DLG-Study
‘Summary’ DLG Insights:
Alternative protein sources
Key findings from the four parts of the study
10 key findings ↓ Part 1↓ Part 2 ↓ Part 3 ↓ Part 4 ↓ Overview →
Although the market for alternative protein sources is clearly growing, it remains in a transitional phase without any clear breakthrough. In agriculture, there are opportunities, particularly in the cultivation of soybeans and peas; however, insufficient profitability is limiting expansion. Ecological benefits, such as improved soil fertility, are acting as a long-term driver.
From the consumer perspective, sustainability considerations play an important role, but they are rarely decisive when it comes to purchasing decisions—taste, price, and quality remain the dominant factors. Although meat and dairy substitutes are becoming increasingly accepted and are viewed more positively, they are still perceived as having disadvantages compared with animal-based products, particularly in terms of taste.
Overall, social acceptance remains ambivalent. The key challenge lies in better integrating the entire value chain in order to strengthen economic viability, product quality, and consumer acceptance at the same time.
The use of alternative protein sources in food products—particularly in meat and dairy substitutes—is increasing. This is driven by a growing proportion of consumers who are reducing their meat consumption or following a vegetarian or vegan diet. Commonly used plant-based protein sources include soybeans, peas, and other legumes; proteins derived from fungi or insects are also used in some cases. In addition to health-related considerations, plant-based proteins are regarded as environmentally advantageous, as their cultivation generally has a better environmental footprint than animal production. Legumes such as peas, lupins, and field beans can fix nitrogen from the air, thereby improving soil fertility and reducing the need for synthetic fertilisers. Against this backdrop, the cultivation and use of such protein crops are also receiving political support and are being discussed as a potential market opportunity for agriculture and the food industry.
To better assess the actual market and yield opportunities, DLG conducted the following studies together with Prof. Dr Holger Buxel of Münster University of Applied Sciences at the end of 2025:
- A survey of agricultural holdings on the status quo and the challenges involved in cultivating and marketing protein crops
- A consumer survey on awareness, image, and consumption of alternative protein sources
- A consumer survey on meat and dairy substitutes
From Field to Shopping Cart: 10 Key Findings on the Market, Acceptance and Potential of Alternative Protein Sources
1. Growing market, but no breakthrough yet
From the perspective of both farmers and consumers, demand for meat and dairy substitutes is visibly increasing. At the same time, the market remains in a transitional phase, with mixed expectations regarding growth and profitability.
2. Agriculture sees opportunities—but economic scepticism prevails
Many farms generally consider the cultivation of protein crops attractive and promising for the future. However, most doubt their current profitability, which represents a major obstacle to expansion.
3. Soybeans and peas are the clear winners among producers
Farmers expect demand for soybeans and peas in particular to increase. Other crops, such as lupins and lentils, do play a role, but remain significantly less important.
4. Ecological benefits are a structural driver
Legumes improve soil fertility, reduce the need for nitrogen fertilisers, and provide plant-based proteins. These agroecological benefits are an important reason for political support and represent a source of long-term market potential.
5. The protein source matters—but it is not decisive when purchasing
Only around one-quarter of consumers consciously pay attention to the specific protein source in substitute products. Factors such as taste, price, and quality continue to dominate purchasing decisions.
6. Image: sustainable, yes—but at a disadvantage in terms of taste
Meat and dairy substitutes are clearly associated with environmental and animal-welfare benefits. At the same time, they perform significantly worse than animal-based products in terms of key product attributes such as taste and naturalness.
7. Social acceptance is growing—but remains ambivalent
Around half of consumers generally view substitute products positively. Nevertheless, a large proportion remain sceptical or indifferent, indicating that the market position has not yet been firmly established.
8. Meat substitutes: acceptance exists, but there is a clear quality gap
Meat substitutes are regarded as beneficial for the environment and animal welfare. Nevertheless, most consumers still prefer meat—particularly because of its taste, freshness, and value for money.
9. Dairy substitutes: somewhat more established, but similar perception patterns
Dairy substitutes also benefit from sustainability arguments and growing use. However, conventional dairy products continue to be perceived as superior in terms of taste and quality.
