Livestock Farmers’ 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-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.

1. Introduction

The domestication of animals and the raising of livestock for food has been a normal feature of society for roughly 13,000 years. Throughout history, individuals and organizations have at times questioned the ethicality of this practice. The rise of intensive animal-agricultural systems in the twentieth century, as a solution to feeding larger populations at lower costs, have cast the issue in a new light, requiring ever-greater ethical scrutiny [1,2]. Large-scale “factory” farms or concentrated animal feeding operations, where vast numbers of animals are kept on feedlots or housed in cages and/or indoors, have a number of associated risks to human and planetary health, including causing animals undue stress and illness, increased risk of microbial resistance and zoonotic diseases, biodiversity and habitation loss, and elevated production of greenhouse gases [3,4,5,6,7].

Despite these issues, meat production continues to rise globally [8], and farming practices continue to intensify. In the UK, for example, the number of intensive pig and poultry farms increased by about 26% between 2011 and 2017 [9] and this trend does not appear to be reversing [10]. It was estimated in 2017 that over 70% of farmed animals in the UK are kept on industrialized “mega-farms” [11]. The growth of industrialized farming has also put pressure on small-scale farmers, who today struggle to make a profit and stay in business due to the rising costs of animal feed, fuel, and fertilizer, as well as labor shortages [12]. Furthermore, environmental demands to reduce herd sizes relative to land use have pushed farmers towards utilizing more concentrated forms of farming to maintain profits [13]. Even though consumer behavior and the demand for inexpensive foods is largely driving this trend, the vast majority of consumers say they are opposed to factory farming. For example, a recent YouGov survey by Open Cages [14] found that 78% of British respondents were opposed to it. Clearly, there is an appetite among consumers for more ethical forms of animal agriculture if practical concerns regarding retail costs and the availability of viable alternatives can be effectively addressed.

1.1. Alternative Proteins

Two major sources of alternative proteins include plant-based alternatives (PBAs) and cultured (i.e., ‘animal free’ or lab-based) animal products [15,16]. PBAs are made from plant proteins such as wheat, legumes, and fungi, and they are designed to mimic the taste and texture of traditional animal products [17]. For example, plant-based milk alternatives such as soy, almond, and oat-based beverages are made from pulse protein concentrate and water. Other components, such as vegetable oils, sugars and flavorings, can be added during production to more closely match the protein and fat content of cow’s milk or alter the taste profile (for details, see, e.g., [18]). The market for PBAs has grown rapidly—for example, UK sales of meat-free foods increased by 40% between 2014 and 2019—and is estimated to reach over GBP 1.1 billion by 2024 [19]. Plant-based milk alternative sales are predicted to double in the UK by 2025 and be worth over GBP 705 million [20].

Cultured (‘in vitro’ or ‘clean’) meat and ‘animal free’ dairy products are comprised of animal proteins using cell-culturing technology. The principal benefit of such technology is that they do not require animal husbandry or slaughter. Cultured meat involves extracting cells from an animal and growing them in a laboratory [17,21]. The tissue produced can be turned into a wide variety of animal products. It is projected that, by 2030, cultured meat will reach mainstream production and account for up to 12% of the UK’s consumer demand for meat [22] and be cost competitive with traditional meat [23]. Different from cultured meat, animal-free dairy is produced using precision fermentation, which uses microflora (e.g., yeast) to synthesize proteins, similar to methods used to produce insulin and rennet. The synthesized proteins can then be added to plant fats and water to create milk [24].

Both plant-based products and cultured products are envisioned as alternatives to intensive animal husbandry due to their substantially smaller impact on the environment and animals. In a review of over 57,000 UK products, plant-based meat alternatives were found to have roughly 1/5th to 1/15th the environmental impact compared to their corresponding animal products, and plant-based dairy alternatives had about half to 1/10th the impact [3]. It has been projected that cultured meat will produce up to 98% less greenhouse gas emissions, use 96% less water, and 99% less land than conventional beef [25] (cf. [22]). Additionally, the embrace of alternative proteins will likely substantially reduce the risk of zoonotic-disease transmission and environmental contamination, as animal–human interactions will be kept to a minimum, and lab production will eliminate the need for antibiotics, pesticides and other problematic substances [24].

Though alternative proteins arguably offer “a kinder, greener protein for a sustainable future” (Perfect Day slogan), they have not been embraced without concern. Consumer reactions to alternative proteins have been mixed, and there are practical, ontological, regulatory and legal obstacles facing animal-free meat and dairy [17,24,26]. Furthermore, there is growing concern about the health profile of some processed PBAs [27]. At the present, there is greater support among consumers for PBAs, though this may change as lab-grown animal products become more widely available and affordable. Research into initial attitudes towards cultured meat by Verbeke et al. [28] revealed a healthy skepticism about the new technology, though some consumers warmed up to the idea when learning about its potential benefits (e.g., to reduce the carbon footprint of red meat production). Since this initial work, research into alternative proteins has exploded. There have been several literature reviews targeting research into cultured meat acceptance (e.g., [29,30]). These reviews have observed a consistent trend, with the majority of consumers reporting a willingness to at least try cultured meat (e.g., [31]). Most studies comparing cultured meat to PBAs have found higher rates of interest for PBAs (e.g., [32,33]). For example, one recent study found that UK-based meat eaters rated (images of) plant-based burgers equally pleasant as conventional burgers, though they thought conventional burgers would be more filling [34]. By contrast, the same UK meat eaters thought cultured beef burgers would be less pleasant to eat compared to conventional burgers. Though consumer interest in cultured meat and animal-free dairy is mixed, studies show that consumers consistently recognize the potential for these alternatives to improve animal welfare and food safety (e.g., reducing the risk of contamination and disease transmission) and to reduce the impact of animal agriculture on the environment [29,35,36]. At the same time, impediments to acceptance extend beyond concerns about taste to include the perceived “unnaturalness” of cultured meat, its nutritional profile, affordability, safety concerns (e.g., distrust in food companies and regulatory bodies), and ethical concerns (e.g., possible harm to animals [e.g., calves] from whom cells and sera are taken) [17,26,29,30,37,38].

