Cultivated Meat Pivotal Questions

CM_01 · Focal Question · Production Cost¶

What will be the average production cost per kg of undifferentiatedUndifferentiated cell biomass: Proliferating cell mass prior to any directed differentiation step. This is what most published TEAs (Humbird, Pasitka et al., CE Delft) model. It includes spontaneously immortalized cell lines such as those used by Pasitka et al. (2024), which proliferate indefinitely without a separate differentiation phase. Cost estimates for products requiring differentiated muscle fibers (structured whole cuts) would typically be higher; this question focuses on the proliferation/scale-up phase. cultured chicken cell biomass (wet weight, at harvestWet weight = the mass of cells as harvested from the bioreactor, including water. Typically ~75–90% water depending on cell line, density, and how much dewatering occurs during separation. We use 80% as our reference assumption. See the 'Cultured-chicken meat' definition above for full details.) in 2036As of December 31, 2036., across all large-scale plants in the world?

See definitions above for Average Production Cost, cultured chicken cell biomass, and large-scale plants. Costs in 2025 USD. We ask for your median estimate — your 50th percentile across the range of plausible 2036 outcomes. (other years?)You can provide projections for other target years in the discussion section below, or forecast a full distribution on Metaculus →, which also allows a broader range of target years.

This is the central question for assessing CM's commercial viability and animal welfare potential. It is also what the cost modelA TEA framework built for this project — useful for exploring how different assumptions affect cost. Its p50 is its median cost forecast, in the same units as your estimate here. Please don't use the model's default values as the basis for your estimate — your independent assessment is what's most informative. If you do explore it, note this in your reasoning and explain what you changed. focuses on — but please estimate from your own knowledge and expertise, not from the model's current central value. We strongly encourage completing the Technical/Process questions below — they help us understand why experts disagree and where consensus exists.

Your median cost estimate for 2036 ($/kg, 2025 USD)

Your 50th percentile — half of plausible 2036 outcomes are above this, half below. [full distribution?]To express a fuller belief distribution (not just a median and CI), you can also forecast on CM_01 on Metaculus → — Metaculus lets you specify a complete probability distribution. If you forecast there, please share your username in the "About You" section below so we can link the two.

Your 80% credible interval (optional) [calibration tip]Recommended order (avoids anchoring):
1. Lower bound first: think of all reasons costs could be small — best-case tech, optimistic scale-up. Set a floor with only 1-in-10 chance the true value is below.
2. Upper bound second: think of all reasons costs could be large — setbacks, harder-than-expected scale-up. Set a ceiling with only 1-in-10 chance above.
3. Median last: having engaged both extremes, find your balance point.
Starting with the median and adding bounds tends to produce intervals that are too narrow.
— Anca Hanea (U Melbourne), IDEA protocol

Lower bound (10th %ile, $/kg)

Upper bound (90th %ile, $/kg)

What's driving your estimate? What factors would be most likely to strongly change it?

CM_01 · Supplementary · 2027 Near-term Target¶

Same question as CM_01, but… as of December 31, 2027, across all large-scale plants in the world? [why 2027?]2027 outcomes will be observable within a few years — allowing us to compare forecasts against actual data, helping calibrate longer-horizon estimates. Same definitions and basis as CM_01. [scope note]If you anticipate no large-scale plants, please give your estimate for advanced pilots and explain.

Your median cost estimate for end-2027 ($/kg, 2025 USD)

Your 80% credible interval for end-2027 (optional)

Lower bound (10th %ile, $/kg)

Upper bound (90th %ile, $/kg)

Reasoning (optional)

Goal-oriented & animal welfare investment questions¶

These questions connect the cost trajectory to the actual funding decisions animal welfare organisations face.

CM_02 · Goal-Oriented · AW Investment Value¶

Is cultivated meat development a good investment from an animal welfare perspective?

What is the expected-value (and probability distribution) of the impact on animal welfare from funding CM development? Consider marginal funding, very high funding levels, or impact relative to the best alternative interventions.

This connects the cost trajectory question to the actual funding decision animal welfare organizations face.

