which are not relevant to the operation of the analysis herein.

one. Introduction

The food-related environmental footprint of the Usa (US) is among the highest in the world per capita [1,ii], driven largely by animal-sourced products [3–5]. Of all livestock products, beef is the almost environmentally taxing, both in terms of total global impacts from the sector and normalized per unit mass [i,six–9]. Studies of the United states of america diet have pinpointed beefiness as a main driver of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (enteric fermentation, deforestation) [three,10], water utilise (hydration and feed irrigation) [11] and land occupation (primarily rangeland) [eleven,12]. Although domestic consumption has waned in contempo years, beefiness remains a staple of the American diet [13–fifteen], representing a central opportunity to benumb the environmental impacts of Us nutrient consumption.

Amended production practices provide some capacity for impact reduction, but fall short of the savings associated with reduced consumption of cattle-based products [16–eighteen]. Environmental hotspots in the United states beef supply chain include impacts on climate, biodiversity and h2o quality from feed crop product and grazing, in add-on to direct GHG emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management. Cattle crave more than mass, protein and free energy in feed then is produced in the final meat [half-dozen,11,17,19,twenty], only the ecology intensity of this could be lowered using potions of crops not suitable for humans as feed [21,22]. Enteric fermentation could exist combated through higher feed qualities or manipulation of rumen [9,18,sixteen]. Manure management practices, including methane capture, reduced storage time and waste matter-to-energy recovery, could all produce environmental dividends [16]. Lastly, grazing on non-competitive marginal lands at suitable fourth dimension intervals could also heighten operation [eighteen,16]. However, US beef production is already amid the near efficient globally, employing advanced breeding techniques, loftier quality feed and concentrated feeding operations for 97% of the stock [23]. Thus, the largest potential efficiency gains in beef production are located outside the The states [9,18,24]. Moreover, some of the abovementioned finish-of-pipe solutions produce ecology trade-offs (e.g. using not-edible crop for feed generally reduces feed quality, triggering increased enteric fermentation).

Substituting beefiness for lower intensity products including vegetal-sourced foods could cyberspace dividends across those associated with optimizing the US beef product system [seven,20], but this strategy hinges on consumer adoption of alternatives. The nutritional role of beefiness in the U.s. diet could be performed by plant-sourced foods using 10% of the land while producing 4% of the GHGs [12]. More ambitious deportment including shifting from standard U.s. to vegetarian and vegan diets, effecting thirty% and 50% reductions in dietary GHGs, respectively [3], and reduced country use [25]. Although the demand for beef in the Us is elastic [12,13], behavioral hurdles exist in getting Americans to merchandise beefiness for beans, with meat consumption in general increasing [15]. Eating beef (and meat in general) is tied to a host of social, psychological and hedonic factors: gustation, the perception that a meal requires meat, communal eating practices, dietary guidelines and advertising espousing meat every bit an essential part of a healthy nutrition, etc. [26–29]. Combating the pregnant edible food waste product in the US could likewise play a function, although improvement potential for meat is low compared to other food groups [3].

Given this backdrop, to maximally reduce the ecology impacts of beef in the US diet, improved production techniques and dietary shifts should be complemented past other tools. I option is novel protein sources that more authentically mimic meat than existing vegetal foods (east.thousand. soy-based, mycoprotein or gluten products), including 'cellular agriculture,' yeast culture, bioprinting, scalable arthropod farming, and plant-based functional equivalents [xxx]. Early on stage studies have establish that these technologies could theoretically produce beef substitutes at a fraction of the environmental and resources costs of traditional beef, but do non represent market-prepare commercial operations where the near realistic brusk- to mid-term environmental gains be [30]. In the example of cellular agriculture, few studies address the full life cycle of inputs and downstream processing associated with cellular agriculture, and existing studies were performed on bench-calibration in-vitro methods (the '$300,000 test-tube hamburger')[31,32].

The portfolio of foods on the marketplace that could realistically be regarded equally a plant-based equivalent to beef is narrow. One such product is the plant-based burger (PBB) by Impossible Foods, which is a substitute designed to match the experience of cooking and consuming ground beefiness [xxx]. By fulfilling the aforementioned gustatory, culinary and nutritional functions as traditional beefiness, the PBB aims to lower the adoption barrier associated with the consumption of vegetal proteins in lieu of animate being products. The principal ingredients of the PBB include texturized wheat protein (wheat TVP), coconut oil, and tater protein. To evangelize the same sensory characteristics of animal-sourced beef, the company developed a modified yeast culture to produce "heme" (leghemoglobin), a naturally occurring protein in the root nodules of leguminous plants that functions as an analog for the myoglobin that gives beef its distinct flavor and cooking characteristics [33].

Compared to a typical US beef production system, PBB requires less than i quarter of the resources as modeled co-ordinate to pilot scale production information nerveless in 2015 and refined in 2016 to account for supply chain changes [34]. Every bit is the case with beef, country and water utilise associated with product of PBB is dominated by raw ingredients (agronomical products, maintenance of the yeast culture) rather than past production or conception. While the majority of emissions within the beef supply chain are derived from cattle (raw materials), PBB emissions impacts are split between raw materials and product stages.

Aside two studies of in-vitro cultured meat production relying on estimates for production inputs [31,32], in that location exists no published environmental assessments using master information from operations above bench-scale of novel protein sources. Moreover, the hypothetical impacts of novel protein commutation at the aggregate US level remain unknown. Hither we expect at the potential environmental and resource implications of substituting ground beef in the 2010 mean US diet (MUD), and plant-based proteins in the hypothetical vegetarian (VEG) and vegan (VGN) diets with PBB, at individual and national scales. Lastly, the potential for negative environmental trade-offs due to PBB adoption past VEG and VGN Americans are examined.