1.2. Moderators of Alternative-Protein Acceptance and the Case of Farmers

To date, most studies of alternative proteins have focused on the attitudes of everyday consumers. These studies have yielded crucial insights into the moderators of consumer acceptance. For instance, studies have observed greater interest in PBAs and cultured meat among younger rather than older adults [39,40]. Women are more likely to purchase PBAs than men [39,41,42], whereas men are more receptive to cultured meat [43]. Locality also seems to be an important moderator, with urban dwellers being more receptive to lab-grown products than rural dwellers [44,45] and more likely to purchase PBAs [41,46].

Arguably, farmers are a segment of the population with the greatest potential to be impacted by the rise of protein alternatives. Yet, currently, little is known about their attitudes towards these products. There is reason to believe that they may be more pessimistic and resistant than the average consumer, since their livelihoods could be adversely affected if the demand for alternative proteins is sufficiently disruptive to projected markets. Additionally, farmers, on average, tend to endorse more conservative values related to conformity and tradition and score lower on openness to change than the general population [47]. Furthermore, animal agriculture is an integral part of farmers’ heritage, with farmers tending to live and work in the same location for multiple generations [48]. Though the food industry has largely controlled the narrative regarding animal-free meat and dairy, and as a result media coverage has largely been positive [49], this optimism about cultured animal products may not be shared by farmers. At least one study by Bryant and van der Weele [50] held focus groups with Dutch farmers about cultured meat and meat production. Among some of the concerns raised, farmers mentioned the precarity of their economic position due to increased governmental regulations and the lack of appreciation they felt from consumers and the government.

Concern about the impact of lab-grown animal products on farmer livelihoods might also be shared among the wider population of consumers. For instance, rural Irish consumers expressed concern about the economic impact of cultured meat on Irish farmers, noting the dependence of the Irish economy on beef production [44]. At the same time, farmers (at least in the US) do not appear to be very concerned about the rising demand for PBAs. When asked in 2021 to estimate the expected market share of PBAs, 31% of the US farmers surveyed expected a market share less than 1%, and another 55% expected it to be less than 10% [51]. Though some farmers anticipate some reduction in income due to the growth of alternative proteins, interviews with expert informants with ties to animal agriculture seem to reveal more pressing concerns expressed over the declining number of farmers due to increased pressure to intensify production, waning interest in the profession, and the expense of new technologies further alienating small-scale farmers [52]. Moreover, some livestock farmers may welcome the development of alternative proteins as an opportunity to diversify and for rural communities to host new infrastructures, machinery (e.g., bioreactors for cultured meat production) and jobs [13,52].

1.3. Present Study and Research Questions

The aim of the present study was to explore the attitudes of UK livestock farmers towards emerging protein alternatives, particularly cultured meat and animal-free dairy products and plant-based alternatives. We preregistered two sets of research questions (https://aspredicted.org/kz88s.pdf). The first set involved farmers’ support for emerging meat and dairy alternatives. We presented UK farmers, recruited primarily from southwest England, with PBAs (specifically, plant-based burgers and milk alternatives) and cultured meat and dairy alternatives (specifically, cultured beef burgers and fermentation-derived dairy milk). Support for each product was assessed in terms of its personal appeal and whether it was perceived as a positive change within the food industry. We asked:

RQ1: 

Of these four protein alternatives, which are farmers most supportive of?

We contrasted farmers’ attitudes with those of a comparable sample of UK-based non-farmers. The groups were matched on diet, age and gender. We asked:

RQ2: 

How do farmers and non-farmers differ with respect to the alternative proteins they support?

Our second set of research questions related to the perceived benefits offered by meat/dairy alternatives, and the perceived barriers to acceptance. The four products were presented as alternatives to factory-farmed beef and dairy products. Though most of the farmers surveyed for this study worked (or had previously worked) on small-scale farms, we used factory-farmed products as the contrasting referent because the majority of animal agricultural products (e.g., over 70% in the UK) are derived from mega-farms or concentrated animal feeding operations [11]. Participants were presented background information about alternative proteins. Subsequently, participants expressed their agreement or disagreement towards 26 statements reflecting potential advantages or disadvantages of the four target products. We asked:

RQ3: 

What are the biggest perceived facilitators of product acceptance, and how do farmers and non-farmers differ in this respect?

RQ4: 

What are the biggest perceived barriers to product acceptance, and how do farmers and non-farmers differ in this respect?

We made no specific hypotheses regarding which facilitators or barriers would be most commonly endorsed. However, we were particularly interested in discovering the extent to which “threat to farmers” (i.e., their livelihood and farming traditions) would be endorsed as a disadvantage. Additionally, we were interested to see to what extent farmers endorsed the animal welfare benefits of alternative proteins, given that farmers tend to believe that the welfare standards of animal agriculture are much higher than asserted by critics outside of the farming industry [53,54,55].

