The Unjournal · Pivotal Questions Initiative

Cultivated Meat Pivotal Questions

State your beliefs on cost trajectories, commercial viability, and animal welfare implications of cultivated meat.

Select text to annotate with Hypothes.is · Discuss the evidence

Share or update your assessment of cultivated meat costs and animal welfare implications. All questions are optional; answer those you can inform and explain your reasoning.

Start with the cost question · About you and submit

Optional video walkthrough

Sharing policy: Response content will be shared within the participant group and published publicly. You can choose whether to keep your individual responses anonymous (not attributed to you by name) or allow others to see your name alongside your response — simply leave the name field blank to remain anonymous.

Project context and other forecasting routes
▸ Canonical PQ questions (Coda) (unfold)
For more detail, context, and the complete set of operationalized questions, including those we're commissioning our PQ evaluators to address, see the canonical PQ formulations on Coda → (use the PQ filter bar and select "cell cultured meat price and cost" to see CM-specific questions)

You don't need to be a specialist to contribute. We want your honest assessment and reasoning, whether you feel highly confident or very uncertain. Your input helps us understand the range of views in the field.

Several CM cost questions are also live on Metaculus for public forecasting.

▸ Public forecasting on Metaculus; Animal Futures Tournament [?]Metaculus provides a public interface for a broader pool of forecasters. At least one CM question is going into the animal welfare impact forecasting tournament. Metaculus also allows more detailed belief distributions than the form below. Your Metaculus forecast feeds into our aggregation — please share your username in the form below if you forecast there. (unfold)

Related earlier cost questions are on Metaculus; their wording differs from the September 2026 form revision: Earlier CM_01 — production cost per kg →. The expert-aggregation version is at CM_03 →. If you forecast on Metaculus, please share your username below so we can link your contributions.

You may also be interested in the Animal Welfare Futures forecasting tournament → we co-launched with Metaculus and Sentient Futures — $3,400 in prizes and only about 25 forecasters as of June 26. It includes some cultivated-meat questions (but not the specific cost questions here), alongside other animal-welfare-relevant questions you may find interesting.

How to give estimates and uncertainty ranges

Please estimate independently of the cost model. Don't look up what the model currently assumes and enter that — we would just be recycling our own starting point. Your own knowledge, judgment, and calibrated uncertainty is what's informative. [if you do use it]If you do open the model and use its sliders or central estimate as a reference, that's fine — but please note this in your reasoning field or a Hypothes.is comment, and explain what you changed and why. A comparison between your independent view and the model's assumption is useful information too.

▸ Guidance on forming your estimates and uncertainty bounds (Anca Hanea) (unfold)

Anca Hanea (U Melbourne), expert in structured expert elicitation and developer of the IDEA protocolIDEA: Investigate, Discuss, Estimate, Aggregate — a structured protocol designed to extract calibrated expert judgements and combine them while minimising anchoring, groupthink, and overconfidence. See: Hanea et al. (2021), Risk Analysis., recommends this order to avoid anchoring and overconfidence when forming a credible interval:

  1. Lower bound first (your p10): Think of all the reasons this value might be small — technological breakthroughs, optimistic scenarios, best-case conditions. What is a plausible floor? This is the number below which you assign only a 1-in-10 chance of the true value falling.
  2. Upper bound second (your p90): Think of all the reasons this value might be large — setbacks, unexpected hurdles, worst-case scenarios. This is the number above which you assign only a 1-in-10 chance.
  3. Median last: Having fully engaged with both extremes, find your balance point — the value for which you judge an even chance that the true outcome is above or below.

Starting with the median and adding bounds afterwards tends to produce intervals that are too narrow (anchoring + overconfidence). When forming each bound, ask: "What factors could drive this much higher or lower — and how variable are those factors?" Fold that variability into the bounds. If there are things you genuinely don't know, fold that epistemic uncertainty in too — wider bounds are the honest reflection of your state of knowledge.

This form is a lightweight structured survey — not a formal expert elicitation protocol.

Cost basis: 2025 US dollars per kg of undifferentiated cultivated-chicken cell biomass, wet weight at harvest. Cost and price estimates refer to production-weighted industry averages, real or hypothetical as specified. Include annualized capital and operating costs; exclude downstream processing, packaging, distribution, and retail margins. Qualifying scale: at least 2,000 metric tonnes per plant per calendar year (2 kt/year). A1 includes hypothetical production; A2 conditions on actual qualifying production.

