Cirencester's Royal Agricultural University (RAU) is celebrating a significant report towards its road map for scientists and business to consider the viability of replicated meat.

The report represents another step, the RAU claims, towards our understanding of the prospect of meat which can be lab-grown from a biopsy on a donor animal and subsequently delivered to the dining table without killing the planet - or a single animal.

A spokesperson for RAU said: "Far from spelling the end for traditional agriculture, [the] report released today suggests how scientists and companies developing cultured meat could find common cause with farmers.

"It is already possible to grow animal cells in the lab and make simple forms of cultured meat, such as mince or nuggets. The challenge now facing this emerging industry is to scale up production and bring down costs, while convincing regulators and the public that the new technology is safe."

Led by the RAU, Culture Clash? What cultured meat could mean for UK farming suggests that using by-products from farming could bring this goal one step closer while also making cultured meat more environmentally sustainable and cheaper - both to produce and for the public to buy.

The research also investigated the threats and opportunities as seen by a wide range of UK farmers.

Professor Tom MacMillan, Elizabeth Creak Chair in Rural Policy and Strategy at the RAU, who led the study, said: "The environmental cost of meat production globally means we need to throttle back, and widening the range of safe, tasty, and affordable alternatives to traditional meat can help. While the jury is out on whether cultured meat will fit the bill, we've found that it needn't spell disaster for farmers."

Farmers who have spoke to the RAU for this study had lots of concerns about the technology but, for the most part, face many bigger challenges on their plates, he added.

"Some were also interested in its opportunities, from supplying raw materials to even producing it on their farms."

While some nations have banned cultured meat in the name of protecting farming, the RAU is hoping that the debate over the issue can be framed outside a notion of 'all or nothing', in the quest for 'win-wins'.

Building bridges with farmers is certainly in the cultured meat companies' interests, the report suggests, as some are starting to see. "More surprisingly," the RAU said, "we found that keeping the door open may serve farmers better too."

Possible by-products that could be used in cultured meat production include:

● Leftovers from making rapeseed oil, some of which currently goes to animal feed.

● Hoof and horn meal - an abattoir by-product currently used in fertiliser and pet food.

● Blood from traditional meat production, which is sometimes used as fertiliser or wasted.

These by-products are rich in amino acids, which are the costliest and least sustainable ingredients used to grow cultured meat, the RAU report said.

This research found that using these by-products, instead of synthetic amino acids, could reduce the environmental footprint of cultured meat by using less energy, water, and land, and make the end product more affordable.

Importantly, linking cultured meat production and farming could also benefit some farmers and address concerns over the threat the new technology poses to traditional farming, which has led Italy and some US states to ban cultured meat.

The RAU added: "The team partnered with nine UK farms to find out what cultured meat might mean for their individual businesses. Compared with challenges such as changing weather patterns and global commodity markets, the threat of competition from cultured meat felt like a slow burn to them.

"Their main concerns were about wider social issues, such as big companies controlling the food system or the knock-on effects for rural communities, more than about the direct impact on their businesses."

One farmer who contributed to the study said: "The cultured meat industry needs to talk more about what they're up to, rather than keeping everything behind closed doors. But I also think that us farmers could listen a bit more, too."

Another Northern Ireland farmer said: "That's a Frankenstein food. What they're trying to create there is like something I'd be trying to wash out of a shed and throw disinfectant on it to try and kill it. No, definitely not."

And while those on the ethical side of the debate may hold reservations over what by-products may be incorporated into any production processes, the Bristol-based vegan and animal rights campaign group VIVA! has sounded a tentative approval for the thinking behind cultured meat.

VIVA! said: "Although cell-cultured meats are obviously not being developed for the vegetarian and vegan market, they do offer the possibility of replacing farmed animals on the plates of meat-eaters. If this happens, potentially billions of lives could be saved annually.

"The idea is that meat-eaters will be able to buy meat without the associated cruelty or negative environmental impacts of conventional meat production; greenhouse gas emissions, land use, deforestation, water use, loss of biodiversity and antibiotic use. There is also some discussion about the possibility of altering the constituents of the lab-grown meat to make it less harmful to human health. Although if health is your concern, you could just go vegan!"

● The RAU study was guided by an advisory group including farming organisations and cultured meat businesses. It also involved practical workshops with policymakers, funders, environmental groups, and cultured meat businesses to identify practical next steps.