2. Method

2.1. Participant Recruitment, Exclusions, and Demographics

We pre-registered a plan to recruit a minimum of 40 participants per group (https://aspredicted.org/kz88s.pdf). This was a target we believed we could reliably recruit based on prior work with this population and the limited incentives we had at our disposal. Between July and August 2022, two groups of participants were recruited: adults with experience in livestock farming (farmers), and a comparison group of adults who were animal product consumers without livestock-farming experience (non-farmers). Farmers make up a very small percentage (0.2%) of the UK population [56], so we included in our recruitment criteria current farmers, retired farmers, farm workers, and members of farming families. Thirty-two livestock farmers predominately living in Gloucestershire were recruited using snowball sampling. Farmers that were known to the first author were contacted via telephone or social media, or visited in-person. Interested participants were provided a brief description of the study, a URL link to the online questionnaire, and a request to forward the information to other individuals in the farming community. Individuals without internet access received a paper copy of the questionnaire and completed it at their convenience, and the first author later collected it from them. Because we struggled to collect the target sample of farmers via snowball sampling, we turned to Prolific to augment our strategy. A further 23 farmers were recruited using Prolific by pre-screening for UK-based workers in the ‘Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources’ employment sector. Prolific participants were paid GBP 3.75. The description of the study encouraged participation among those with “experience of working with farmed animals.” Non-farmers were recruited through convenience sampling. Contacts of the first author were emailed or contacted via social media and sent a URL link to the online survey to complete; ten non-farmers were recruited incidentally via Prolific (i.e., participants who reported not being involved in farming). As farmers are typically older males [57], we attempted, as much as possible, to match the ages and gender of the non-farmers to the farmers. To qualify for the study, farmers and non-farmers had to be omnivore, as the study focuses on the perspective of those who regularly consume meat and animal products, not those who are practicing plant-forward diets.

A total of 130 participants consented and completed the study: 55 farmers and 61 non-farmers. Following our preregistered exclusion criteria, 18 participants who reported dietary restrictions related to meat or animal products—including “semi-vegetarian or reducetarian”, “pescatarian”, “lacto- or ovo-vegetarian”, “strict vegetarian”, “dietary vegan” and “lifestyle vegan”—were excluded (10 farmers, 8 non-farmers). The final sample consisted of 45 farmers (14 “meat lover”, 31 “omnivore”; 98% British) and 53 non-farmers (9 “meat lover”, 44 “omnivore”; 96% British). Farmers consisted of 12 working farmers, 4 farm workers, 4 retired farmers, 24 members of farming families, and 1 unclassified.

Table 1. Demographics by group.

	N	Age (In Years)		Gender
		M	SD	Male	Female	Non-Binary
Farmers	45	48.36	16.18	25	19	1
Non-Farmers	53	41.86	20.31	26	27	0
Total	98

presents the age and gender profiles of the two groups. Farmers were somewhat older on average; however, a Kruskal-Wallis test showed that age did not significantly differ between farmers (M_rank = 52.82, SD = 17.75, 95% CI [42.87, 53.53]), and non-farmers (M_rank = 46.68, SD = 18.80, 95% CI [39.14, 49.50]), H(1) = 1.14, p = 0.28, ε² = 0.001. Thus, age was not treated as a covariate. The distribution of males to females was somewhat balanced within and between groups, and a Pearson’s Chi-square test showed that gender distributions did not significantly differ between groups, χ² (2, N = 98) = 1.77, p = 0.413, Cramer’s V = 0.13.

2.2. Design

A 2 (Group) × 4 (Product Type) mixed design was used. Group was a between-subjects factor (Farmers, Non-Farmers), and Product type was within-subjects (Plant-based burgers, Cultured-beef burgers, Plant-based milk alternatives, Cultured [i.e., fermentation-derived] cows’ milk).

2.3. Procedure

The study was approved by Lancaster University’s Department of Psychology Ethics Committee on 30 May 2022. It was advertised to participants as a study about “existing and emerging food innovations”. Participation was anonymous, and farmers were not asked to disclose the name or location of their farm. Participants were assigned a unique numerical ID that they could later use if they wished to withdraw their data. Before consenting to the study (by agreeing to several statements), they were first provided information about the study and researcher contact details, and they had an opportunity to ask questions. Next, participants read a vignette that outlined the problems with intensive farming, introduced plant-based and lab-cultured alternatives, and described the advantages of these alternatives relative to industrial-farmed animal products. Attention checks were embedded in this opening segment. Afterwards, participants answered measures that assessed (a) consumer appeal of the products, (b) perceived facilitators and barriers to product acceptance, (c) previous experiences with plant-based alternatives, purchase intentions, and shopping behavior, (d) farming experiences and demographics. Most participants completed the survey within 25 min (M = 14.64, SD = 7.45, excluding those who spent more than an hour). On completion, participants were debriefed, reminded of their right to withdraw their data, thanked and compensated.

2.4. Materials and Measures

2.4.1. Vignette about Alternatives to Animal Products

There were four main sections to the vignette, each section on a separate page, with attention checks at the bottom of three of the pages to encourage careful engagement. The full vignette and images can be found in Supplements A, along with the sources used in generating the vignette. Section 1 presented information about the widespread use of intensive farming practices and “concerns” with this way of producing animal products (e.g., “Animals are closely housed together and remain inside for the whole of their productive lives”). Section 2 introduced plant-based products as an alternative to industrial-farmed animal products and highlighted their “advantageous qualities” (e.g., “They mimic the taste and appearance of animal products”; “They are nutritionally similar to animal products, however, no animal slaughter is required”). Section 3 introduced cultured animal products and briefly explained cell culturing and precision fermentation methods of producing cultured beef and animal-free dairy. It included a helpful figure and highlighted “several expected advantageous qualities” (e.g., “Animals are only required for the initial cell or DNA samples, then no further animals are needed for production”).

In the Section 4, a comparison table adapted from Van Loo et al. [58] was displayed, which presented the environmental impact of a plant-based soya burger and a cultured-beef burger relative to a factory-farmed beef burger. As a visual memory aide, participants were also presented a summary table comparing the key beneficial features of plant-based and cultured alternatives, vis-à-vis factory farming, discussed in the vignette. Participants were not excluded on the basis of failing the attention checks. Rather, if they selected the incorrect response, the correct answer was highlighted, and an explanation was provided as to why their response was incorrect.

