New plant-based meat alternatives that aim to mimic the taste and texture of beef could have significant economic, environmental, and animal welfare impacts if they replace animal-based meats and reduce livestock production. Whether plant-based meat alternatives can achieve these ends depends on the extent to which consumers are willing to substitute for plant-based meat alternatives, the structure of the meat industry, and the inter-linkages of the livestock industry with the other parts of the economy. We construct and calibrate an economic model to estimate how a reduction in plant-based meat prices, or increases in demand for plant-based meat, in the United States affect cattle production. For every 10% reduction in price or increase in demand for plant-based meat alternatives, we estimate U.S. cattle production falls approximately 0.15%, U.S. cattle producers’ economic welfare falls by $300 million/year, and U.S. consumer welfare rises by $513 million/year. Increases in U.S. demand for plant-based meat alter trade patterns, leading to a reduction of beef imports and an increase in beef exports, a phenomenon that further reduces global greenhouse gas emissions and land use given the relative efficiency of U.S. beef production. For every 10% reduction in the price of plant-based meat alternatives, we estimate that the global reduction in emissions is equivalent to 0.41% of U.S. emissions from beef production and 1.4 % when including carbon sequestration from reforestation of abandoned cropland and pasture and reduced land-use change emissions.1 Even substantial reductions in prices of plant-based meat alternatives are unlikely to have substantive impacts on the U.S. cattle population and emissions, suggesting the need to also pursue alternative mitigation strategies, such as innovations to reduce the methane emissions per head.

Food values have been proposed in previous research as a method of identifying stable constructs of consumer preference. We conducted an online survey of 1950 US respondents using best–worst scaling applying the concept of food values to four specific meat and dairy products: ground beef, beef steak, chicken breast, and milk. We test the applicability of general food values to specific products, while further discovering the nature of heterogeneity of values by defining classes of respondents. Our findings suggest that the general food values previously proposed apply well to specific products of the livestock industry. We also found that the differences between consumer classes were driven primarily by price sensitivity, with many of the most important and least important values remaining the same.

Meat products represent a significant share of US consumer food expenditures. The COVID-19 pandemic directly impacted both demand and supply of US beef and pork products for a prolonged period, resulting in a myriad of economic impacts. The complex disruptions create significant challenges in isolating and inferring consumer-demand changes from lagged secondary data. Thus, we turn to novel household-level data from a continuous consumer tracking survey, the Meat Demand Monitor, launched in February 2020, just before the US pandemic. We find diverse impacts across US households related to “hoarding” behavior and financial confidence over the course of the pandemic. Combined, these insights extend our understanding of pandemic impacts on US consumers and provide a timely example of knowledge enabled by ongoing and targeted household-level data collection and analysis.

Immunization through vaccination has been a commercially available pre-harvest intervention to reduce E. coli shedding in cattle for about five years. Despite demonstrated substantial improvement in human health that vaccine adoption offers, it has not been widely adopted. This highlights the need for understanding the economic situation underlying limited adoption. Using an equilibrium displacement model, this study identifies the economic impact to U.S. feedlots implementing this vaccination across a series of alternative scenarios. Producers face $1 billion to $1.8 billion in welfare losses over 10 years if they adopt this technology without any associated increases in demand for fed cattle. Retail beef demand increases of 1.7% to 3.0% or export demand increases of 18.1% to 32.6% would each individually make producers economically neutral to adoption. Retail or packer cost decreases of 1.2% to 3.9% would likewise be sufficient to make producers neutral to adoption.