By-products from farming could help develop and support the cultured meat industry, research led by the Royal Agricultural University (RAU) has found.

Advancements in technology has meant that animal cells can be grown in the lab and make simple forms of cultured meat, such as mince or nuggets.

Possible by-products that could be used in cultured meat production include the leftovers from making rapeseed oil, some of which currently goes to animal feed, and blood from traditional meat production, which is sometimes used as fertiliser or wasted.

Both are rich in amino acids, which are the costliest and least sustainable ingredients used to grow cultured meat.

Footprint

This research found that using these by-products, instead of synthetic amino acids, could reduce the environmental footprint of cultured meat by using less energy, water and land, plus make the end product more affordable.

The research also investigated the threats and opportunities as seen by a wide range of UK farmers.

The team partnered with nine UK farms to find out what cultured meat might mean for their individual businesses.

Compared with challenges such as changing weather patterns and global commodity markets, the threat of competition from cultured meat felt like a ‘slow burn’ to them.

Concerns

Their main concerns were about wider social issues, such as big companies controlling the food system or the knock-on effects for rural communities, more than about the direct impact on their businesses.

One of the farmers who contributed to the study said: “The cultured meat industry needs to talk more about what they’re up to, rather than keeping everything behind closed doors. But I also think that us farmers could listen a bit more too.”

The study was guided by an advisory group including farming organisations and cultured meat businesses. It also involved practical workshops with policymakers, funders, environmental groups and cultured meat businesses to identify practical next steps.

Professor Tom MacMillan, Elizabeth Creak chair in rural policy and strategy at the RAU, who led the study, said: “The environmental cost of meat production globally means we need to throttle back and widening the range of safe, tasty and affordable alternatives to traditional meat can help.

'Jury is out'

"While the jury is out on whether cultured meat will fit the bill, we’ve found that it needn’t spell disaster for farmers.

"The farmers who spoke to us for this study had lots of concerns about the technology, but, for the most part, had many bigger challenges on their plates.

"Some were also interested in its opportunities, from supplying raw materials to even producing it on their farms.

“Some places around the world have banned cultured meat in the name of protecting farming. But instead of seeing this as ‘all or nothing’, we explored where there could be win-wins.

"Building bridges with farmers is certainly in the cultured meat companies’ interests, as some are starting to see. More surprisingly, we found that keeping the door open may serve farmers better too.”