Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Livestock Farmers’ Attitudes towards Alternativ...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Livestock Farmers’ Attitudes towards Alternative Proteins

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Livestock Farmers’ Attitudes towards Alternative Proteins. / Crawshaw, Chloe; Piazza, Jared.
In: Sustainability, Vol. 15, No. 12, 9253, 08.06.2023.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Crawshaw C, Piazza J. Livestock Farmers’ Attitudes towards Alternative Proteins. Sustainability. 2023 Jun 8;15(12):9253. doi: 10.3390/su15129253

Author

Crawshaw, Chloe ; Piazza, Jared. / Livestock Farmers’ Attitudes towards Alternative Proteins. In: Sustainability. 2023 ; Vol. 15, No. 12.

Bibtex

@article{53deaa0cc88b4305a904c3b969b70bc0,
title = "Livestock Farmers{\textquoteright} Attitudes towards Alternative Proteins",
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-{\`a}-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 {\textquoteleft}threat to farmers{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}lack of support to local farmers{\textquoteright} of paramount concern to both groups. These findings highlight how farmers{\textquoteright} attitudes towards alternative proteins are mixed and, ultimately, shaped by the perceived vulnerability of farming communities.",
keywords = "Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment, Geography, Planning and Development, Building and Construction",
author = "Chloe Crawshaw and Jared Piazza",
year = "2023",
month = jun,
day = "8",
doi = "10.3390/su15129253",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
journal = "Sustainability",
issn = "2071-1050",
publisher = "MDPI AG",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Livestock Farmers’ Attitudes towards Alternative Proteins

AU - Crawshaw, Chloe

AU - Piazza, Jared

PY - 2023/6/8

Y1 - 2023/6/8

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

KW - Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

KW - Geography, Planning and Development

KW - Building and Construction

U2 - 10.3390/su15129253

DO - 10.3390/su15129253

M3 - Journal article

VL - 15

JO - Sustainability

JF - Sustainability

SN - 2071-1050

IS - 12

M1 - 9253

ER -