2.4.2. Product Acceptance

Product acceptance was measured in two ways: how appealing the product is to them as a consumer, and the extent to which they view the product as a positive change within the wider food system. Participants were asked to “Imagine yourself in a future time when plant-based alternatives and cultured animal products are widely available and fairly equivalent in price to organic animal products”. We had participants consider the products at an equivalent price since price is a major determinant of consumer behavior [46,59]. Many consumers assume that plant-based and cultured products are more expensive than conventional products, which can negatively impact their acceptance [43,60]. For each product, they considered “In such a future reality, how appealing would each of these products be to you?” rated on a 1–7 scale (1 = Not at all appealing; 7 = Very appealing). Likewise, for each product, they considered “To what extent do you consider the introduction of these products a positive change in the global food system?” (1 = Not at all positive, 7 = Very positive). Spearman’s correlations revealed that the appeal and positive change measures related significantly (medium to large relationships for all measures), underscoring their reliability as dual aspects of product acceptance—see Table S1 for correlation table.

2.4.3. Facilitators and Barriers to Acceptance

For each product, participants viewed a list of statements (facilitators first, barriers second) and were asked to tick those they agreed with. The list of potential facilitators (10 items) and barriers (16 items) were generated by the authors’ review of the literature (e.g., [29,59])—see

Table 2. Facilitator and barrier items: labels and descriptions.

Label	Description
Facilitators
Good taste	“I will enjoy the taste of [product]”
Good texture	“I will enjoy the texture of [product]”
Nutrition	“[product] is high in nutritional value (e.g., vitamins, minerals, fibre)”
Protein	“[product] is a good source of protein”
Health	“[product] is healthier than [traditional animal product] (e.g., lower in saturated fats, reduced risk of heart disease)”
Environment	“[product] is better for the environment (e.g., produces fewer greenhouse gases) than traditional [animal product]”
Resource use	“[product] is a better use of natural resources (e.g., requires less water or land to produce) than traditional [animal product]”
Animal treatment	“[product] involves better animal treatment than traditional [animal product]”
Food security	“[product] provides greater food security (e.g., reduced transmission of animal-derived diseases) than traditional [animal product]”
Curiosity	“I’ve never tried [product], but I’m curious to know how it would taste”
Barriers
Bad taste	“I will not like the taste of [product]”
Bad texture	“I will not like the texture of [product]”
Satiety	“I don’t think [product] would satisfy my hunger in the same way as traditional [animal product]”
No need	“I don’t perceive a need for developing alternatives to traditional [animal product]”
Unwilling	“I’m not willing to give up traditional [animal product] as I enjoy it so much”
Does not support local farmers	“[product] does not support local farmers or the local economy”
Against culture or values	“[product] does not align with my culture or values”
Threatens tradition	“[product] threatens important food traditions we need to preserve”
Threatens farmers	“[product] threatens to put farmers out of business”
Unnatural to produce	“[product] is less natural to produce than the traditional [animal product]”
Unnatural content	“[product] contains more artificial ingredients than the traditional [animal product]”
Do not trust companies	“I don’t trust food companies to produce [product] that is safe for consumers”
Food neophobia	“I’m not interested in [product] because I don’t like changing my food habits”
Usability	“I would find it difficult to use [product]”
Cannot convince others	“It would be difficult to convince my partner or family to consume [product]”
Criticism	“My friends and/or family would criticise or tease me for consuming [product]”

for the item labels and descriptions. An image of the product was displayed alongside the statements. Participants could also enter an additional comment underneath the list of statements to account for potentially overlooked factors. This task was repeated for all four products. The order of plant-based and cultured products was randomized to reduce potential order effects; however, to minimize participant confusion, the burger product was always presented first.

2.4.4. Experiences with Plant-Based Alternatives

Participants were asked about their experience of PBAs. Items included plant-based… burgers, sausages, mince, chicken products e.g., nuggets, fish, milk, dairy products e.g., cheese, yoghurt and none of the above. They selected which item(s) they had “previously tried or bought”. They also indicated their level of intention towards buying plant-based products from the options: “No, I do not currently buy plant-based products and would never buy them”, “No, I do not currently buy plant-based products, but I intend to start buying plant-based alternatives”, “Yes, I do currently buy plant-based products occasionally”, or “Yes, I do currently buy plant-based products regularly.” Participants were further asked whether they were primarily responsible for household purchases (Yes/No) and where they typically shopped for animal products from the following options: supermarkets, local shops such as local butchers, farmers market or local market, and I don’t buy animal products.

2.4.5. Farming Experiences and Demographics

Participants were asked whether they or members of their family had been involved in farming (Yes/No). Those that did classified themselves by selecting from the following options: farmer, farm worker, retired farmer, part of a farming family, and other (please specify). Participants provided information on their length of involvement in farming and classified their farm type and farm size using DEFRA [61] classifications (see Supplements B, Table S2, for categories and counts). Participants provided their age, gender, ethnicity, and nationality and self-classified their diet from a list of options adapted from Crawshaw and Piazza [53].

2.5. Analysis Plan

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS [62]. An anonymized version of the dataset is available at [https://osf.io/a7f9k]. The analysis plan involved, first, testing the distributions of each variable. Shapiro-Wilk tests showed that the assumption of normality was violated for all variables (see Table S3). The distributions of product appeal and positive change ratings show that farmers had bimodal distributions, and non-farmers had highly negatively skewed distributions (see Supplements C, Figures S1–S8). For non-parametric descriptive statistics of the key variables, see Table S4. Figure 1 presents means and standard deviations. Further (exploratory) analysis of the distributions for the different types of farmers showed that occupational farmers (farmers, farm workers and retired farmers) had more negative views of the products, compared to members of farming families (see Figures S1–S8). As stated in our preregistered analysis plan, because of the non-normal distributions, non-parametric tests were used, with one exception—we were unable to identify a suitable non-parametric alternative for the 2 × 4 MANOVA that was preregistered to test main effects and interactions on product acceptance (treating product appeal and positive change as two aspects of product acceptance). We report Pillai’s Trace alongside the test statistics for the MANOVA as it is considered a robust test for violations of normality [63].