10. Key challenge: connecting the different stages of the value chain
The greatest obstacle does not lie in any single area, but in coordinating the entire value chain—from cultivation and processing through to consumption. The market for alternative proteins can grow sustainably only if economic incentives, product quality, and consumer acceptance come together.
Part 1 of the study focuses on the current status of the cultivation and marketing of protein crops on farms. It is based on a survey of farms regarding their cultivation experience, economic prospects, and marketing conditions.
The results show that protein crops are often viewed positively from an agronomic perspective. However, many farms currently consider their economic attractiveness to be limited.
Potential for cultivation in agriculture
Many farms generally have suitable conditions for cultivating protein crops. However, suitability varies considerably between individual crops. While a large proportion of farms are able to cultivate peas and field beans, fewer farms are suitable for growing soybeans and lupins. Lentils and chickpeas are only suitable for a smaller proportion of farms (Fig. 1).
Current cultivation practices
In practical cultivation, peas and field beans are the dominant crops. Soybeans and lupins are cultivated much less frequently, while lentils and chickpeas currently play only a minor role.
Agronomic benefits
For many farms, an important reason for cultivating protein crops is their positive impact on soil and crop rotation. Legumes such as peas, field beans, and lupins can fix nitrogen from the air and thereby contribute to improving soil fertility. At the same time, they can help stabilise crop rotations and reduce the use of mineral nitrogen fertilisers.
Economic prospects
Despite these agronomic benefits, many farms take a cautious view of the economic aspects of cultivation. Only a minority of respondents believe that cultivating such crops can generate a good income. Funding programmes play an important role in this context. For many farms, particularly when cultivating peas and field beans, subsidies are an important basis for economic viability.
Marketing as a key challenge
Many farms consider marketing to be difficult. The lack of predictability regarding demand and prices, as well as the comparatively high effort involved in marketing, are viewed particularly critically (Fig. 2).
Potential solutions
New marketing models could help strengthen the cultivation of protein crops. Many farms consider contract farming with companies in the food industry to be an attractive marketing channel. Cooperation between farms—for example, in the form of producer organisations—could also help improve the organisation of production and marketing (Fig. 3).
Protein crops are viewed positively from an agronomic perspective. However, economic uncertainties and marketing problems currently limit their attractiveness for many farms. Improved marketing structures—for example, through contract farming or cooperation—could help expand cultivation in the future.
Part 2 of the study focuses on consumer awareness, the image of alternative protein sources, and consumers’ willingness to consume them. It is based on two representative consumer surveys on meat and dairy substitute products. The results show that the protein source often plays only a minor role in purchasing decisions for meat and dairy substitutes. At the same time, many consumers lack knowledge about these products.
Importance for purchasing decisions
Various protein sources can be used to produce meat and dairy substitutes. Around one-quarter of users of meat and dairy substitute products consciously pay attention to the type of protein source when purchasing them—for example, pea protein. However, the protein source is only one of many product attributes that play a role in the purchasing process. Criteria such as taste and price are more important (Fig. 4).
Key findings from the survey
- Only around one-quarter of buyers actively pay attention to the type of protein source when making a purchase
- Soybeans (65%) as well as chickpeas, peas, and lentils (around 60% each) are the best-known protein sources
- Only around half of consumers are well informed about the positive effects of cultivating protein crops
- The image and acceptance of individual plants as protein sources differ considerably
Awareness as an important prerequisite
Awareness of a protein source is an important prerequisite for purchasing decisions. Soybeans, chickpeas, peas, and lentils are the best-known protein sources for meat substitutes. For dairy substitutes, the best-known sources are soybeans, oats, and almonds (Fig. 5).
Attractiveness as a key factor
Awareness and acceptance vary considerably between individual protein sources. The choice of protein source is therefore likely to have a significant influence on whether a substitute product is perceived as attractive or unattractive. This is also likely to affect consumers’ willingness to purchase and pay for these products.
Lack of knowledge
More and more consumers pay attention to the environmental and climate-related characteristics of food products. However, many consumers are not sufficiently familiar with the advantages of meat and dairy substitutes compared with animal-based meat and dairy products (Fig. 6).