2. Materials and methods

Life wheel assessment (LCA) is a widely used method to quantify the environmental impacts of food production systems [1,3]. LCA focuses at the processes along a supply chain that deliver a service, accounting for fabric and free energy inputs, and chemic emissions to the environs (herein, life cycle inventory or LCI), thus providing an appraisal of system-wide ecology impacts and resource draws [35,36]. Nosotros employ LCA to the US food supply chain, setting the arrangement boundaries as the agronomical and processing stages, excluding the distribution (transport and packaging), training and disposal phases of the life cycle. These omissions underestimate environmental impacts and resource utilise [37,38], but given uncertainties surrounding relevant data for these stages and their typically marginal contribution to the outcomes of other food LCAs [10,39,40], the bulk of life-cycle impacts should be captured hither.

Iii different archetypical American dietary patterns are modeled: the mean-The states (MUD), vegetarian (VEG) and vegan (VGN) diets. The MUD is constructed from the 2010 USDA's loss-adjusted-nutrient-availability estimates of per capita consumption of ~250 food items in the US [41]. The VEG and VGN are built from the USDA's 2010 dietary guidelines for vegetarian and vegan diets consuming 2000 kcal per solar day [42] (in line with measured adult vegetarian energy intake [43]), adapted to actual United states consumption regimes using the 2010 loss-adapted data. For case, USDA guidelines suggest 1.5 cups of dark green vegetables per week for the VEG. Here the constituent nighttime green vegetables (e.g. broccoli, kale, spinach, etc.) were provided in the same ratios as found in the 2010 MUD. USDA data on food waste at the consumer and retail levels are also included so the diets represent the production volumes drawn by each diet to meet final ingestion. Run across S1 Table for a total breakup of the components of the modeled diets.

The effects of substituting 10%, 25% and 50% of total poly peptide in American diets are examined using MUD, VEG and VGN as baseline diets, with PBB as replacement poly peptide. PBB is nutritionally similar to ground beef in most respects, besides lacking cholesterol and containing carbohydrates (encounter S2 Tabular array for laboratory analytics) and is substituted on a ane:one mass basis in the MUD. A nutritionally equivalent mass of PBB replaces the blend of poly peptide foods in the VEG and VGN diets (run across S1 Table for farther information). Given uncertainties in the amount of full beefiness as ground-beef ingested past Americans, values of 30% (see S1 Text for estimation method) and 50% [44] were used to assess the upper and lower PBB market penetration.

GHG emissions, water use and land occupation are evaluated: all metrics to which LCA is widely applied and accepted, and relevant to the impacts of beefiness production in the context of cyberspace environmental burdens from the US diet. GHG emissions are assessed using the IPCC 2013 methodology to catechumen from atmospheric chemic emissions to the equivalent mass of carbon dioxide to affect the same degree of radiative forcing over a 100 year flow (kg CO₂e). Water employ is calculated as 'bluish water', the volume of surface or groundwater used and evaporated or incorporated into a production [45]. Lastly, agricultural land occupation is assessed as the physical expanse occupied in thousand² arable country co-ordinate to the Impact 2002+ method [46].

Hybrid-LCA methodology is employed here, whereby LCIs of on-farm resource employ and chemical emissions are derived from studies of private agronomical operations, while those for food processing (slaughterhouse operation, vegetable and fruit canning, etc.) are taken using a tiptop downwardly methods, based on national economic input-output accounts. Previous LCAs of on-farm operations are used to gather the production inputs and emissions data for foods, which were combined with inventories of individual inputs (fertilizers, fuels, irrigation, etc.) from the ecoinvent 3.two database (www.ecoinvent.org) to build a consummate LCI for that food. Ecoinvent 3.2 likewise contains consummate LCIs for several relevant foods, which are adapted to Us production conditions (east.g. US electricity and irrigation). The Carnegie Mellon 2002 Usa input-output database (www.eiolca.net), providing LCIs per dollar economic output for 428 economic sectors, is linked with US food product volumes to judge average resource and emissions inventories per mass nutrient produced in (e.g. per kilogram canned vegetables or fruit). Combining these two data streams provides a complete LCI for the agricultural and processing stages. S1 Text further details the LCA method employed here and the structure of the LCIs from the supporting literature.

LCI data for PBB production are from early-stage, low-volume (hundreds of kilos/mean solar day chapters) product scale of both heme and burger manufacturing for current bill of material. The PBB model relies on certain literature-derived assumptions to estimate commercial scale product (mainly associated with fermentation substrate and free energy utilize) and the results of the PBB LCA reflect both known and projected bill of textile and production processes specific to 2015–2016 LCA evolution period. Because the PBB product continues to evolve, these impacts are likely to change as formulations and processes proceed to meliorate, and should be viewed every bit a snapshot of current production applied science. To ensure validity the PBB life bicycle inventory and subsequent analysis presented in this newspaper, the inventory and assessment were independently vetted past an external independent LCA consultant and again by Quantis United states of america following inventory updates. Information management is done in the LCA software SimaPro 8.2.0.0.

3. Results

Fig ane outlines the baseline results for the MUD, VEG and VGN for annual per capita GHG emissions (Fig 1A), h2o use (Fig 1B) and country occupation (Fig 1C). Fault bars around the MUD represent different conversion rates from cattle live weight to beef (run across S3 Tabular array for detailed results). Diets are represented every bit the primary nutrient groups comprising the USDA dietary recommendations as outlined in S1 Table. For instance, 'Protein' includes all foods whose chief functions are protein delivery, including eggs, meat, nuts, legumes, etc.

Fig 1. Results for the mean The states Diet (MUD), vegetarian (VEG) and vegan (VGN).