To explore the first set of research questions about product support (RQ1–2), pairwise Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used as follow-up tests, comparing the acceptance of each product (we did this first for farmers, then for non-farmers). A Bonferroni correction of alpha was applied based on the number of product comparisons, i.e., p = 0.05/6 = 0.0083. Further, Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted to contrast product acceptance ratings for farmers vs. non-farmers. A Bonferroni correction was applied based on the number of group comparisons, i.e., p = 0.05/4 = 0.0125. To explore the second set of research questions (RQ3–4), we conducted Chi-square tests comparing group differences in endorsement for each facilitator statement, and, separately, each barrier statement. A Bonferroni correction was applied based on the number of statements (facilitators, p = 0.05/10 = 0.005; barriers, p = 0.05/16 = 0.0031). Age was not treated as a covariate in any analysis—age correlated with only one measure (cultured burger appeal, with older participants finding cultured burgers less appealing)—see Table S1.

3. Results

3.1. Experience with Plant-Based Alternatives, Purchase, and Shopping Behavior: Farmers vs. Non-Farmers

Non-farmers were somewhat more likely to have tried plant-based alternatives, though there were comparably low rates for farmers—see Table S5. Non-farmers also appeared somewhat more willing to purchase or had already purchased PBAs (see Table S6), though not at statistically significant levels, χ²(3) = 4.85, p = 0.183, Cramer’s V = 0.226. Most participants shopped at supermarkets (farmers = 80%; non-farmers = 98%), though at higher rates for non-farmers, χ²(1) = 8.71, p = 0.003, Cramer’s V = 0.298. Farmers shopped at local shops more than non-farmers (71% vs. 28%, respectively), χ²(1) = 17.87, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.427. Most participants reported being the primary food purchaser in their household (farmers = 67%; non-farmers = 70%).

3.2. RQ1–2: Which Animal-Product Alternatives Do Farmers and Non-Farmers Support?

The 2 × 4 MANOVA yielded a significant main effect for Group, F(2, 95) = 8.86, p < 0.001, partial-η² = 0.16, Pillai’s Trace = 0.16, and Product, F(6, 91) = 4.15, p = 0.001, partial-η² = 0.22, Pillai’s Trace = 0.22, on product acceptance, but no significant Group x Product interaction, F(2, 95) = 0.73, p = 0.625, partial-η² = 0.05, Pillai’s Trace = 0.05.

3.2.1. Farmers

Pairwise Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests revealed no significant differences in farmers’ appeal ratings for the four products. A pattern emerged for perceptions of positive change, whereby farmers rated the plant-based products as a significantly more positive change for the industry than the cultured products—see Table S7. The only exception was between plant-based burgers vs. cultured milk, which did not reach adjusted significance levels. The positive change ratings for the two plant-based products were not significantly different, nor were the positive change ratings for the two cultured products. Thus, in answer to RQ1, farmers did not exhibit a personal preference for one product over another; however, they rated the plant-based products as a more positive change for the food industry than lab-grown products.

3.2.2. Non-Farmers

There were no differences between non-farmer appeal ratings for the four products, see Table S8. Plant-based burgers were rated as a significantly more positive change in the industry than cultured products. However, there was no significant difference between ratings of plant-based milk and the cultured products, nor between the plant-based products themselves, nor between the cultured products themselves. Thus, non-farmers exhibited a similar response pattern as farmers, not preferring any one product over another, and tending to see plant-based products as a more positive change than cultured products.

3.2.3. Farmers vs. Non-Farmers

Mann–Whitney U tests revealed that non-farmers perceived the plant-based burgers, cultured burgers, and plant-based milk alternatives as significantly more appealing than farmers—see

Table 3. Mann–Whitney U tests: product acceptance ratings for farmers vs. non-farmers.

	Farmer Mrank	Non-Farmer Mrank	U	Z	η2	p
Appeal
PB Burgers	41.00	56.72	1575.00	2.78	0.08	0.005 *
C Burgers	40.74	56.93	1586.50	2.86	0.08	0.004 *
PB Milk Alt.	41.29	56.47	1562.00	2.67	0.07	0.008 *
C Milk	42.21	55.69	1520.50	2.38	0.06	0.017
Pos. Change
PB Burgers	40.19	57.41	1611.50	3.06	0.10	0.002 *
C Burgers	37.34	59.82	1739.50	3.99	0.16	0.000 *
PB Milk Alt.	41.69	56.13	1544.00	2.56	0.07	0.010 *
C Milk	38.57	58.78	1684.50	3.59	0.13	0.000 *

Note. N_farmer = 45, N_non-farmer = 53. For SD and 95% CI see Table S4. * p < 0.0125. PB = Plant-based. C = Cultured.

. There was no significant group difference in the appeal of animal-free milk. Non-farmers perceived all products as a significantly more positive change to the food industry compared to farmers. Thus, relative to farmers, non-farmers exhibited greater overall support for both the plant-based and lab-cultured alternative proteins (RQ2).

3.3. RQ3–4: Perceived Facilitators and Barriers of Product Acceptance

Table 4. Facilitator and barrier endorsement for plant-based burgers and cultured burgers: ordered by farmer endorsement (%) for plant-based burgers. Group-comparison statistics (Chi-square test) provided.

