© Framestock/Adobe Stock
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/lab-grown-meat-more-costly-for-environment-study-finds
New research has raised doubts over whether lab-grown meat could be a greener alternative for the planet than conventional meat produced from livestock.
Scientists at the Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, found the carbon footprint of lab-grown, or “cultivated” meat, could be up to 25 times worse for the climate than meat produced by raising and slaughtering farm animals (PDF).
Food scientist Derrick Risner and colleagues assessed the environmental impact of near-term animal cell-based meat (ACBM), or “cultured meat”, production.
See also: Is lab-grown meat a threat to traditional livestock farming?
The researchers estimated that each kilogram of ACBM produces between 246kg and 1,508kg of carbon dioxide, which is four to 25 times greater than the median global warming potential of regular beef produced from livestock.
This is because the carbon dioxide emitted for the different stages of lab-grown meat production, especially the highly purified growing process, is highly energy intensive, they say.
Explore moreKnow How
Visit our Know How centre for practical farming advice
“Animal cell culture is traditionally done with growth medium components that have been refined to remove/reduce endotoxin,” say the researchers.
“The method of endotoxin reduction or elimination is highly dependent upon the properties of the substance being purified… the use of these refinement methods contributes significantly to the economic and environmental costs associated with pharmaceutical products since they are both energy and resource intensive.”
A study published in January by Pelle Sinke at CE Delft, a consulting company based in the Netherlands, concluded that lab-grown meat could have a lower carbon footprint than beef, if technology improves the production process.
Commenting on the findings of this latest study, NFU deputy president Tom Bradshaw said: “Innovation and new technology has always been central to the progress of British livestock farming and we must continue to drive the ambition of producing climate-friendly beef and lamb that delivers carbon storage and environmental habitats.
“Although the science of lab-grown meat is interesting, there are still too many unknowns about health and sustainability to be able to give further comment.”
Exposing the Big Game 
Reblogged this on The Extinction Chronicles.
Coexistence Through Plant-Based Diet
It, a plant-based diet, would help developing countries, developed countries, and those in between, help wildlife, biodiversity, the environment, and human health to get away from the erroneous idea that we have to feed people a meat diet with livestock and bushmeat. We have another choice. A plant-based diet would be the biggest boon to coexistence with the wild, much more so than the unrealistic notion that we teach coexistence with wildlife by management of stock and wildlife, or teach coexistence with the hyperbole and exaggerations and folklore and mythology and lies of ranchers and hunters or conservative politicians about predator predation
We would not have to displace wildlife with stock, destroy wildlife habitat, cut down forests and jungles for pasture, or kill wildlife because of conflict with domestic stock. We could get away from the horrors of raising stock to slaughter. We could stop polluting land, air, and water with stock. A plant-based diet is healthier than meat-based. We just do not need meat; it is a cultural myth. Ranchers, hunters, and most of the public subscribe to the myth of the need for meat. Our economy is based on this myth, tradition, and marketing. It is way past time to change the barbaric and gluttonous lifestyle of meat eating.
We do not need the meat, lab grown or rancher, it is a gluttonous cultural myth and marketing brainwash.