Comparison of resources for the production of meat and its substitutes

If you do not feel like reading the whole article, remember this:

The food we eat affects not only us through the nutrients it contains, but also nature and the planet we inhabit. Leaving aside animal suffering, which is obvious and we will not be the first or the last to point it out, we will focus on the price our small planet pays for our actions and eating habits.

There is a price paid for producing our food and a price paid as a result of that production. The second is most often greenhouse gas and nitrogen emissions, while the first is the use of resources such as land, water and energy. In this article, we will focus on the resources needed to produce what we eat and once again examine how these indicators vary between livestock farming, growing whole-food substitutes, meat imitations and lab-grown meat.

Land use

We begin with land and its use:

Land is the most structurally important environmental variable in food systems because it is directly connected to:

• Deforestation
• Biodiversity loss
• Carbon opportunity cost
• Soil degradation

Conventional meat

We call it that because later we will also look at the kind grown in a laboratory.
Mechanisms driving land use:

• Pastures — extensive systems
• Land for feed crops — soy, corn, other feed crops
• Inefficiency of feed conversion

Beef protein requires:

• ~7–10 kg of feed per kg of beef
• Only ~10–30% of feed protein is converted into edible protein

Key statistic

• Livestock uses ~77–80% of the world’s agricultural land
• It provides ~18% of global calories
• Beef requires ~20–50 m² per kg of product
• Per 100 g of protein → approximately 150–300 m² per year

Beef is the most land-intensive food in global datasets.

Whole-food plant-based substitutes — legumes

Mechanisms:

• Direct human consumption
• No feed conversion
• Nitrogen fixation reduces the need for fertilizers

Key statistic

5–20× less land per unit of protein than beef.
Often 2–6 m² per 100 g of protein.
This is the global minimum for land use among protein sources.

Water footprint

After land use, it is time to look at how water is used and often wasted in the different production systems.

The water footprint includes:

• Green water — rainfall
• Blue water — irrigation
• Grey water — dilution of pollution

Conventional meat — beef.
Mechanisms requiring water:

• Drinking water
• Irrigation of feed crops
• Processing

Key statistics:

• Beef: 10,000–15,000 liters per kg of product
• Per 100 g of protein → ~5,000–7,000 liters

Most water use comes from irrigation of feed crops.

Whole-food meat imitations
Mechanisms requiring water:

• Crop irrigation
• Processing of raw materials

Key statistics:

• ~75–500 liters per kg of product
• ~200–800 liters per 100 g of protein

~10–20 times lower than beef.

Legumes and peas
Mechanisms:

• Rain-fed crops, often
• Minimal processing

Key statistics:

• ~200–2000 liters per kg
• ~150–500 liters per 100 g of protein

The lowest water footprint among the main protein sources.

Cultivated meat
Mechanisms requiring water:

• Cooling bioreactors
• Production of growth medium

Expectations:

• Lower than beef
• Probably higher than legumes
• Strongly tied to energy use

The water footprint depends on facility efficiency.

Energy use

Last but not least, we will look at the energy use for producing the four contenders for the title of the least harmful food for nature.

Energy footprint is crucial for:

• The efficiency and development of cultivated meat as an industry
• The intensity of processing
• Climate sensitivity

Beef
Energy is used for:

• Fertilizer production
• Agricultural machinery
• Feed transport
• Slaughter

Moderate energy use, but high methane content dominates the climate footprint. Still, we have to be in opposition to it.

Whole-food meat imitations
Energy-intensive stages:

• Protein isolation
• Extrusion
• Processing

Higher than legumes.
Still a much lower overall climate footprint than beef.

Cultivated meat
The highest direct energy demand — bad news.
Energy is needed for:

• Sterile environment
• Continuous bioreactor operation
• Temperature control
• Medium sterilization

If fossil fuels are used, the climate footprint rises sharply.
If renewable energy is used, emissions could be greatly reduced.
The energy source determines the viability of this type of product.

Whole-food meat substitutes
The lowest energy use:

• Mainly harvesting
• Drying
• Minimal processing

The most efficient system overall, but not because we are biased. In other words, that is just how things turned out.

Statistics

To make the comparisons easier to understand, we will also show you some statistics in the form of our favorite tables.
First, we will start with tables showing how much land, water and energy are used to produce 100 grams of protein from each of the four types of products:

Beef

Plant-based meat alternatives — PBMAs

Legumes — beans, lentils, pulses

Cultivated — lab-grown — meat

(Modelled, not fully commercial)

Since some people will say that protein is not the only thing that matters, and they will be right to say that, we will also add similar tables for producing 1000 calories, which slightly changes the picture.

Why?

• Meat is rich in protein, but calorie-dense through fat.
• Legumes contain carbohydrates + protein.
• PBMAs often contain added oils.
• Cultivated meat reflects the energy density of meat.

Beef — 1000 kcal ≈ ~400 g beef

Plant-based meat imitations — 1000 kcal ≈ 400–500 g product

Legumes — 1000 kcal ≈ 350–400 g dry legumes

Cultivated meat — 1000 kcal ≈ similar to beef

And the food-efficiency competition in terms of resource consumption for protein and calories ends as follows:

Overall ranking for environmental efficiency

For producing 100 g of protein:

1. Legumes
2. PBMAs
3. Cultivated meat — if powered by renewable energy
4. Beef

Per 1000 kcal:

1. Legumes
2. PBMAs
3. Cultivated meat
4. Beef

Sources:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
https://assets.ctfassets.net/hhv516v5f7sj/4exF7Ex74UoYku640WSF3t/cc213b148ee80fa2d8062e430012ec56/Impossible_foods_comparative_LCA.pdf
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2025.1641234/full
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/3/448
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/16133
https://gfieurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CE_Delft_190107_LCA_of_cultivated_meat_Def.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2022/09/meat-protein-alternatives_54e42940/387d30cf-en.pdf
https://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf