Table 1

Comparison of carbon footprint, water, land, and energy use in meat and mushroom-based meat analogue production.

Type of meatCarbon footprint (kg CO2 eq./kg)Water use
(m3/kg)
Land use
(m2/kg)
Energy use (MJ/kg)References
Chicken5.2–5.823.913.85–3.8951.64–63.4Smetana et al. (2015) and Kumar et al. (2017)
Beef27.315.542.959.2Smetana et al. (2015) and de Vries et al. (2015)
Meat analogue (Mushroom)1.62–1.8NA3.3–3.616.4–19.9Smetana et al. (2021)
Type of meatCarbon footprint (kg CO2 eq./kg)Water use
(m3/kg)
Land use
(m2/kg)
Energy use (MJ/kg)References
Chicken5.2–5.823.913.85–3.8951.64–63.4Smetana et al. (2015) and Kumar et al. (2017)
Beef27.315.542.959.2Smetana et al. (2015) and de Vries et al. (2015)
Meat analogue (Mushroom)1.62–1.8NA3.3–3.616.4–19.9Smetana et al. (2021)
Table 1

Comparison of carbon footprint, water, land, and energy use in meat and mushroom-based meat analogue production.

Type of meatCarbon footprint (kg CO2 eq./kg)Water use
(m3/kg)
Land use
(m2/kg)
Energy use (MJ/kg)References
Chicken5.2–5.823.913.85–3.8951.64–63.4Smetana et al. (2015) and Kumar et al. (2017)
Beef27.315.542.959.2Smetana et al. (2015) and de Vries et al. (2015)
Meat analogue (Mushroom)1.62–1.8NA3.3–3.616.4–19.9Smetana et al. (2021)
Type of meatCarbon footprint (kg CO2 eq./kg)Water use
(m3/kg)
Land use
(m2/kg)
Energy use (MJ/kg)References
Chicken5.2–5.823.913.85–3.8951.64–63.4Smetana et al. (2015) and Kumar et al. (2017)
Beef27.315.542.959.2Smetana et al. (2015) and de Vries et al. (2015)
Meat analogue (Mushroom)1.62–1.8NA3.3–3.616.4–19.9Smetana et al. (2021)
Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close