(A) GHG in kg CO₂due east. (B) H2o use in m³ blue water consumption. (C) Land occupation in g² organic arable land. Error confined indicate range of results for unlike proportions of footing beef in baseline MUD and varying carcass yields.

https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0189029.g001

GHG emission results align with other US diet assessments, with shifts away from the MUD resulting in reduced GHG emissions for the VEG (-32%) and VGN (-67%). Of annotation is that if isocaloric diets were compared (full intake for MUD, VEG and VGN of 2481 kcal/day in line with 2010 USDA loss-adjusted numbers for the MUD), the reductions would take been -xv% and -xl% for the VEG and VGN, respectively. Protein dominates MUD impacts, with meat as the main driver (50% total GHG emissions), itself impacted by beef (twoscore–42% of total GHG emissions). The VEG is encumbered past college reliance on dairy as a poly peptide and fatty source, which elevate this dietary component'due south impacts well above the MUD. Fruits and vegetables are the area of largest potential improvement for the VGN. Our findings are comparable to Heller et al.'s estimate of 5 kg CO₂due east/cap/d for the average American and reductions of 33% and 53% for vegetarian and vegan diets [three] and are in agreement with the scale of GHG emissions and reduction potentials through dietary shifts in nations with similar diets [37,47–49].

Water use follows the same pattern equally GHGs: relative to the MUD, approximately 200 fewer cubic meters of water per annum are required to back up the VEG (-70%) and VGN (-75%) though reductions shrunk when isocaloric diets were compared (-62% and -70% for VEG and VGN, respectively). The majority of the MUD'south impacts here stem from meat intake (74%), especially beef (56–58%), which requires sufficient animal hydration and significant embodied water inputs in feed via pasture, roughage, and concentrates. The VEG differs slightly from the VGN due to the former'south dairy and egg intake, simply these differences are marginal when compared to the MUD. Eshel et al. [11] found that 150 chiliad³/cap/a are needed for feed production for the US diet, in close alignment with our estimate of 140 m³/cap/a. Jalava et al. [50] as well estimated significant reductions when moving from MUD to VGN, though their alternative method estimated larger savings of 438–657 g³/cap/a.

Significant decreases in land occupation too follow from a shift away from animal-based foodstuffs. The VEG and VGN occupy 70% and 79% less land than the MUD, respectively (VEG = -63% and VGN = -74% for isocaloric diet comparison). Of the MUD'south ~4100 m² almanac occupation, 75% is from meat, 67% from beef solitary, where grazing land and feed production predominate. 92% of the land sparing is in the form of grazing for both dietary shifts, with the remainder consisting of high quality cropland. Much of this rangeland is poorly suited for crops, and hence, reductions in highly productive cropland are simply a portion of total savings. Notwithstanding, state non recruited for cattle grazing or other forms of food product can serve as reservoirs of biodiversity, in addition to (and related with) performing the ecosystem services that back up human life including: carbon sequestration, pollination, nutrient cycling, soil stabilization, flood mitigation, climate regulation [51]. Thus, switches to VEG and VGN could counteract the ecosystems degradation [52,53] and biodiversity loss [54] that have been noted in US grazing lands. Like to GHG emissions, the VEG is greater than the VGN, exerted past dairy consumption and related agronomical space for feed crops. Our results friction match other LCAs of similar diets, where vegetarian and vegan diets effect 50–ninety% reductions in agronomical land occupation from omnivorous alternatives [37,47,49,55]. Of notation is that inedible portions of plants can feed livestock to produce nutritionally dumbo brute products with limited environmental cost, and hence a diet with limited animate being products could potentially have like or lower country utilize to VEG and VGN diets contingent on the optimal balancing of balance resources and livestock production [22]. Moreover, exploring the use of agroecology principles in livestock product (enhanced genetic diversity, nutrient recycling, industrial symbiosis between farms, etc.) could besides play a role in improving land use efficiency and quality on livestock farms [56], though these practices remain well outside the mainstream production practices in the Usa.

3.1 Beefiness substitution with PBB

Fig ii displays the potential impacts of PBB diffusion into the modeled diets at rates of ten%, 25% and 50%, where PBB substitutes for footing beef in the MUD, and a mix of vegetal proteins for the VEG and VGN. Upper and lower bounds of the MUD results represent high basis beef share of total beef intake (l%) combined with low conversion from live weight to beef (39%) and lower ground beef share of total beef (xxx%) combined with higher carcass yield (43%), respectively (see S1 Text for estimation methods).

Fig 2. Per capita shifts in environmental burdens give PBB substitution in the mean The states diet (MUD), vegetarian (VEG) and vegan (VGN).

Substitution rates of ten%, 25% and 50% footing beef (MUD) and total poly peptide foods (VEG and VGN). (A) GHG in kg CO₂e. (B) H2o employ in k³ blue h2o consumption. (C) Land occupation in thousand^two organic arable land. Mistake bars indicate range of results for unlike proportions of ground beefiness in baseline MUD and varying carcass yields.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189029.g002

