IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/333254.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An economic assessment of U.S. ground beef in response to the introduction of plant-based meat alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Werth, Samantha
  • Almutairi, Kamel
  • Thoma, Greg
  • Mitloehner, Frank

Abstract

Red-meat has been criticized as detrimental to both the environment and human health, leading to a push in the U.S. for consumers to reduce red-meat consumption. Plant-based meat alternatives (MA) have been shown to have reduced environmental impacts compared to red-meat and have been presented as promising alternatives to red-meat. While MA may provide viable replacements for ground beef (GB), specifically, they do not replace the actual source of GB, cattle. Cattle production is a vital part of the U.S. food supply chain and plays an important role in the economy. As such, the goal of the present research was to perform a comprehensive assessment of the economic impacts associated with a reduction in GB consumption in response to increased MA consumption in the U.S. The Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) was used to model GB production in the U.S. While there was a cattle meat sector in GTAP, there was not a unique sector for GB. SplitCom was used to disaggregate the cattle meat sector into two sectors: (1) GB and (2) other beef products (OB). GTAP then was aggregated into 19 sectors, 3 regions (the U.S., primary U.S. beef import countries, and rest of world), and 6 factors of production. As the private household budget share for GB 0.31%, the investigated reductions in consumer demand (1, 5, 10, and 15%) did not greatly impact overall economic output. Even at 15% reduction in GB, most sectors experienced minor changes in terms of price or quantity demanded. Most notably, land use and price for cattle (CTL) was reduced by 2.89% and 4.78%, respectively. Agricultural labor and capital were reduced by nearly 10% each for GB and 4% each for CTL. While these results do not account for the economic effects of a corresponding increase in consumer demand for MA, it is unlikely that more significant changes would be observed. Further analysis on this topic is needed to understand the economic impacts of a reduction in GB paired with a corresponding increase in MA.

Suggested Citation

  • Werth, Samantha & Almutairi, Kamel & Thoma, Greg & Mitloehner, Frank, 2021. "An economic assessment of U.S. ground beef in response to the introduction of plant-based meat alternatives," Conference papers 333254, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:333254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/333254/files/10797.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bigelow, Daniel & Borchers, Allison, 2017. "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2012," Economic Information Bulletin 263079, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Tyler J. Lark & Seth A. Spawn & Matthew Bougie & Holly K. Gibbs, 2020. "Cropland expansion in the United States produces marginal yields at high costs to wildlife," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Marco Springmann & Michael Clark & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Keith Wiebe & Benjamin Leon Bodirsky & Luis Lassaletta & Wim Vries & Sonja J. Vermeulen & Mario Herrero & Kimberly M. Carlson & Malin Jonell & , 2018. "Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits," Nature, Nature, vol. 562(7728), pages 519-525, October.
    4. Angel Aguiar & Maksym Chepeliev & Erwin L. Corong & Robert McDougall & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2019. "The GTAP Data Base: Version 10," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 4(1), pages 1-27, June.
    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. Stefanie Christmann & Youssef Bencharki & Soukaina Anougmar & Pierre Rasmont & Moulay Chrif Smaili & Athanasios Tsivelikas & Aden Aw-Hassan, 2021. "Farming with Alternative Pollinators benefits pollinators, natural enemies, and yields, and offers transformative change to agriculture," Post-Print hal-03355596, HAL.
    2. Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez & Consuelo Varela-Ortega & Rhys Manners, 2020. "Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-26, October.
    3. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Albert, Osei-Owusu Kwame & Marianne, Thomsen & Jonathan, Lindahl & Nino, Javakhishvili Larsen & Dario, Caro, 2020. "Tracking the carbon emissions of Denmark's five regions from a producer and consumer perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    5. Li, Yilin & Chen, Bin & Li, Chaohui & Li, Zhi & Chen, Guoqian, 2020. "Energy perspective of Sino-US trade imbalance in global supply chains," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. António Almeida & Joana Torres & Isilda Rodrigues, 2023. "The Impact of Meat Consumption on Human Health, the Environment and Animal Welfare: Perceptions and Knowledge of Pre-Service Teachers," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Hafner, Marco & Yerushalmi, Erez & Andersson, Fredrik L. & Burtea, Teodor, 2020. "Quantifying the macroeconomic cost of night-time bathroom visits: an application to the UK," CAFE Working Papers 5, Centre for Accountancy, Finance and Economics (CAFE), Birmingham City Business School, Birmingham City University.
    8. Sylvain, Dernat & Bertrand, Dumont & Dominique, Vollet, 2023. "La Grange®: A generic game to reveal trade-offs and synergies among stakeholders in livestock farming areas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    9. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    10. Jones, R.E. & Speight, R.E. & Blinco, J.L. & O'Hara, I.M., 2022. "Biorefining within food loss and waste frameworks: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    11. Rob Roggema & Nico Tillie, 2022. "Realizing Emergent Ecologies: Nature-Based Solutions from Design to Implementation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, November.
    12. Philippidis, George & M'Barek, Robert & Urban-Boysen, Kirsten & Van Zeist, Willem-Jan, 2023. "Exploring economy-wide sustainable conditions for EU bio-chemical activities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    13. Chowdhry, Sonali & Hinz, Julian & Kamin, Katrin & Wanner, Joschka, 2022. "Brothers in arms: The value of coalitions in sanctions regimes," Kiel Working Papers 2234, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    14. Filippini, Massimo & Srinivasan, Suchita, 2019. "Impact of religious participation, social interactions and globalization on meat consumption: Evidence from India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    15. Ken Itakura & Hiro Lee, 2023. "Should the United States rejoin the Trans-Pacific trade deal?," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 235-255, May.
    16. Inkyo Cheong & Valijon Turakulov, 2022. "How Central Asia to Escape from trade isolation?: Policy targeted scenarios by CGE modelling," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 2622-2648, August.
    17. Vayu Maini Rekdal & Casper R. B. Luijt & Yan Chen & Ramu Kakumanu & Edward E. K. Baidoo & Christopher J. Petzold & Pablo Cruz-Morales & Jay D. Keasling, 2024. "Edible mycelium bioengineered for enhanced nutritional value and sensory appeal using a modular synthetic biology toolkit," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.
    18. Glyn Wittwer & Mark Horridge, 2018. "SinoTERM365, Bottom-up Representation of China at the Prefectural Level," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers g-285, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
    19. Paul Fesenfeld, Lukas & Maier, Maiken & Brazzola, Nicoletta & Stolz, Niklas & Sun, Yixian & Kachi, Aya, 2023. "How information, social norms, and experience with novel meat substitutes can create positive political feedback and demand-side policy change," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    20. Stads, Gert-Jan & Wiebe, Keith D. & Nin-Pratt, Alejandro & Sulser, Timothy B. & Benfica, Rui & Reda, Fasil & Khetarpal, Ravi, 2022. "Research for the future: Investments for efficiency, sustainability, and equity," IFPRI book chapters, in: 2022 Global food policy report: Climate change and food systems, chapter 4, pages 38-47, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Livestock Production/Industries;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:pugtwp:333254. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.