	Plant-Based Burger			Cultured Burger
	Farmer	Non-Farmer	χ2 (V)	Farmer	Non-Farmer	χ2 (V)
Facilitators
Environment	58%	92%	16.29 * (0.408)	53%	87%	13.35 * (0.369)
Health	56%	85%	10.27 * (0.324)	40%	55%	2.11 (0.147)
Resource Use	53%	81%	8.70 * (0.298)	51%	83%	11.46 * (0.342)
Animal Treatment	51%	81%	9.97 * (0.319)	40%	79%	15.79 * (0.401)
Food Security	51%	79%	8.63 * (0.297)	44%	83%	15.98 * (0.404)
Nutrition	47%	75%	8.59 * (0.296)	38%	57%	3.46 (0.188)
Protein	47%	57%	0.96 (0.099)	44%	72%	7.48 (0.276)
Good Taste	40%	60%	4.04 (0.203)	40%	64%	5.70 (0.241)
Good Texture	33%	30%	0.11 (0.034)	27%	51%	5.99 (0.247)
Curiosity	24%	42%	3.17 (0.180)	42%	81%	15.85 * (0.402)
Barriers
Does Not Support Local Farmers	67%	34%	10.42 * (0.326)	67%	45%	4.50 (0.214)
Threatens Farmers	58%	45%	1.52 (0.125)	60%	49%	1.17 (0.109)
Unnatural Content	38%	25%	2.01 (0.143)	40%	23%	3.45 (0.188)
Cannot Convince Others	33%	36%	0.07 (0.026)	42%	25%	3.47 (0.188)
Unnatural to Produce	33%	17%	3.52 (0.189)	56%	45%	1.03 (0.102)
No Need	31%	8%	9.01 * (0.303)	31%	8%	9.01 * (0.303)
Against Culture or Values	31%	9%	7.32 (0.273)	33%	9%	14.83 * (0.389)
Threatens Tradition	29%	11%	4.81 (0.221)	33%	19%	8.56 * (0.296)
Satiety	27%	28%	0.03 (0.018)	18%	8%	2.37 (0.156)
Do Not Trust Companies	22%	11%	2.12 (0.147)	33%	19%	2.68 (0.165)
Bad Taste	20%	11%	1.41 (0.120)	9%	9%	0.01 (0.009)
Unwilling	20%	11%	1.41 (0.120)	20%	6%	4.66 (0.218)
Bad Texture	18%	23%	0.35 (0.060)	13%	9%	0.37 (0.062)
Criticism	18%	8%	2.37 (0.156)	18%	8%	2.37 (0.156)
Usability	13%	11%	0.09 (0.031)	11%	9%	0.08 (0.028)
Food Neophobia	9%	11%	0.16 (0.040)	11%	11%	0.00 (0.003)

Note. V = Cramer’s V (effect size estimate). For facilitators, * p < 0.005. For barriers, * p < 0.0031.

and

Table 5. Facilitator and barrier endorsement for plant-based milk alternatives and animal-free milk: ordered by farmer endorsement (%) for plant-based milk. Group comparison statistics (Chi-square test) provided.

	Plant-Based Milk Alt.			Animal-Free Milk
	Farmer	Non-Farmer	χ2 (V)	Farmer	Non-Farmer	χ2 (V)
Facilitators
Nutrition	60%	72%	1.49 (0.123)	40%	60%	4.04 (0.203)
Environment	60%	70%	1.03 (0.103)	51%	81%	9.97 * (0.319)
Food Security	53%	70%	2.81 (0.169)	51%	60%	0.85 (0.093)
Animal Treatment	49%	79%	9.90 * (0.318)	40%	68%	7.67 (0.280)
Health	47%	55%	0.63 (0.080)	29%	38%	0.85 (0.093)
Resource Use	40%	66%	6.64 (0.260)	49%	81%	11.33 * (0.340)
Protein	36%	62%	6.94 (0.266)	36%	66%	9.06 * (0.304)
Good Taste	33%	51%	3.08 (0.177)	27%	47%	4.35 (0.211)
Good Texture	27%	42%	2.37 (0.155)	22%	43%	4.89 (0.223)
Curiosity	22%	25%	0.07 (0.027)	42%	72%	8.69 * (0.298)
Barriers
Does Not Support Local Farmers	62%	36%	6.78 (0.263)	73%	49%	5.99 (0.247)
Threatens Farmers	53%	51%	0.06 (0.024)	64%	53%	1.35 (0.117)
Unnatural Content	47%	23%	6.29 (0.253)	44%	25%	4.32 (0.210)
Cannot Convince Others	40%	36%	0.18 (0.043)	40%	23%	3.45 (0.188)
Unwilling	33%	23%	1.39 (0.119)	22%	11%	2.12 (0.147)
Against Culture or Values	33%	6%	12.43 * (0.356)	38%	8%	13.21 * (0.367)
Usability	31%	23%	0.90 (0.096)	20%	17%	0.15 (0.039)
Unnatural to Produce	31%	32%	0.01 (0.010)	58%	42%	2.58 (0.162)
Threatens Tradition	29%	11%	4.81 (0.221)	33%	13%	5.66 (0.240)
Bad Taste	27%	28%	0.03 (0.018)	16%	13%	0.11 (0.033)
Bad Texture	27%	19%	0.85 (0.093)	13%	8%	0.89 (0.095)
No Need	27%	8%	6.51 (0.258)	27%	11%	3.82 (0.197)
Criticism	22%	6%	5.80 (0.243)	22%	4%	7.71 (0.280)
Satiety	20%	8%	3.28 (0.183)	18%	6%	3.59 (0.191)
Food Neophobia	18%	9%	1.47 (0.123)	13%	6%	1.72 (0.132)
Do Not Trust Companies	18%	8%	2.37 (0.156)	40%	19%	5.33 (0.233)

Note. V = Cramer’s V (effect size estimate). For facilitators, * p < 0.005. For barriers, * p < 0.0031.

present the percentage of farmers and non-farmers that endorsed the ten facilitators and sixteen barriers to acceptance for the four products.