By all three metrics the introduction of PBB improves the MUD's ecology performance. Full dietary GHG emissions are reduced by 24 (1.ii%), 61 (3.0%) and 122 (6.0%) kg CO₂eastward/cap/a at increasing levels of improvidence. Of note is that a 50% PBB diffusion generates nearly half the GHG savings every bit an isocaloric switch to a vegetarian diet. Similarly, h2o use is reduced by 6 (2.i%), 15 (5.2%) and 31 (10.four%) one thousandⁱⁱⁱ/cap/a, while agricultural country occupation shrinks by 101 (two.4%), 252 (6.i%) and 505 (12.1%) 1000²/cap/a, primarily equally spared rangeland. For the MUD, PBB provides an ecologically leaner poly peptide pick for GHGs (half-dozen.nine kg CO₂e/kg PBB vs 30.1 kg CO_iieast/kg ground beefiness), h2o consumption (0.eighteen mⁱⁱⁱ/kg PBB vs. 6.07 m³/kg footing beef) and land use (3.5 gⁱⁱ/kg PBB vs. 101.i grand²/kg footing beef). These reductions for the PBB are similar to those estimated for in-vitro meat production in GHGs (-75%) and land use (-94%) based on extrapolations from bench-scale data [31]. The results are more complex for the VEG and VGN diets. Notably increases are seen for GHG emissions (VEG: 3–17% and VGN: 8–38%), h2o impacts drop slightly for the VEG (0.4–1.8%) and rise for the VGN (0.2–1%), while cropland apply increases marginally for both the VEG (0.3–1.7%) and VGN (0.9–4.4%). GHG emission increases stem largely from the energy inputs for the PBB, which are higher than soy and nut-based protein sources due to production processes and inclusion of leghemoglobin. Water and land remain essentially unaltered when moving from pulses, nuts and eggs to alternative plants sources, although the tendency for higher land occupation aligns with the lower protein content of wheat used in PBB compared to the fava beans used to model the legumes in the VEG and VGN.

The marginal shifts in dietary performance of the MUD at the private level mask the true scope of reducing dietary environmental burdens from potential diffusion of such novel protein substitutes at the national calibration. Considering the 299.40 1000000 omnivores, 8.35 million vegetarians and 1.55 million vegans in the U.s.a. [57], a hypothetical 10% introduction of PBB into all 3 diets would net almanac reductions of four.half dozen–9.1 Mt CO₂e GHG emissions, 1.3–2.4 Gm^three h2o utilise and 22300–38000 km² agricultural state occupation. As above, most of the state use reduction is in the form of rangeland. To bring these numbers into context, this is the equivalent of removing i.1–ii.two million cars from American roads annually (4400 kg CO₂east/auto/a [58]), eliminating the straight h2o consumption of 10.5–nineteen.three million Americans (124 m³/cap/a [59]) and freeing up an expanse equal to 1–1.6 times that of the state of New Hampshire. Table 1 highlights the potential impacts from PBB diffusions at higher levels.

4. Discussion

Dietary shifts from the MUD to the VEG or VGN, and substitution of PBB for ground beefiness, reduce food related pressures exerted from typical US residents. Really achieving net gains is contingent on the adoption of PBB past a proportion of the 97% of United states of america residents that are omnivores, since PBB uptake risks increasing some ecology pressures of the non-meat diets. Fig 3 compares GHG emissions for different common protein sources per kilogram protein delivered to the consumer'due south plate. The PBB, though significantly lower in burdens than beef, is like to other animal-sourced proteins and elevated above the other institute-based choices. Information technology should exist kept in mind that our GHG estimates for animal-sourced proteins could be considered bourgeois [threescore]. PBB appears more burdensome than protein from mealworms, though the numbers for the mealworm LCA are for a live product [61], excluding the processing inputs to convert live insects to more than palatable cease products.

Yet, a modest risk exists that increases in VEG and VGN environmental burdens for GHGs and land (and water for the VGN) from PBB adoption, might not exist counteracted through uptake by the MUD. Fig four explores the required substitution of basis-beefiness with PBB in the MUD to balance 0–100% commutation of total protein with PBB in the VGN and VEG diets. In the extreme case that all vegetarians and vegans in the US source 100% of their protein from PBB, a replacement rate of around half dozen% ground beef (averaged ground beefiness as percent of total beef and slaughtering efficiency) past PBB in the MUD would avoid a cyberspace increase, hinting that the potential risk for unintended increases of GHG emissions at the US aggregate is marginal. The same is true for land use, where a MUD penetration rate beneath 1% would suffice to weigh a net increase. For water consumption, the negative slopes indicate that the MUD would have to increase beef consumption to counteract net reductions of PBB uptake by the VEG and VGN; unlikely given falling US beef demand in recent decades [13].

Much of the beef reduction in the US nutrition has been matched by increases in poultry intake. Such a tendency would be preferable from a GHG reduction perspective, even over PBB substitution or other novel meat substitutes [31,32]. All the same, the large scale industrialization of poultry since the 1970s has been undergirded past higher animal stocking densities and an undercutting of genetic diversity and resilience through a producer preference for fast-growing breeds [62], practices connected to the manual of infectious disease in the avian livestock population and loftier rates of antibiotic administration to industrial broilers to combat illness and hasten growth [62,63]. Similar practices accept too been noted in US pork production [63,64]. Applications of antibiotics are linked to the increase of multi-drug resistant affliction strains, diminishing the effectiveness of medicines in the man population [64–66]. Besides, only considering GHG related impacts for tuna obscures the fact that shifting towards pescatarian habits would further stress marine ecosystems that have seen abrupt declines in population size, species richness and functional diversity at current fishing levels [67,68]. Such costs in other sustainability domains should be counted when comparing PBB to livestock products with potentially lower GHG emission intensities.

Large-scale sourcing for plant-based lipids could somewhen present a land use change (LUC) risk, though that chance is dwarfed by the deforestation and LUC driven by beef production. Pasture and feedcrop expansion is the leading commuter of forest loss and landscape intensification in Primal and South America, [69–71] and one of several leading contributors to global net carbon losses (~880 MT C*year^-i) from wooded area conversion [72]. These types of land employ alter emissions have been successfully combated through legislation and through supply concatenation governance in the Brazilian Amazonia [73], but despite the progress of these efforts, these projects are not being continued in their current form [74]. Of business organization is the sourcing of coconut oil for the PBB, equally coconuts are grown in plantations in the humid torrid zone, regions that are rich in biodiversity and thus at elevated adventure of habitat and species loss [54]. While coconut palm systems are of lower biodiversity value than intact forests [75], thus far, there has been limited recent detectable need-driven extensification of coconut plantations in the source region, based on FAOSTAT country use and production volume data. Further, yield gaps in copra production indicate that production could exist theoretically doubled without acreage expansion via cultivar selection and use of all-time direction practices in coconut production (though such intensification is not without off-site environmental impacts) [76]. And then while a net reduction in human being appropriation of state in biodiversity hotspots seems likely when moving to PBB, oil sourcing will remain a potential sustainability challenge in the novel protein economy.