Full definitions and accounting boundaries

All questions below use these definitions. Click any item to expand. Unless stated otherwise, all values are in inflation-adjusted (CPI) 2025 US dollars, the focal year is calendar year 2036; the near-term questions concern calendar year 2027, and quantities are measured for undifferentiated cultured chicken cell biomass on a wet-weight, at-harvest basis.

▸ Cultured (chicken) meat & the "before any mixture" basis (unfold)

Cultured chicken cell biomass: Undifferentiated (proliferating — actively dividing, in the bioreactor scale-up phase before any directed differentiation into muscle, fat, or connective tissue) chicken cell mass produced in bioreactors, measured before any blending with plant-based or other non-cellular ingredients, and before texturization or downstream structuring. This is the chicken-imitating cultured product in its pre-formulation form.

Before any mixture with plant products: animal cells are often later mixed with plant-based inputs (hydrolysates, plant protein) to reduce total product cost. We focus on the pure cell-biomass cost because it is (1) the technically challenging and costly component, and (2) the quantity most published TEAs estimate; blended product costs can be derived from it given a mixing ratio and filler cost. The cost questions use harvested wet cell biomass. Conventional edible chicken has a different moisture and composition basis; the comparison in C is a production-cost benchmark, not finished-product or retail parity.

Scaffold assumption: assume harvested biomass contains minimal non-degraded scaffolding (<10% w/w). If your estimate assumes scaffold-based production, note it and base your cost on the cellular fraction only.

Why chicken? Among cultured meat products, chicken has the highest stakes for animal welfare. Forecasters may base estimates on bovine or generic-mammal TEAs and explain their conversion method.

▸ Average Production Cost (AC) (unfold)

Average Production Cost (AC) = (Annualized capital charge + all operating costs) ÷ annual kilograms of cultured chicken cell biomass (wet weight, at harvest).

  • Capital charge: total capital investment (bioreactors, facility) amortized over plant life via the Capital Recovery Factor, adjusted for financing costs (WACC).
  • Operating costs include: basal media (amino acids, glucose, vitamins, buffers), recombinant growth factors, utilities, consumables, labor, maintenance, and plant overhead.

Does not include: downstream scaffolding for structuring; texturization; blending with plant-based or other non-cellular ingredients; packaging; distribution; retail markups; R&D amortization; regulatory approval costs; marketing; or profit above capital costs.

Why average production cost? Competitive markets drive prices toward the minimum of the long-run average total cost curve. An industry average is total relevant production costs divided by total relevant output. Your median is your 50th-percentile estimate of that industry average, across the outcomes specified by each question. For hypothetical production, explain the envisaged mix of plants and output weights.

▸ Wet weight, at harvest & undifferentiated cell biomass (unfold)

Wet weight, at harvest: the mass of cells as harvested from the bioreactor (after separation from spent media, before any further processing), including water — typically ~75–90% water depending on cell line, density, and post-harvest dewatering. We use 80% as our reference assumption. If your estimate assumes a different hydration, please note it in your reasoning.

Undifferentiated cell biomass: proliferating cell mass prior to any directed differentiation step — what most published TEAs (Humbird 2021, Pasitka et al. 2024, CE Delft 2021) model. Cost estimates for differentiated muscle fibers (structured whole cuts) would typically be higher; these questions focus on the proliferation/scale-up phase.

▸ Large-scale plants, value units & target years (unfold)

Large-scale plants: plants producing at least 2,000 metric tonnes of cultivated-chicken cell biomass during the calendar year (2 kt/year). This is realized output, not announced capacity. A1 includes hypothetical qualifying production if no such plants operate; A2 considers only worlds with actual qualifying production. Sales question D includes plants of every size.

Value units: inflation-adjusted (CPI) 2025 US dollars.

Target years: calendar year 2036 for the main questions; calendar year 2027 for actual production, conditional actual costs, and sales.

2036 retains the long-term horizon from the earlier questions. The 2027 block concerns actual near-term outcomes; it no longer substitutes pilot costs if qualifying production is absent.

▸ How should I think about probability estimates? (unfold)

When we ask for a probability, we mean your best calibrated subjective probability — your honest credence given everything you know. One way to think about it: imagine an ideal research team with unlimited resources and data; what probability would you assign that they would ultimately conclude the statement is true? Avoid anchoring to "0% = impossible" / "100% = certain"; a wide interval is more honest than false precision.

