of available studies, data sources and relevant models in order to narrow down the
ranges of environmental impacts (e.g. water use for dairy based, microalgae and
cultured meat substitutes).
Despite mentioned limitations, it was possible to indicate that according to the
current state of TRL the most promising sources of proteins in terms of energy
consumption were plant and insect protein biomass (grown on commercial chicken
feed). Meat substitutes based on biomass derived from dairy, yeast and bacteria had
higher level of energy consumption, but also high potential for further development.
Alternative sources of proteins had low impact on climate change (comparable with
chicken 2–4 kg CO 2 eq. and pork 4–6 kg CO 2 eq. per kg of meat) for all of the sources,
except for meat substitutes from microalgae (related to variety of production
conditions). Land use impacts were comparable between alternative sources of proteins (2–4 m
2 a per kg of product, vs. 5–7 m
2 for chicken and 7–8 m
2 for pork).
Fungi, yeast and bacteria based sources of proteins were exception and had lower land
use impact (up to 2 m
2 a year
−1
). Water footprint was quite similar between
different protein sources with lower impacts associated with microalgae and fungi
biomass. Benefits of water consumption of dairy and insect based meat substitutes,
as well as of cultured meat could not be demonstrated due to the lower data quality.
In terms of nutritional quality, the most identical substitute to meat was produced
by cellular agriculture methods (cultured meat). However, due to muscle purity,
meat substitute produced by cellular agriculture usually consists of lower fat content
then traditional meat. Plant based meat substitutes are well researched and documented, with high presence on the market. At the same time, the diversity of
vegetable protein sources and their unbalanced nutritional composition set difficulties for the complete substitution of animal derived products.
Insect and dairy based food substitutes are characterized with excellent nutritional qualities similar, or often more beneficial than traditional meat products. Milk
based protein products usually have a moderate protein and fat content (10–14%
and 8–10% respectively). However, dairy based protein concentrates and isolates
can serve as a high protein additive for human consumption. Insects can be considered as a good source of proteins (up to 77% dry weight), fats (up to 62% dry
weight) and polyunsaturated amino acids [42]. Moist cooked products, based on
whole mealworm and depending on the processing technology, resulted in products
with 22–30% proteins and 2–20% fat (own data). However, the limiting factor of
insects’ application for food and feed could be low amounts of methionine [43].
Single cell production (fungi, algae, yeast and bacteria) can provide excellent
sources of proteins (30–65% in dry weight) and fats (up to 20% in microalgae), but
they are also a source of nucleic acid (3–12%), which can be a serious obstacle for
the direct use in food, as it might cause health complications [44].
Agri-Food Waste Streams Utilization for Development …
149
ranges of environmental impacts (e.g. water use for dairy based, microalgae and
cultured meat substitutes).
Despite mentioned limitations, it was possible to indicate that according to the
current state of TRL the most promising sources of proteins in terms of energy
consumption were plant and insect protein biomass (grown on commercial chicken
feed). Meat substitutes based on biomass derived from dairy, yeast and bacteria had
higher level of energy consumption, but also high potential for further development.
Alternative sources of proteins had low impact on climate change (comparable with
chicken 2–4 kg CO 2 eq. and pork 4–6 kg CO 2 eq. per kg of meat) for all of the sources,
except for meat substitutes from microalgae (related to variety of production
conditions). Land use impacts were comparable between alternative sources of proteins (2–4 m
2 a per kg of product, vs. 5–7 m
2 for chicken and 7–8 m
2 for pork).
Fungi, yeast and bacteria based sources of proteins were exception and had lower land
use impact (up to 2 m
2 a year
−1
). Water footprint was quite similar between
different protein sources with lower impacts associated with microalgae and fungi
biomass. Benefits of water consumption of dairy and insect based meat substitutes,
as well as of cultured meat could not be demonstrated due to the lower data quality.
In terms of nutritional quality, the most identical substitute to meat was produced
by cellular agriculture methods (cultured meat). However, due to muscle purity,
meat substitute produced by cellular agriculture usually consists of lower fat content
then traditional meat. Plant based meat substitutes are well researched and documented, with high presence on the market. At the same time, the diversity of
vegetable protein sources and their unbalanced nutritional composition set difficulties for the complete substitution of animal derived products.
Insect and dairy based food substitutes are characterized with excellent nutritional qualities similar, or often more beneficial than traditional meat products. Milk
based protein products usually have a moderate protein and fat content (10–14%
and 8–10% respectively). However, dairy based protein concentrates and isolates
can serve as a high protein additive for human consumption. Insects can be considered as a good source of proteins (up to 77% dry weight), fats (up to 62% dry
weight) and polyunsaturated amino acids [42]. Moist cooked products, based on
whole mealworm and depending on the processing technology, resulted in products
with 22–30% proteins and 2–20% fat (own data). However, the limiting factor of
insects’ application for food and feed could be low amounts of methionine [43].
Single cell production (fungi, algae, yeast and bacteria) can provide excellent
sources of proteins (30–65% in dry weight) and fats (up to 20% in microalgae), but
they are also a source of nucleic acid (3–12%), which can be a serious obstacle for
the direct use in food, as it might cause health complications [44].
Agri-Food Waste Streams Utilization for Development …
149