4. 1 Scaling up and future production efficiencies of PBB

Improvement potential exists for PBB, since significant impacts are borne in the processing of raw inputs to PBB, in addition to conquering of raw materials. Future shifts from fossil fuel based electricity sources could net improvements in PBB GHG emission operation, since electricity accounts for lxxx% of emissions during the processing stage. Potential reductions in impacts from heme production announced probable as the applied science matures and improved conversion efficiencies of raw inputs to heme are attained.

Taking the development of biofuels in recent decades equally a barometer, considerable performance improvements are to be expected once PBB production reaches industrial calibration using mature technologies. Precisely estimating the upscaling and technology maturation benefits and the resultant impacts on GHG functioning of PBB product are difficult due to the novel nature of PBB and the scarcity of information on upscaling and maturation effects on environmental performance. Barlow et al. [77] showed that the internet GHG emissions of algal derived biofuel improved from eighty m C02-eq/MJ to -44 g C02-eq/MJ equally a outcome of scaling efficiencies of energy utilisation (stirring, heating, etc.), elucidating the potential for improvement equally biotechnologies move across airplane pilot stage. Previous piece of work on in-vitro meat production also assumed significant efficiencies with scaling and maturation [31,32], supporting the assumption that the environmental burdens of novel meat analogues such as a the PBB will likely decrease in the future.

Greening of the power needed by Impossible Foods may occur due a multitude of causes including changing the location of production to countries with more desirable filigree mixes, construction of own (low GHG intensity) power supply and/or shifts of the regional The states grid mix away from carbon intense fuels. The fossil fuel based energy mix used in this assessment accounts for a significant part of the climate modify impacts produced past the PBB (see Fig four). The global variation in the climate modify intensity of one kWh ranges more than ii orders of magnitude [78] meaning that choice of grid is paramount. For instance, the PBB's electricity related impacts could be reduced by a factor vii–eight by producing on a filigree with similar GHG intensity to France. LCAs of cultured meat production linked h2o use and GHG performance to production location, underscoring the importance of geographic specificity [32].

In dissimilarity, significant improvements in the The states livestock supply chain practise not appear immediately forthcoming in most regards. The majority of beefiness GHG impacts stem from enteric fermentation, which is physiologically constrained, and though higher quality feeds do have the potential to mitigate a portion of these, Due north American beef production systems are already amidst the earth'south leanest in this regard, limiting improvement potential through this route [ix]. Although feed efficiency for U.s. beefiness has increased since the mid 1970's [79], long-term analysis of the U.s.a. livestock production shows that feed to final product ratios have generally remained stable for all the staple livestock proteins throughout the 20^thursday century, with the exception of broilers which accept seen substantial improvements [80]. The aforementioned can exist said for current manure management practices [IBID]. Brute feed is also a major GHG source. Reduced cultivation practices and improved yields would mitigate these, but given the advanced country of the majority of suppliers US production systems, such improvements are more than salient to the low-tech livestock producers in the emerging economies [9,81]. Similarly, h2o apply is physiologically constrained and strongly related to feed product. Exceptionally, land occupation could exist significantly improved by switching from pasture to feedlot methods, though this potentially expands demand for arable cropland, and reduces demand for marginal rangeland.

4. 2 Additional aspects of United states of america adoption of PBB

PBB adoption potentially reaps boosted benefits not directly addressed through this cess, including the reduction of reactive nitrogen runoff, a precursor to marine hypoxia and eutrophication. Livestock production is an important driver of these impacts at the regional and global from lax manure and urine management and runoff from fertilized feed crops [11,12,82]. PBB obviates both excrement product and the inefficiencies of converting feed to brute protein, ostensibly ameliorating eutrophication impacts in Usa beef supply regions, though more in depth assay should buttress this merits.

Predicted increases in meat consumption at the global aggregate, peculiarly beef, volition likely exacerbate stress on the planet'due south bio-geochemical cycles. Production improvements [9] and proactive country stewardship [83] can mitigate these to an extent, but meeting future demand with PBB can complement these efforts to help move towards more than sustainable diets in the Us and elsewhere. In a globalized and interconnected world, the ability for The states dietary trends to diffuse into other cultures is more pronounced than ever, including cultures 'locked-in' to similar consumption levels of beefiness (Europe, Australia) and those only at present ramping upward their beefiness demands (Communist china, India, Africa, etc.). Capturing the latter regions is particularly important, since aggregate environmental impacts of beefiness consumption are expected to increase significantly, even when the substantial gains in beef product efficiency are included [1,nine,18,24,80,84,85], and since large swathes of new agricultural land has recently been developed at the expense of tropical forests [86,87]. Moreover, as the United states of america is currently a internet exporter of beef [88], information technology is possible that Us beef producers might simply consign surplus production, hinting at the importance of dietary shifts beyond US borders.

It should exist noted that contrary to the US and Latin America where footing beef is predominantly produced from dedicated beef herds, much of the ground beef in many European countries is a byproduct of spent dairy cattle and breeding overhead [89,90]. From an LCA perspective the GHG impacts of this type of beef are generally two thirds lower than those of a segregated beef herd due to co-product resource allotment [91,92], only still college than those of PBB [90]. This relates once more to the role of the Americas every bit a beef export region, since importing countries could be sourcing ground beefiness from more impacting locales, emphasizing the importance of consumption dynamics beyond the U.s.a. border.

Essential to whatsoever give-and-take of the adoption of the PBB is the human factor. Changing diets is difficult and eating meat normalized in the Us [26–29]. Despite the PBB's superior performance at the product level when compared to beef, estimates of aggregate changes from large-scale adoption are speculative. These benefits hinge on the uptake of the PBB, and the results at the country level only express the potential of novel poly peptide sources to reduce environmental impacts at their current production efficiencies. Lastly, the PBB is one of numerous novel protein sources [xxx], each having a signature resource profile, meaning that the environmental event of their uptake at the national level is conjectural.

v. Conclusions

Information technology has been long known that reducing meat intake, aslope improved product and direction of nutrient waste, can play an important office in reducing the environmental impacts of the The states and similar diets. The challenge at present is less most identifying the problem, but rather getting people to make a switch. This is a difficult proposition in the US where meat heavy diets are securely enmeshed within its eating civilization. Novel protein sources that substitute for environmentally deleterious livestock products while circumnavigating tough psychological hurdles offer a means to improve the environmental integrity of the MUD.

Novel protein substitutes, such every bit the PBB, could make important inroads to reducing the impacts of the MUD. When projected to the national level, the introduction of the PBB (and potentially other novel ground-beef replacements [31,32]) could generate substantial savings in GHG emissions, h2o consumption and agricultural country occupation. PBB has elevated cyberspace GHG emissions compared to other animal protein sources, merely because the age of the technology, it has substantial potential for improvement over animal-sourced foods, while providing benefits in additional realms of sustainability. PBB adoption can have slightly negative impacts on the VEG and VGN past some metrics, merely a marginal uptake rate by the boilerplate American could counterbalance these.

Supporting information

S3 Table. Life wheel environmental impacts.

Spreadsheet showing the life cycle environmental impacts for individual nutrient items, diets on the per capita level and national level consumption for GHG emissions, water consumption and state occupation. Besides includes changes on impacts from PBB diffusion at different rates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189029.s003

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

Sincere cheers to the reviewers for donating their time and try.