Jump to another question

Cultivated-chicken cost, production, and sales

Updated September 10, 2026: achievable cost, conditional actual cost, production probability, and sales now have separate questions. Earlier answers retain their original wording.

A1 is the central estimate. The other questions and uncertainty ranges can be skipped; you can also give an explanation without a number.

CM_01 · A1 · Achievable cost in 2036

What will be the cost per kg of cultivated-chicken cell biomass in 2036, at a scale of at least 2,000 tonnes per plant per year?

The average is total capital plus operating cost divided by total biomass output across plants at this scale, so higher-output plants receive more weight. Do not use the cheapest plant or a single representative plant.

If you imagine no plants producing at this scale, consider the .

In worlds where there is no production at this scale, consider what the cost would be if a firm had chosen to produce at such a scale.

If you think production at this scale may be infeasible, you can explain why below.

Optional uncertainty range (10th and 90th percentiles)

CM_01 · B · Actual qualifying production in 2036

What is the probability that at least one plant anywhere actually produces at least 2,000 metric tonnes of cultivated-chicken cell biomass per plant in calendar year 2036?

This means actual annual output, not nameplate capacity.

Optional 2036 questions: sales, conditional actual cost, and relative cost
CM_01 · D · Worldwide sales

How many tonnes of cultivated-chicken biomass will be sold worldwide during calendar year 2036?

Count all plant sizes and only the cellular component within blends. Count biomass once at first commercial sale, not the total finished blend; exclude free samples and research-only transfers. This is unconditional: B can be zero while D is positive from smaller plants.

Optional uncertainty range (10th and 90th percentiles)

CM_01 · A2 · Conditional actual cost in 2036

Conditional on one or more firms producing at least 2,000 metric tonnes per plant during 2036, what will be the actual production-weighted average cost per kg across those plants?

This can differ from A1 because worlds with actual scale may have favorable technology. If no qualifying plant operates, this is N/A, not zero.

If you can give a meaningful cost estimate (optional)
Optional uncertainty range (10th and 90th percentiles)

CM_01 · C · Relative production cost

What is the probability that the production-weighted average cost per kg of cultivated-chicken cell biomass referred to in CM_01 A1 is at or below the worldwide production-weighted average production cost per kg of conventional chicken meat in 2036?

Conventional chicken means edible chicken meat, excluding bones and similar non-edible components, with capital and operating costs before formulation, packaging, distribution, and retail. Biomass differs in moisture, composition, and processing, so this is a cost benchmark, not finished-product or retail parity. Actual cultivated-meat production is not required for C.

Optional 2027 actual outcomes: B, A2, and D

These questions concern actual production, costs, and sales during calendar year 2027.

CM_01 · B · Actual qualifying production in 2027

What is the probability that at least one plant anywhere actually produces at least 2,000 metric tonnes of cultivated-chicken cell biomass per plant in calendar year 2027?

CM_01 · A2 · Conditional actual cost in 2027

Conditional on one or more firms producing at least 2,000 metric tonnes per plant during 2027, what will be the actual production-weighted average cost per kg across those plants?

If you can give a meaningful cost estimate (optional)
Optional uncertainty range (10th and 90th percentiles)

CM_01 · D · Worldwide sales in 2027

How many tonnes of cultivated-chicken biomass will be sold worldwide during calendar year 2027?

Use the same sales definition as D 2036: all plant sizes, cellular component in blends only, counted once at first commercial sale; exclude free samples and research-only transfers. Zero is valid.

Optional uncertainty range (10th and 90th percentiles)

Goal-oriented & animal welfare investment questions

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

Technical/Process questions

The achievable-cost question (A1) depends on several technical cost drivers. Unless a question specifies otherwise, cost contributions below use A1’s real-or-hypothetical, production-weighted industry basis. 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?

—
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?

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.

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?

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

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).

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.

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)?

—
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.

—
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

E. coli / yeast produce GFs at scale — target $10–100/g (GFI 2024)
—
Transgenic plants express GFs — target $1–10/g (BioBetter)
—
Engineer cells to produce their own GFs — target ~$0/g effective cost (Stout et al. 2023)
—
Chemicals that activate GF receptors — target <$1/g (Ahmad et al. 2023)
—
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

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.

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

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.

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: September 10, 2026.