Your overall assessment of CM as an animal welfare investment

What share of the animal welfare benefit of the (next) best intervention categoryThe most cost-effective alternative use of animal welfare funding. For example, some argue that corporate animal welfare campaigns — such as those run by the Humane League securing cage-free or broiler welfare commitments — are among the most cost-effective farmed animal welfare interventions per dollar. "Next best" means: compared to whatever you think the best alternative currently is. do you expect CM funding to achieve? (optional)

CM funding achieves ___% of the impact per dollar of the (next) best intervention category. [interpretation]Under 100%: CM is less efficient than this other intervention per dollar. Over 100%: CM is more efficient. Can be well above 100% if you think CM is substantially better value than the current best alternative. Give your median estimate plus an 80% credible interval (10th–90th percentile).

Median estimate — your central guess

10th percentile (lower 80% CI bound)

90th percentile (upper 80% CI bound)

What would most change your assessment? (optional)

CM_10/11 · Metaculus · CM vs Campaigns¶

Will the animal welfare benefit of donating $100,000 in 2026 to fund CM development exceed the benefit of donating the same amount to the best established corporate AW campaigns?

Measured by your preferred "welfare-footprint-like metric." This question compares CM funding to a well-established, measurable intervention. (e.g., THL)The Humane League's corporate AW campaigns are one benchmark — cage-free commitments, broiler welfare pledges, etc. — but you can use whichever established AW intervention you consider most cost-effective as the comparison.

This is the practical funding decision many animal welfare organizations face. See this question on Metaculus →

Corporate AW campaigns (e.g., cage-free commitments, broiler welfare pledges) have documented track records from organizations like The Humane League.
CM development benefits are speculative and depend on: cost trajectory, consumer acceptance, regulatory approval, substitution rates.
Consider both expected value and variance/risk profiles.
The comparison may differ by time horizon (short-term vs long-term impact).

State your best calibrated probabilityYour honest credence given everything you know. Avoid anchoring to 0% (impossible) or 100% (certain). Use your own calibrated judgment. that this will be the case

—

What's driving your estimate? What factors are most important?

Technical/Process questions¶

The headline cost question (CM_01) depends on several technical cost drivers. Your views on these subquestions help us understand why experts disagree and identify the major remaining sources of uncertainty. Particularly valuable if you have direct expertise in bioprocess engineering, cell culture, or TEA. [independence note]Please form your own estimates for each question — not by looking up what the cost model currently assumes for these parameters. Your independent assessment is what's most informative. If you do use the model as a reference, note it in your reasoning.

CM_12 · Hydrolysates¶

Will most cultured meat (by volume) be produced using hydrolysates as the base media (replacing expensive purified amino acids) in 2036?

State your best calibrated probabilityYour honest credence given everything you know. See the 'How should I think about probability estimates?' definition above the form for more detail.

—

CM_13 · Growth Factor Costs¶

What will be the total cost of growth factorsCommon growth factors used in CM cell culture include:
FGF-2 (Fibroblast Growth Factor 2) — most widely used; promotes proliferation
IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor 1) — supports growth and survival
EGF (Epidermal Growth Factor) — stimulates cell division
TGF-β (Transforming Growth Factor beta) — regulates differentiation
Insulin — metabolic support; relatively cheap
Transferrin — iron transport; serum supplement
Approaches to reduce GF costs include: precision fermentation (yeast/bacteria-produced), plant molecular farming, autocrine cell lines (self-producing), thermostable variants, and small-molecule substitutes. per kg of undifferentiatedUndifferentiated cell biomass: Proliferating cell mass prior to any directed differentiation step. This is what most published TEAs (Humbird, Pasitka et al., CE Delft) model. Cost estimates for differentiated products would typically be higher. cultured chicken cell biomass (wet weight, at harvestWet weight = the mass of cells as harvested from the bioreactor, including water. Typically ~75–90% water depending on cell line, density, and how much dewatering occurs during separation. We use 80% as our reference assumption. See the 'Cultured-chicken meat' definition above for full details.) produced in 2036?

Total GF cost ($/kg of cell biomass)

Your combined estimate of growth factor costs per kg of biomass produced. For a decomposed view, see E2 and E3 below →E2 asks for the price per gram of the dominant growth factor ($/g); E3 asks for the effective dosage (g of GF per kg of biomass produced). E2 × E3 = total GF cost per kg — which should match your CM_13 estimate. If you fill in E2 and E3 in the Detailed Technical Questions section ↓, you can leave CM_13 blank or use it as a consistency check.

