IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p5067-d547392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

U.S. Potential of Sustainable Backyard Distributed Animal and Plant Protein Production during and after Pandemics

Author

Listed:
  • Theresa K. Meyer

    (Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA)

  • Alexis Pascaris

    (Department of Social Science, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA)

  • David Denkenberger

    (Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED), Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
    Department of Mechanical Engineering and Alaska Center for Energy and Power, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA)

  • Joshua M. Pearce

    (Équipe de Recherche sur les Processus Innovatifs (ERPI), Université de Lorraine, 54000 Nancy, France
    School of Electrical Engineering, Aalto University, 02150 Espoo, Finland
    Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA)

Abstract

To safeguard against meat supply shortages during pandemics or other catastrophes, this study analyzed the potential to provide the average household’s entire protein consumption using either soybean production or distributed meat production at the household level in the U.S. with: (1) pasture-fed rabbits, (2) pellet and hay-fed rabbits, or (3) pellet-fed chickens. Only using the average backyard resources, soybean cultivation can provide 80–160% of household protein and 0–50% of a household’s protein needs can be provided by pasture-fed rabbits using only the yard grass as feed. If external supplementation of feed is available, raising 52 chickens while also harvesting the concomitant eggs or alternately 107 grain-fed rabbits can meet 100% of an average household’s protein requirements. These results show that resilience to future pandemics and challenges associated with growing meat demands can be incrementally addressed through backyard distributed protein production. Backyard production of chicken meat, eggs, and rabbit meat reduces the environmental costs of protein due to savings in production, transportation, and refrigeration of meat products and even more so with soybeans. Generally, distributed production of protein was found to be economically competitive with centralized production of meat if distributed labor costs were ignored.

Suggested Citation

  • Theresa K. Meyer & Alexis Pascaris & David Denkenberger & Joshua M. Pearce, 2021. "U.S. Potential of Sustainable Backyard Distributed Animal and Plant Protein Production during and after Pandemics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5067-:d:547392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5067/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5067/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vaclav Smil, 2002. "Eating Meat: Evolution, Patterns, and Consequences," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 28(4), pages 599-639, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katz-Rosene, Ryan & Heffernan, Andrew & Arora, Anil, 2023. "Protein pluralism and food systems transition: A review of sustainable protein meta-narratives," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Bordiean & Michał Krzyżaniak & Mariusz J. Stolarski & Dumitru Peni, 2020. "Growth Potential of Yellow Mealworm Reared on Industrial Residues," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Tiziano Gomiero, 2013. "Alternative Land Management Strategies and Their Impact on Soil Conservation," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Anna Kustar & Dalia Patino-Echeverri, 2021. "A Review of Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of Diets: Plant-Based Solutions Are Truly Sustainable, even in the Form of Fast Foods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, September.
    4. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo & Jayson L. Lusk, 2024. "Consumer preferences for food away from home: Dine in versus delivery," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 496-525, March.
    5. Raquel P. F. Guiné & João Duarte & Cristina Chuck-Hernández & Nada M. Boustani & Ilija Djekic & Elena Bartkiene & Marijana Matec Sarić & Maria Papageorgiou & Malgorzata Korzeniowska & Patricia Combarr, 2023. "Validation of the Scale Knowledge and Perceptions about Edible Insects through Structural Equation Modelling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-25, February.
    6. Anna Bordiean & Michał Krzyżaniak & Mariusz J. Stolarski & Stanisław Czachorowski & Dumitru Peni, 2020. "Will Yellow Mealworm Become a Source of Safe Proteins for Europe?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-30, June.
    7. Raquel P. F. Guiné & Sofia G. Florença & Ofélia Anjos & Paula M. R. Correia & Bruno M. Ferreira & Cristina A. Costa, 2021. "An Insight into the Level of Information about Sustainability of Edible Insects in a Traditionally Non-Insect-Eating Country: Exploratory Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-20, October.
    8. van der Linden, Aart & Oosting, Simon J. & van de Ven, Gerrie W.J. & de Boer, Imke J.M. & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2015. "A framework for quantitative analysis of livestock systems using theoretical concepts of production ecology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 100-109.
    9. Miina Porkka & Matti Kummu & Stefan Siebert & Olli Varis, 2013. "From Food Insufficiency towards Trade Dependency: A Historical Analysis of Global Food Availability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-12, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5067-:d:547392. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.