IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i12p9253-d1166393.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Livestock Farmers’ Attitudes towards Alternative Proteins

Author

Listed:
  • Chloe Crawshaw

    (Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, UK)

  • Jared Piazza

    (Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, UK)

Abstract

New food technologies such as cultured meat, precision fermentation, and plant-based alternatives may one day supplant traditional modes of animal farming. Nonetheless, very little is known about how traditional animal farmers perceive these new products, despite being directly impacted by their advance. The present study explored the views of livestock farmers regarding emerging protein alternatives. We used a comparison group of omnivorous non-farmers as a frame of reference. Forty-five UK-based livestock farmers and fifty-three non-farmers read an informative vignette about emerging food technologies that reviewed their advantages vis-à-vis intensive animal agriculture. Afterwards, participants rated four products (plant-based burgers; plant-based milk alternatives; cultured beef; animal-free dairy milk) in terms of their personal appeal and how much they represented a positive change to the market. Participants furthermore voiced their agreement or disagreement towards 26 statements representing potential facilitators or barriers to product acceptance. Overall, farmers rated the four products less appealing and less beneficial to the industry compared to non-farmers. Positive change ratings tended to be higher than personal appeal ratings for all products. Both groups tended to agree that the alternatives offered advantages, particularly for the environment, resource use, food security, and animal treatment, though agreement rates were lower for farmers. Farmers tended to perceive more barriers to acceptance than non-farmers, with ‘threat to farmers’ and ‘lack of support to local farmers’ of paramount concern to both groups. These findings highlight how farmers’ attitudes towards alternative proteins are mixed and, ultimately, shaped by the perceived vulnerability of farming communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Chloe Crawshaw & Jared Piazza, 2023. "Livestock Farmers’ Attitudes towards Alternative Proteins," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-18, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:12:p:9253-:d:1166393
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/12/9253/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/12/9253/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaudia Modlinska & Dominika Adamczyk & Dominika Maison & Wojciech Pisula, 2020. "Gender Differences in Attitudes to Vegans/Vegetarians and Their Food Preferences, and Their Implications for Promoting Sustainable Dietary Patterns–A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Brian Revell, 2015. "Meat and Milk Consumption 2050: the Potential for Demand-side Solutions to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 14(3), pages 4-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Caillavet, France & Fadhuile, Adélaïde & Nichèle, Véronique, 2019. "Assessing the distributional effects of carbon taxes on food: Inequalities and nutritional insights in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 20-31.
    2. Gian-Andrea Egeler & Priska Baur, 2022. "Menu Choice and Meat-Eating Habits: Results of a Field Experiment in Two University Canteens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, March.
    3. Christine Cleghorn & Ingrid Mulder & Alex Macmillan & Anja Mizdrak & Jonathan Drew & Nhung Nghiem & Tony Blakely & Cliona Ni Mhurchu, 2022. "Can a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tax on Food also Be Healthy and Equitable? A Systemised Review and Modelling Study from Aotearoa New Zealand," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Chi-Horng Liao, 2022. "Applying the DEMATEL Method to Evaluate Social Media Criteria in Promoting Sustainable Health Behavior—A Case Study of Vegetarian Diet Promotion by a Non-Profit Organization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-18, December.
    5. David Kilian & Ulrich Hamm, 2021. "Perceptions of Vegan Food among Organic Food Consumers Following Different Diets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-17, August.
    6. Caillavet, France & Fadhuile, Adelaide & Nichèle, Véronique, 2018. "How does carbon pricing matter for a climate-friendly food consumption?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273860, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. France Caillavet & Adélaïde Fadhuile & Veronique Nichèle, 2018. "Assessing the distributional effects of carbon taxes on food: inequalities and nutritional insights," Working Papers hal-01919440, HAL.
    8. Fathi, Fatemeh & Bakhshoodeh, Mohammad, 2021. "Economic and environmental strategies against targeting energy subsidy in Iranian meat market: A game theory approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    9. Johannes Simons & Carl Vierboom & Jeanette Klink-Lehmann & Ingo Härlen & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "Vegetarianism/Veganism: A Way to Feel Good," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, March.
    10. Satinover Nichols, Bridget & Wehr Holt, Jennifer, 2023. "A comparison of sustainability attitudes and intentions across generations and gender: a perspective from U.S. consumers," Cuadernos de Gestión, Universidad del País Vasco - Instituto de Economía Aplicada a la Empresa (IEAE).
    11. Osorio, Pilar & Tobarra, María-Ángeles & Tomás, Manuel, 2024. "Are there gender differences in household carbon footprints? Evidence from Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).

    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:15:y:2023:i:12:p:9253-:d:1166393. 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.