Your 80% credible interval (optional)

Lower bound (10th %ile, $/kg)

Upper bound (90th %ile, $/kg)

CM_14 · Cell Media Costs¶

What will be the cost of cell media per kg of undifferentiatedUndifferentiated cell biomass: Proliferating cell mass prior to any directed differentiation step. This is what most published TEAs (Humbird, Pasitka et al., CE Delft) model. Cost estimates for differentiated products would typically be higher. cultured chicken cell biomass (wet weight, at harvestWet weight = the mass of cells as harvested from the bioreactor, including water. Typically ~75–90% water depending on cell line, density, and how much dewatering occurs during separation. We use 80% as our reference assumption. See the 'Cultured-chicken meat' definition above for full details.) in 2036?

Your median cost estimate ($/kg of cell biomass) [Economic meaning]$/kg = ($/L of medium) × (L consumed per kg output at your assumed density and process mode). We ask for $/kg biomass rather than $/L for two reasons: (1) a cheaper $/L formulation with lower nutrient density may not outperform a more expensive one — what matters is cost per kg of output; (2) basal media $/L and cell density are not independent — richer media formulations are often needed to sustain higher cell densities, particularly in nutrient-depleted fed-batch systems. Asking for $/kg lets you integrate this interaction directly rather than combining assumptions that may not be jointly realistic.

Does not include growth factor costs — those are captured separately in CM_13 above.

Your 80% credible interval (optional)

Lower bound (10th %ile, $/kg)

Upper bound (90th %ile, $/kg)

CM_16 · Bioreactor Cell Density¶

For commercially relevant chicken cell culture in large-scale bioreactors (≥10,000L) in 2036, what is your distribution for the typical harvest cell density?

We are asking about typical commercial production — the density that most large-scale plants would realistically achieve — not the frontier maximum. The model uses density as a key cost driver: higher density = less media per kg of output. Please specify g/L (grams per liter wet weight).

Pessimistic (10th %ile, g/L)

Your median estimate (g/L)

Optimistic (90th %ile, g/L)

Volumetric productivity (kg cell biomass / m³ / day) (optional — more informative than density alone)

Volumetric productivity captures both cell density and how often biomass is effectively extracted — for fed-batch: density at harvest ÷ total cycle time; for perfusion/continuous: density × effective harvest fraction per day. Determines bioreactor volume required per kg/year of output. State your assumed process mode in the text box below.

Pessimistic (10th %ile)

Median

Optimistic (90th %ile)

CM_17 · Food-grade vs Pharmaceutical¶

By 2036, what percent of commercial cultured meat will be produced using food-grade cell media (as opposed to pharmaceutical-grade)?

State your best estimate of the percentage using food-grade

—

CM_20 · Custom Bioreactors¶

What share of cultured meat companies (those with capex over $10 million) will design and build their own bioreactors by 2036?

Some reports suggest companies can design and build their own bioreactors for much lower cost than purchasing off-the-shelf pharmaceutical bioreactors. [scope]The key contrast is fit-for-purpose, CM-specific equipment vs. pharma-grade bioreactors, not literally in-house fabrication. Count a company as "yes" if it moves to fit-for-purpose designs — whether built in-house or sourced from CM-specific B2B equipment suppliers — rather than buying pharma-grade off-the-shelf.

State your best estimate of the percentage building own bioreactors

—

Your 80% credible interval (optional)

Lower bound (10th %ile, %)

Upper bound (90th %ile, %)

More detailed technical questions · Particularly valuable for bioprocess/TEA experts

More detailed technical questions

This section goes into more detail behind the estimates above — asking about specific cost-driver parameters: growth factor price and dosage separately, supplemental protein costs, process mode probability mix, and the probability of specific technical breakthroughs. These correspond to parameters in the cost model — but please estimate from your own background knowledge, not by looking up what the model currently assumes for each slider. Your independent assessment is what's most informative; the model's defaults are our starting point, not the answer we're looking for. [if you use the model]If you do explore the model's sliders as a reference, that's fine — but please note it in your reasoning and explain your own independent view. We'll compare expert-elicited distributions against model defaults in the synthesis.

▸ Show/hide detailed technical questions (E2–E7 — particularly valuable if you have direct bioprocess or TEA expertise) (unfold)

E2 · Growth factor price ($/g)¶ — dominant GF (e.g. FGF-2), commercial-scale 2036

Price per gram of the most-used recombinant growth factor. This is price only — quantity (g/kg cell mass) is asked separately below. Model mapping: GF Price ($/g) slider.