3.3.1. Facilitators

In general, non-farmers tended to agree with the facilitator statements at rates higher than farmers (RQ3). The rank order of facilitators was fairly similar between groups. For all products, apart from plant-based milk alternatives, ‘Environment’ and ‘Resource Use’ were the most popular facilitators for both groups. ‘Food Security’ was also an important facilitator for non-farmers for all products, but less so for farmers. For plant-based milk alternatives, ‘Nutrition’ and ‘Environment’ were the most important facilitators for farmers, whereas ‘Animal Treatment’ and ‘Nutrition’ were the most important for non-farmers. Regarding group-level differences in facilitator endorsement, the most consistent difference emerged with regards to ‘Animal Treatment’ (all products except animal-free milk) with non-farmers seeing animal welfare as a benefit at rates higher than farmers. ‘Environment’ and ‘Resource Use’ also tended to be viewed as facilitators by non-farmers more so than by farmers. For cultured products, ‘Curiosity’ was endorsed as a facilitator by non-farmers more so than farmers. Finally, non-farmers were more optimistic than farmers about the ‘Protein’ content of plant-based milk alternatives and animal-free milk.

3.3.2. Barriers

In general, farmers tended to endorse most barriers to acceptance at rates higher than non-farmers (RQ4), though the rank order of barriers was quite similar between groups—see Table 4 and Table 5. For all products, ‘Does Not Support Local Farmers’ and ‘Threatens Farmers’ were the highest endorsed barriers for both groups. ‘Unnatural to Produce’ was an important barrier for both groups for the cultured products, and ‘Cannot Convince Others’ specifically for farmers. Regarding group-level differences in agreement, ‘Against Culture or Values’ was endorsed at a significantly higher rate by farmers than non-farmers as a barrier to cultured products and plant-based milk alternatives. ‘Does not Support Local Farmers’ was a significantly greater concern of farmers, particularly for animal-free milk and plant-based products. Farmers perceived there to be ‘No Need’ for plant-based and cultured burgers at rates higher than non-farmers.

4. General Discussion

The need for more sustainable alternatives to livestock production has driven a number of important technological advances in cellular and acellular agriculture and plant-based alternatives. These technologies have the potential to revolutionize the food industry, but they also have the power to transform lives and whole communities dependent on traditional forms of animal agriculture [52]. With this in mind, the present study explored the attitudes of UK-based livestock farmers towards emerging alternative proteins—individuals likely to be directly impacted by the advance of such technologies. We utilized a comparison group of non-farmers of similar nationality, age, gender and dietary profile as a frame of reference. The study returned a number of important insights that help expand what little we know regarding this segment of producer–consumers.

As might be expected, relative to non-farmer consumers, farmers generally considered the four alternatives—plant-based burgers and milk alternatives, cultured burgers and animal-free milk—significantly less appealing and less of a positive change to the food system. A subset of the farmers was strongly opposed to these meat and dairy alternatives; however, not all farmers were as pessimistic about them. In general, occupational farmers tended to be more pessimistic than farming family members. Consistent with some previous findings (e.g., [34]), plant-based alternatives were generally considered by both groups as more appealing than cultured products. PBAs were furthermore seen as a more positive change to the food industry than cultured products.

Investigation into the reasons for the less positive reception of cultured alternatives revealed that both groups were highly concerned about the impact that lab-cultured products would have on traditional farmers. This is a concern that has been raised in at least two other studies. Shaw and Iomaire [44] surveyed the views of urban and rural consumers in Ireland regarding cultured meat, and in their qualitative analysis they uncovered a theme related to the detrimental impact of cultured meat for Irish farmers and the Irish economy (among other themes). By contrast, Newton and Blaustein-Rejto [52] interviewed 37 experts with ties to the meat and plant-based meat sectors regarding the challenges of the alternative-protein market. Most respondents expressed little concern about alternative proteins supplanting traditional animal products. Instead, respondents expected that, at least in the near future, meat alternatives would form a complementary market that would help manage the growing demand for meat. Nonetheless, some concerns were voiced around the potential for new technologies to shift cultural narratives around food, such that traditional farming might appear outdated, inefficient, and, potentially, unethical.

In the present study, we observed high levels of concern among UK livestock farmers regarding the potential for protein alternatives to impact the lives of farmers. Unexpectedly, ‘support for farmers’ was also of paramount concern for non-farmers—in fact, it was the most commonly perceived barrier for all four products, though at rates consistently below farmers. Among the alternatives investigated here, farmers were most concerned about the economic impact of animal-free milk: 73% agreed that this technology does not support farmers, and 64% agreed that it will put dairy farmers out of business (compared to 62% and 53%, respectively, for plant-based milk alternatives). Farmers in our study were largely dairy farmers; thus, the somewhat elevated attitudes towards fermentation-derived milk may partly reflect a personal concern for their own livelihood. Plant-based milk alternatives are purchased by a third of British adults [64], which is far from market saturation. Dairy farmers may be somewhat more apprehensive about animal-free milk as it is expected to be identical in taste and texture to cow’s milk [24,35,65]. However, it is worth pointing out that, at least among our sample of UK farmers, there was some doubt about whether the ‘taste’ and ‘texture’ profile of animal-free milk would be a strong facilitator of its acceptance (see Table 5). It may be that modern consumers are increasingly recognizing that the taste/texture profile of alternative proteins are not significant barriers to their appeal. Yet, they also recognize that what is most appealing about these alternatives has more to do with their ecological, health, safety, and welfare advantages than their taste (see also [59]).