References

1. 1. Tilman D, Clark One thousand. Global diets link ecology sustainability and homo health. Nature. Nature Publishing Grouping; 2014;515: 518–522. pmid:25383533
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
2. two. Springmann M, Godfray HCJ, Rayner Thousand, Scarborough P. Analysis and valuation of the wellness and climate change cobenefits of dietary modify. Proc Natl Acad Sci U Southward A. 2016;113: 4146–4151. pmid:27001851
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Heller MC, Keoleian G a. Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates of U.S. Dietary Choices and Food Loss. J Ind Ecol. 2015;19: 391–401.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. OECD. Meat consumption [Internet]. 2016 [cited 21 Sep 2016]. Available: https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm
5. 5. Jones CM, Kammen DM. Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for U.Southward. households and communities. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45: 4088–4095. pmid:21449584
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
6. half dozen. Smith P, Bustamante M, Ahammad H, Clark H, Dong H, Elsiddig EA, et al. Agronomics, Forestry and Other State Utilize (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani East, Kadner S, Seyboth Thou, et al., editors. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate change Contribution of Working Group III to the 5th Cess Report of the Intergovernmental Console on Climatic change. New York City, NY, Usa: Cambridge Academy Press; 2014.
7. vii. Nijdam D, Rood T, Westhoek H. The toll of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Nutrient Policy. 2012;37: 760–770.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
8. viii. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems. 2012;15: 401–415.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, et al. Tacking climate modify through livestock. Rome, It; 2013.
10. x. Weber CL, Matthews HS. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the Usa. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42: 3508–3513. pmid:18546681
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Eshel Chiliad, Shepon A, Makov T, Milo R. State, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy product in the United states. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111: 11996–12001. pmid:25049416
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Eshel One thousand, Shepon A, Noor E, Milo R. Environmentally Optimal, Nutritionally Aware Beef Replacement Plant-Based Diets. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50: 8164–8168. pmid:27387141
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Wells H, Buzby J. Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in U.S. Nutrient Consumption, 1970–2005 [Internet]. 2008. Available: http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/210681/eib33_1_.pdf
14. xiv. USDA. Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System—Summary Findings [Net]. 2016 [cited 21 Sep 2016]. Available: http://world wide web.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system/summary-findings.aspx
15. 15. Daniel CR, Cross AJ, Koebnick C, Sinha R. Trends in meat consumption in the Usa. Public Heal Nutr. 2011;fourteen: 575–583.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. IPCC. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). Climate Alter 2014: Mitigation of Climatic change Contribution of Working Grouping Iii to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014.
17. 17. Herrero G, Havlik P, Valin H, Notenbaert A, Rufino MC, Thornton PK, et al. Biomass employ, product, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110: 20888–20893. pmid:24344273
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Steinfeld H, Gerber P. Livestock production and the global environment: consume less or produce meliorate? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107: 18237–18238. pmid:20935253
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Pimentel M. Sustainability of meat-based and found based diets and the surround. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78(suppl): 660–663.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Shepon A, Eshel G, Noor East, Milo R. Free energy and protein feed-to-nutrient conversion efficiencies in the US and potential food security gains from dietary changes. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Wilkinson JM. Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. animal. 2011;5: 1014–1022. pmid:22440097
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Van Kernebeek HRJ, Oosting SJ, Van Ittersum MK, Bikker P, De Boer IJM. Saving land to feed a growing population: consequences for consumption of crop and livestock products. Int J Life Cycle Appraise. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2016;21: 677–687.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Matthews M, Johnson R. Alternative beef product systems: Issues and implications. 2013.
24. 24. Herrero M, Thornton PK. Livestock and global change: Emerging issues for sustainable food systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110: 20876–20881.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Peters CJ, Picardy J, Darrouzet-Nardi AF, Wilkins JL, Griffin TS, Fick GW. Carrying chapters of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios. Elem Sci Anthr. 2016;4: 116.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Piazza J, Ruby MB, Loughnan S, Luong Yard, Kulik J, Watkins HM, et al. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite. 2015;91: 114–128. pmid:25865663
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Macdiarmid JI, Douglas F, Campbell J. Eating like at that place's no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental bear upon of food and reluctance to consume less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite. 2016;96: 487–493. pmid:26476397
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Rothgerber H. Existent Men Don't Consume (Vegetable) Quiche: Masculinity and the Justification of Meat Consumption. Psychol Men Masc. 2012;14: No Pagination Specified.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. de Boer J, Hoogland CT, Boersema JJ. Towards more than sustainable food choices: Value priorities and motivational orientations. Food Qual Prefer. 2007;18: 985–996.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Fellet M. A Fresh Take on False Meat. ACS Cent Sci. 2015;ane: 347–349. pmid:27162992
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Mattick CS, Landis AE, Allenby BR, Genovese NJ. Anticipatory Life Cycle Analysis of In Vitro Biomass Cultivation for Cultured Meat Production in the United states. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49: 11941–11949. pmid:26383898
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Tuomisto HL, Teixeira De Mattos MJ. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45: 6117–6123. pmid:21682287
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Fraser R, Chocolate-brown P, Karr J, Holz-Schietinger C, Cohn E. Method and compositions for affecting the flavor and aroma contour of consumables. United states: U.S. Patent Office; US ix,700,067 B2, 2017.
34. 34. Sammons N, Moses R, Dark-brown P, Davis S, Davis A. Environmental Impact Reduction from Integration of Plant-Based Hamburger Production to Replace Brute Farming. Proceedings of the 2016 LCA Food Conference. Dublin; 2016.
35. 35. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg Due south, et al. Recent developments in Life Bicycle Assessment. J Environ Manage. 2009;91: 1–21. pmid:19716647
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Hellweg South, Milà i Canals Fifty. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle cess. Science (80-). 2014;344: 1109–13. pmid:24904154
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Meier T, Christen O. Environmental impacts of dietary recommendations and dietary styles: Germany as an case. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47: 877–88. pmid:23189920
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Davis J, Sonesson U, Baumgartner DU, Nemecek T. Environmental impact of 4 meals with different poly peptide sources: Case studies in Spain and Sweden. Food Res Int. Elsevier Ltd; 2010;43: 1874–1884.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Muñoz I, Milà i Canals L, Fernández-Alba AR. Life cycle assessment of the average Spanish nutrition including man excretion. Int J Life Cycle Appraise. 2010;xv: 794–805.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Garnett T. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the nutrient system (including the food chain)? Food Policy. 2011;36: S23–S32.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. USDA. Food Availability (Per Capita) Data Arrangement [Internet]. 2016 [cited 23 Sep 2016]. Bachelor: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system/.aspx
42. 42. U.Due south. Section of Wellness and Homo Services and U.S. Department of Agronomics. 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. eighth Edition [Cyberspace]. 2015. Bachelor: http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/
43. 43. Haddad EH, Tanzman JS. What do vegetarians in the U.s.a. eat? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2003.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Cattlemen's Beef Board and Cattlemen'southward Beef Association. Full Beef Category Breakdown. In: Beefiness Retail Marketing [Net]. 2016 [cited 23 Sep 2016]. Available: http://bit.ly/2deLws4
45. 45. Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM, Chapagain AK, Mathews RE, Richter BD. Global monthly water scarcity: Blue water footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS One. 2012;seven. pmid:22393438
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer 1000, et al. IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2003;viii: 324–330.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Baroni 50, Cenci 50, Tettamanti M, Berati M. Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food product systems. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007;61: 279–86. pmid:17035955
