Comparative life cycle assessment: environmental impact of beef jerky and its plant-based analogue

Abstract Purpose Rising population, income, and urbanisation are increasing demand for animal protein, intensifying environmental pressures associated with meat production. This study evaluates the environmental performance of a plant-based jerky analogue compared with conventional beef jerky, assessing whether a product derived from plant protein blends via high-moisture extrusion can reduce impacts across multiple environmental impact categories. Methods A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed using the Environmental Footprint 3.1 method to compare beef jerky with a plant-based jerky analogue derived from a plant protein blend. System boundaries covered raw material production, processing, and packaging. The beef jerky inventory was compiled from scientific literature, while primary data from the manufacturer were used for the plant-based product. Background data were sourced from ecoinvent v3.10, Agri-Footprint v6.3, and AGRIBALYSE v3.1 databases. Environmental impacts were assessed across 16 impact categories for two functional units: 1 kg of product and 1 kg of protein. Contribution analysis identified key drivers, and sensitivity and uncertainty analysis evaluated the robustness of the results. Results and discussion Plant-based jerky showed lower environmental impacts in 15 out of 16 categories for both functional units, with ionising radiation being the only exception. On a product basis, reductions reached 95.0% for climate change and 49.0% for water use. The land-use impact for the plant-based product was negative, which was attributed to the selected characterization method rather than treating it as an absolute environmental benefit. Raw material production was the dominant contributor in both systems. For beef jerky, livestock production drove most impacts, while crop cultivation and protein extraction were the main contributors for the plant-based alternative. Results remained consistent under different sensitivity assessments, confirming robustness. Additional processing stages did not offset the overall environmental advantages of the plant-based product. Conclusions The plant-based jerky demonstrates substantially lower environmental impacts than beef jerky across most impact categories, indicating strong potential as a more sustainable alternative. In both systems, raw material production dominates environmental burdens, highlighting the need for targeted upstream improvements to achieve further reductions. Recommendations Future research should evaluate the combined usage of multiple plant protein sources and account for the cumulative impacts of additional processing stages. Comparative assessments should also incorporate nutritional factors, including protein digestibility, bioavailability, and conversion efficiency, to enable a more comprehensive evaluation of plant- and animal-based products.