10th %ile (optimistic, $/g)

Median ($/g)

90th %ile (pessimistic, $/g)

This is your 2036 forecast — if you expect a breakthrough in GF production to have occurred by then, your estimate should reflect that.

E3 · GF effective dosage¶ (g of GF per kg of cell biomass produced), 2036

Total grams of recombinant growth factors consumed per kg of cell biomass produced (accounting for recycling, thermostable variants, and media use rate). Model mapping: GF Quantity (g/kg) parameter.

10th %ile (optimistic, g/kg)

Median (g/kg)

90th %ile (pessimistic, g/kg)

Autocrine cell lines (cells produce their own GFs) could approach 0; conventional recombinant GF use depends on recycling, thermostable variants, and media use rate.

E4 · Supplemental protein cost contribution ($/kg cell mass), 2036¶

Total cost of albumin + transferrin + insulin as media additives, per kg of cell biomass produced. Model mapping: Supplemental Proteins cost component.

10th %ile (optimistic, $/kg)

Median ($/kg)

90th %ile (pessimistic, $/kg)

E5 · Process mode probability mix — your 2036 expectation¶

What share of large-scale commercial CM production (by volume) do you expect each bioreactor process mode to account for in 2036? Should sum to 100%. Fed-batch: current default, lower capex. Perfusion: higher density, continuous media exchange. Continuous flow: frontier, highest potential throughput.

P(Fed-batch) %

P(Perfusion) %

P(Continuous flow) %

Sum: — (should equal 100%)

E6 · Probability that each approach substantially decreases GF costs by 2036

For each approach, what is your probability that it will have succeeded in substantially reducing effective growth factor costs in commercial CM production by 2036?

Precision fermentation E. coli / yeast produce GFs at scale — target $10–100/g (GFI 2024)

—

Plant molecular farming Transgenic plants express GFs — target $1–10/g (BioBetter)

—

Autocrine cell lines Engineer cells to produce their own GFs — target ~$0/g effective cost (Stout et al. 2023)

—

Small molecule substitutes Chemicals that activate GF receptors — target <$1/g (Ahmad et al. 2023)

—

Thermostable variants e.g. FGF2-G3 with 20-day half-life — substantially reduces effective dosage (Enantis)

—

E7 · Feed conversion efficiency — discussion (tentative — we don't model this yet; your input shapes whether and how we should)

At large scale, the dominant cost driver may shift from formulation price to feed conversion efficiency — how efficiently cells convert glucose and amino acids into biomass. This can be expressed as kcal of biomass per kcal of nutrient input (kcal:kcal), or g dry-weight biomass per g dry-weight nutrients consumed (DW:DW). Current TEAs largely ignore this, focusing instead on $/L of medium and L/kg of output. If feed conversion is poor, cheap media formulations may still be expensive per kg of output. We're considering whether to model this explicitly. Do you have views on: (a) expected feed conversion ratios for chicken cells at commercial scale; (b) whether current TEAs adequately account for this; or (c) how important this is relative to the cost drivers we already model?

Thank you — these inputs directly update our model priors. We'll report expert-elicited vs. model-default distributions in our workshop synthesis.

About You

Name

You can choose whether to keep your response anonymous (leave blank) or allow others to see your name alongside your response. Response content will be shared within the group and published publicly in either case. A pseudonym (see below) lets us link your pre- and post-workshop responses without identifying you publicly.

Pseudonym [?]Using the same pseudonym across your pre- and post-workshop responses lets us track how your beliefs update — without linking them to your real name in our public reporting.

Affiliation

Metaculus username [?]Metaculus → The Unjournal hosts several CM cost questions for public forecasting. Sharing your username lets us link your Metaculus predictions to your form response for our aggregation analysis.

Areas of expertise or experience (check all that apply)

Helps us report beliefs by subgroup — do TEA specialists and industry operators agree? We'll report subgroup distributions alongside pooled results.

TEA / cost modelling — techno-economic analysis, cost engineering Evaluator / forecaster — uncertainty quantification, superforecasting Bioprocess / cell culture — bioreactor engineering, media formulation, scale-up Biology / life science — cell biology, molecular biology, physiology Industry practitioner — operational CM or adjacent (food-biotech, pharma) Animal welfare / policy — welfare impact, advocacy, EA research Other

A note on more rigorous elicitation

This form is a lightweight structured survey — not a formal expert elicitation protocol. A more rigorous process (calibration training, full distribution elicitation, subgroup comparison) would be methodologically superior — though it would likely require substantial compensation for experts' time. If this is of interest, please let us know below.