Consistent with this theorizing, both farmers and non-farmers thought that alternative proteins represented a positive change in the market more than they found the products personally appealing. The relatively high positive-change ratings are likely explained by the perception that alternative proteins provide improvements upon industrial farming related to food security, resource use, environmental impact, animal treatment, and, for PBAs, nutrition. All of these positives were endorsed more strongly by non-farmers than farmers (though most consistently with regards to animal treatment). The lower ratings of personal appeal are likely explained by the perceived threat they pose to farmers and the perceived “unnaturalness” of the products and processes by which they are generated. These perceptions were higher for cultured animal products than PBAs (see Table 4 and Table 5). Unnaturalness perceptions have been documented in previous work on alternative proteins, particularly cultured meat (e.g., [37,38,43,66]). In the present study, unnaturalness concerns were endorsed more widely by farmers than non-farmers. However, endorsement rates rarely surpassed 50%. Thus, even farmers were divided regarding the perceived “unnaturalness” of alternative proteins as a barrier to their acceptance.

In addition, a small percentage of consumers felt that there was ‘No need’ to replace traditional animal products, did not trust the companies involved, viewed the products as threatening to cultural traditions, and/or believed that people in their community would be against them. All of these concerns tended to be reported at higher rates by farmers than non-farmers (especially concern for the loss of cultural traditions). Lack of trust in companies and/or regulatory bodies is a concern that has been documented in previous studies on cultured meat acceptance [29], for example, among Irish [44] and Chinese consumers [67]. The concern regarding cultural traditions likely connects to the perceived threat to farmers. If farming communities are hurt by the growth of the alternative protein market, this will likely entail a corresponding loss of rural landscapes, communities, and traditions [28]. Though our participants seemed to focus on the immediate economic implications of alternative proteins for farmers (e.g., going out of business), a few participants (particularly farmers) also considered the more distal impact this could have in terms of eroding rural cultural traditions.

As a whole, the UK farmers we sampled had somewhat less experience purchasing and consuming PBAs than the non-farmers. They also appeared less interested in trying them (33% said they would ‘never’ buy them vs. 21% of non-farmers; see Tables S5 and S6). However, group differences in PBA consumption and purchase intentions were not statistically significant. Overall, the results portray a diverse picture of farmers, who appear to fall along a spectrum of product “rejection”, “contemplation”, and even some “action”, as described by the transtheoretical model of behavioral change [68]. Rejection involves not adopting a practice despite being aware of the arguments in favor of it, as opposed to simply being uninformed. Though some farmers rejected the positive claims about animal product alternatives, about 40% to 60% agreed that such products entailed improvements in animal treatment, resource use, and a reduced impact on the environment. A small percentage had even purchased plant-based alternatives. By contrast, UK-based non-farmers provided responses that might better typify a range of “contemplation”, “preparation” and “action” stages of change [68]. Non-farmers tended to accept the positive arguments made about plant-based and cultured alternatives at rates above farmers, were more curious than farmers about lab-based alternatives, and they were less likely to perceive barriers to their adoption. Arguably, the differences we observed between farmers and non-farmers may partly be due to farmers’ greater personal investment in the production of traditional animal products (see also [53]). However, the farmers in our sample also tended to shop locally and support small-scale farms more so than the non-farmers. Thus, the farmers’ greater investment in farming communities and rural culture, which they perceived as under threat, likely also played a role in their heightened resistance to these emerging alternatives.

4.1. Limitations and Future Directions

There were several limitations to this research. Firstly, a fairly small number of occupational livestock farmers were recruited, with nationalities restricted to the UK. Livestock farmers make up a very small percentage of the UK population (e.g., 0.5% in England [56]), which poses challenges to sampling. Continued effort should be made by researchers to explore the views of farming communities on this topic, particularly in under-researched regions (e.g., Africa, Asia). The present findings suggest that addressing concerns about the future of farmers and rural communities may be paramount to promoting acceptance of these new food technologies. Secondly, to mitigate the length of the questionnaire, we had to restrict our focus to four animal-product alternatives. Future research would benefit from widening the scope to include, for example, plant-based and animal-free egg replacers. Future studies should also probe participants’ views of animal product alternatives using more extensive, open-ended questions, and by having participants consider the use of different PBAs within specific meals or beverages (e.g., in coffee [69]). Though we allowed participants to volunteer comments at the end of the survey, this method yielded limited insights, as only a handful of participants made use of this opportunity. It would also be of value to systematically compare the attitudes held by occupational farmers and members of farming families, as our data suggested there may be graded differences that relate to a person’s level of involvement in animal agriculture. Finally, future work with farmers would benefit from probing in more detail the specific apprehensions farmers have regarding the ‘threat’ protein alternatives pose to farmers and farming traditions, and how these perceived threats may be mitigated.

4.2. Applications

Our findings have direct implications for how alternative proteins might be better positioned to be more broadly appealing to consumers, particularly from rural backgrounds. Alternative proteins represent both opportunities and challenges for farming communities [52]. While it remains to be seen whether the popularity of alternative proteins will be significant enough to supplant the steady demand for conventional animal products [70], our findings suggest that farmers and non-farmers alike are concerned about the implications of protein alternatives for farming communities. Thus, it would be to the benefit of stakeholders and proponents of emerging alternatives to consider ways to center the investment in alternative proteins around rural life, for example, through the repurposing of existing land and infrastructures to support crop production for PBAs or cultured meat facilities [13]. Guarantees to invest in rural communities and support farming transitions would help mitigate concerns about farmers being further alienated by changes to the market and send a message to consumers that rural traditions have a valued role in the future food system.

4.3. Conclusions

The present study revealed that although farmers were less enthusiastic than non-farmers about the growth of emerging protein alternatives, they did recognize many of the advantages of these products when contrasted with traditional, large-scale animal agriculture. The farmers’ biggest apprehension about these food technologies was not their perceived “unnaturalness”, but their potential to threaten and damage the livelihoods of farmers and farming communities. This was a concern echoed by non-farmers to a high degree as well. Thus, a key take-away from this research is the need to address anxieties about what it means for the future of rural communities if protein alternatives and emerging food technologies continue to expand and reshape the animal-product market. Ongoing work in this area should consider ways that stakeholders can manage these anxieties via the commitments and assurances they make to producers and consumers about the progress of alternative proteins.