A question of image
The image of individual protein sources differs considerably. This may influence the marketing opportunities for meat and dairy substitute products and, consequently, demand from producers.
Potential for home cooking
Many protein crops are still rarely used as ingredients in home cooking. In addition to taste, the main reasons are a lack of awareness and a shortage of recipes (Fig. 7).
Awareness of protein sources and knowledge of the benefits of cultivating and using them for the climate and the environment are often not particularly high. To unlock the market and income potential of alternative protein sources, they need to become better known and their positive attributes need to be firmly established in consumers’ minds. Consumers’ willingness to use alternative protein sources in home cooking must also be increased—for example, by providing recipes.
Part 3 of the study focuses on the current status of consumption and purchasing behaviour among consumers of meat substitutes. It is based on a representative consumer survey on these products.
The results show that many consumers view meat substitutes positively. However, consumer communication and product placement can still be improved.
Positive attitudes
For almost half of respondents, meat substitutes are a good thing. A large proportion also consider it important that increasing numbers of these products are consumed in Germany instead of animal-based meat products. From the consumers’ perspective, meat substitutes are particularly convincing in terms of their environmental and animal-welfare attributes (Fig. 8).
Inferior taste and naturalness
However, meat products are viewed significantly more positively than meat substitutes by the majority of consumers. Meat substitutes are often perceived as inferior in terms of product attributes such as taste, freshness, and naturalness.
Regular consumption
Meat substitutes are now purchased regularly. This is also due to the fact that many consumers consciously try to eat as little meat as possible as part of their diet (Fig. 9).
Not a replacement for meat
Although meat substitutes have become a regular part of meals in many households, demand for meat products remains high.
Many consumers are not convinced by meat substitutes in terms of taste, recipe formulation, or processing. Others eat meat out of tradition or personal conviction.
Lack of information
The level of information about meat substitutes is not particularly high. Just under half of respondents feel well informed about the advantages and disadvantages of consuming these products (Fig. 10).
Supermarkets and discount stores dominate
By far the two most common places to purchase meat substitutes are supermarkets and discount stores. Meat substitutes therefore fulfil an important anchor function within the food retail assortment. However, there is still potential for improvement in the way these products are positioned and displayed (Fig. 11).
Part 4 of the study focuses on the current status of consumption and purchasing behaviour among consumers of dairy substitutes. It is based on a representative consumer survey on these products.
The results show that many consumers regularly purchase dairy substitutes. The availability of these products is an important factor when choosing where to shop.
The benefits are convincing
For almost half of respondents, dairy substitutes are a good thing. A large proportion also consider it important that increasing numbers of these products are consumed in Germany instead of animal-based dairy products. From the consumers’ perspective, dairy substitutes are particularly convincing in terms of their environmental and animal-welfare attributes (Fig. 12).
Key findings from the survey
- FFor 45% and 55% of respondents, respectively, dairy substitutes contribute to addressing environmental and animal-welfare issues
- 79% can imagine consuming dairy substitutes
- 51% are most interested in prices and special offers
- For 50%, the availability of dairy substitutes plays an important role in their choice of store
A shift in attitudes is emerging
Dairy products are still purchased more frequently than dairy substitutes. Nevertheless, many consumers consciously try to consume as little milk as possible for various reasons.
Price information dominates
Both the level of information and the interest in information about dairy substitutes are not particularly high. Consumers are most interested in information about prices and special offers (Fig. 14).
Important when choosing where to shop
Supermarkets and discount stores are also the most important places to purchase dairy substitutes. However, the availability of dairy substitutes plays an important role in the decision about where consumers ultimately shop (Fig. 15).
Potential for optimisation identified
Overall, consumers are satisfied with the current breadth and depth of the dairy substitute range. There is still potential for improvement in the placement and labelling of these products.
Dairy substitutes will not replace dairy products, but they can help reduce dairy consumption. Consumers’ experiences with dairy substitutes to date have been predominantly positive, and many products meet consumer expectations. As with many other food products, price, taste, and quality are the main factors when purchasing dairy substitutes.