Have you done formal expert elicitation before?

Interested in a more rigorous process in future?

Any other thoughts, questions, or considerations? Or elaborations on your responses above?

Your responses are stored securely and will be used to inform the synthesis report.

— saves a text file to your device before or after submitting.

▸ Form revision history — what has changed since first published, and why (unfold)

These changes do not affect submissions already received — earlier responses are stored as entered. If a field was blocked by any of the issues below, please re-submit to add your complete response.

June 26, 2026

Added the Animal Welfare Futures forecasting tournament to the Metaculus section. The "Public forecasting on Metaculus" fold now also points to the Animal Welfare Futures tournament (co-launched with Metaculus and Sentient Futures; $3,400 in prizes), which includes some cultivated-meat questions, and the fold is retitled "Public forecasting on Metaculus; Animal Futures Tournament."

Clarified the scope of CM_20 (custom bioreactors). Following a reviewer comment, a scope note now makes clear the question is really about the shift to fit-for-purpose, CM-specific equipment versus pharma-grade bioreactors — counting fit-for-purpose designs whether built in-house or sourced from CM-specific B2B suppliers, not only literal in-house fabrication.

May 11, 2026

The volumetric productivity sub-question (CM_16) had a ceiling too low to enter any realistic value. All three fields — pessimistic, median, and optimistic — were capped at 5 kg/m³/day by the form. But a cell density of 75 g/L with a daily 50% harvest already implies around 37.5 kg/m³/day, so even a moderate estimate was blocked. The ceiling has been raised to 200 kg/m³/day, which covers all plausible scenarios. [max: 5 → 200; step: 0.001 → 0.1 on cm16_productivity_lo/med/hi]

Upper limits on growth factor dosage (E3) and supplemental protein cost (E4) were too tight. E3 was capped at 1 g/kg and E4 at $20/kg — both plausible enough for optimistic estimates, but they could block an expert with a more pessimistic view. Both limits have been raised to give more room. [E3 max: 1 → 10 g/kg; E4 max: 20 → 200 $/kg]

The growth factor price field (E2) only accepted whole-dollar-per-gram amounts. Entering $2.50/g or $0.50/g would cause the form to refuse to submit — the browser requires values to match the field's step size, which was set to $1. Given that 2036 commercial-scale GF prices could plausibly be fractions of a dollar per gram, this was a meaningful block. Fixed to two decimal places. The CM_13 median field had the same issue (its own CI fields already accepted tenths but the median didn't). [E2 step: 1 → 0.01; CM_13 median step: 1 → 0.1]

Most confidence interval fields were not checking whether the numbers were in the right order. If you accidentally typed a larger number in the lower-bound field than in the median field, the form would accept it silently. Live warnings now appear as you type whenever a lower bound, median, or upper bound set is out of order. This applies to CM_01 (2027 version), CM_13, CM_14, CM_16 cell density, CM_16 volumetric productivity, CM_20, and the E2/E3/E4 expert questions. The CM_01 (2036) and CM_02 fields already had this check from the start. [makeOrderingValidator() added in beliefs.js]

Selected questions from the Cultivated Meat PQ formulations (CM_01, CM_02, CM_10, CM_12–14, CM_16–17, CM_20). Last updated: June 26, 2026.

Definitions & basis (shared across all questions)

Goal-oriented & animal welfare investment questions¶

Is cultivated meat development a good investment from an animal welfare perspective?

Will the animal welfare benefit of donating $100,000 in 2026 to fund CM development exceed the benefit of donating the same amount to the best established corporate AW campaigns?

Technical/Process questions¶

Will most cultured meat (by volume) be produced using hydrolysates as the base media (replacing expensive purified amino acids) in 2036?

For commercially relevant chicken cell culture in large-scale bioreactors (≥10,000L) in 2036, what is your distribution for the typical harvest cell density?

By 2036, what percent of commercial cultured meat will be produced using food-grade cell media (as opposed to pharmaceutical-grade)?

What share of cultured meat companies (those with capex over $10 million) will design and build their own bioreactors by 2036?

More detailed technical questions

About You