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Scarborough P, Appleby PN, Mizdrak A, Briggs ADM, Travis RC, Bradbury KE, et al. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the United kingdom. Clim Change. 2014;125: 179–192. pmid:25834298
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Goldstein B, Hansen SF, Gjerris M, Laurent A, Birkved Thousand. Ethical aspects of life cycle assessments of diets. Food Policy. 2016;59: 139–151.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Jalava Chiliad, Kummu M, Porkka M, Siebert S, Varis O. Nutrition change-a solution to reduce water utilise? Environ Res Lett. 2014;9: 1–14. 074016
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. Gliessman S. Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable nutrient systems. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015.
52. 52. Fleischner TL. Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America. Conserv Biol. 1994;eight: 629–644.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Noojipady P, Prince SD, Rishmawi M. Reductions in productivity due to state degradation in the drylands of the southwestern United states. Ecosyst Heal Sustain. 2015;one: 1–15.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
54. 54. Ceballos K, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled past vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017; E6089–E6096. pmid:28696295
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. van Dooren C, Marinussen M, Blonk H, Aiking H, Vellinga P. Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: A comparison of six dietary patterns. Food Policy. Elsevier Ltd; 2014;44: 36–46.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Dumont B, Fortun-Lamothe L, Jouven Grand, Thomas M, Tichit M. Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for brute production in the 21st century. animal. 2013;vii: 1028–1043. pmid:23257276
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Cunningham J. How many vegetarians are there? Veg J. 2009;29. Available: http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2009issue4/
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
58. 58. United States Ecology Protection Bureau. Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Rider Cars and Light Trucks [Internet]. 2008. Bachelor: https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08024.pdf
59. 59. The United States Geological Survey. The USGS Water Scientific discipline School [Net]. 2016. Available: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html
60. 60. Nijdam D, Rood T, Westhoek H. The toll of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal nutrient products and their substitutes. Food Policy. Elsevier Ltd; 2012;37: 760–770.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
61. 61. Oonincx DGAB, de Boer IJM. Ecology Impact of the Production of Mealworms every bit a Protein Source for Humans—A Life Bicycle Cess. PLoS Ane. 2012;7. pmid:23284661
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
62. 62. Boyd Westward. Making Meat: Science, Technology, and American Poultry Production. Technol Cult. 2001;42.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
63. 63. Sneeringer S, MacDonald J, Key Due north, McBride W, Mathews Chiliad. Economics of Antibody Utilize in U.Due south. Livestock Production, ERR-200. 2015.
64. 64. Frieden T. Antibiotic resistance threats in the Usa. Centers Dis Command Prev. 2013; 114. CS239559-B
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
65. 65. Gilchrist MJ, Greko C, Wallinga DB, Beran GW, Riley DG, Thorne PS. The potential role of concentrated animal feeding operations in infectious disease epidemics and antibody resistance. Environ Wellness Perspect. 2007;115: 313–316. pmid:17384785
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
66. 66. Smith DL, Harris Ad, Johnson J a, Silbergeld EK, Morris JG. Brute antibody use has an early but of import impact on the emergence of antibiotic resistance in human commensal bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99: 6434–6439. pmid:11972035
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
67. 67. Selig ER, Turner WR, Troëng South, Wallace BP, Halpern BS, Kaschner K, et al. Global priorities for marine biodiversity conservation. PLoS Ane. 2014;9. pmid:24416151
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
68. 68. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Halpern BS, et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science (80-). 2006;314: 787–790. pmid:17082450
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
69. 69. Gibbs H., Ruesch Equally, Achard F, Clayton MK, Holmgren P, Ramankutty Due north, et al. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural country in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107: 16732–16737. pmid:20807750
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
70. 70. Boucher D, Elias P, Lininger 1000, Calen Yard-T, Roquemore Southward, Saxon E. The root of the problem what'south driving tropical deforestation today? Union Concerned Sci. 2011;61: v-eight-28-110.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
71. 71. Morton DC, DeFries RS, Shimabukuro YE, Anderson LO, Arai E, del Bon Espirito-Santo F, et al. Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103: 14637–14641. pmid:16973742
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
72. 72. Achard F, Beuchle R, Mayaux P, Stibig HJ, Bodart C, Brink A, et al. Conclusion of tropical deforestation rates and related carbon losses from 1990 to 2010. Glob Chang Biol. 2014;twenty: 2540–2554. pmid:24753029
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
73. 73. Gibbs HK, Munger J, Fifty'Roe J, Barreto P, Pereira R, Christie M, et al. Did Ranchers and Slaughterhouses Respond to Goose egg-Deforestation Agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Conservation Letters. 2016. pp. 32–42.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
74. 74. Gibbs HK, Rausch Fifty, Munger J, Schelly I, Morton DC, Noojipady P, et al. Surround and evolution. Brazil's Soy Moratorium. Scientific discipline (80-). 2015;347: 377–8. pmid:25613879
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
75. 75. Young HS, McCauley DJ, Dunbar RB, Dirzo R. Plants cause ecosystem nutrient depletion via the interruption of bird-derived spatial subsidies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107: 2072–seven. pmid:20133852
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
76. 76. Magat SS, Canja LH, Rivera SM. Coconut productivity and profitability of two important Philippine PCA hybrids: A disquisitional review. 2007;23.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
77. 77. Barlow J, Sims RC, Quinn JC. Techno-economical and life-cycle assessment of an attached growth algal biorefinery. Bioresour Technol. 2016;220: 360–368. pmid:27595701
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
78. 78. Harnisch J, Moreira J, Atkins P, Colbourne D, Dieryckx Thousand, Kaprwan H, et al. Methodologies. In: Midgley P, Sideridou M, editors. Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate Organisation: Problems Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. IPCC; 2005. pp. 118–224.
79. 79. Capper JL. The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. J Anim Sci. 2011;89: 4249–4261. pmid:21803973
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
80. fourscore. Smil V. Worldwide transformation of diets, burdens of meat product and opportunities for novel food proteins. Enzyme and Microbial Engineering science. 2002. pp. 305–311.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
81. 81. Foley J a, Ramankutty N, Brauman K a, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature. 2011;478: 337–42. pmid:21993620
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
82. 82. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, De Haan C. Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome, Italy,. 2006; 1–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-008-9149-three
83. 83. Tilman D, Balzer C, Colina J, Befort BL. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108: 20260–4. pmid:22106295
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
84. 84. Pelletier North, Tyedmers P. Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000–2050. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107: 18371–four. pmid:20921375
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
85. 85. Ray DK, Mueller ND, West PC, Foley JA. Yield Trends Are Insufficient to Double Global Crop Production by 2050. PLoS One. 2013;8. pmid:23840465
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
86. 86. Gibbs H., Ruesch Equally, Achard F, Clayton MK, Holmgren P, Ramankutty N, et al. Tropical forests were the master sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107: 16732–16737. pmid:20807750
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
87. 87. Laurance WF, Sayer J, Cassman KG. Agronomical expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends in Ecology and Development. 2014. pp. 107–116. pmid:24388286
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
88. 88. United States Department of Agronomics—Economic Research Service. Cattle & Beefiness Trade [Internet]. 2016 [cited 30 Sep 2016]. Bachelor: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/trade.aspx
89. 89. Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. Globe agriculture: towards 2015/2030: an FAO perspective. State utilize policy. 2003;xx: 375.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
90. ninety. Opio C, Gerber P, Mottet A, Falcucci A, Tempio G, MacLeod M, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains–A global life cycle cess. Food and agronomics organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. 2013.
91. 91. de Vries M, de Boer IJM. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life bicycle assessments. Livest Sci. Elsevier B.V.; 2010;128: 1–11.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
92. 92. Pelletier Northward, Pirog R, Rasmussen R. Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agric Syst. 2010;103: 380–389.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

lopezyoureaver.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0189029

Share this post