The Unjournal · Pivotal Questions

Cultivated meat production cost — your independent forecast

An independent belief elicitation for forecasters, modellers, and analysts.

The Unjournal's Pivotal Questions initiative is studying the future production cost of cultivated (cell-cultured) meat — a high-stakes input into animal-welfare funding and research-prioritisation decisions. We're gathering calibrated forecasts from a focused set of people with forecasting, modelling, or techno-economic expertise, and we'd value yours — especially independent voices with no stake in the field. We estimate 45–60 minutes for a full responseYou are welcome to take more time, naturally — it will take longer if you consult your notes, run calculations, etc.; partial responses are very welcome.

We want your own view first. We're deliberately not showing you other people's estimates or any model output at this stage — we don't want to anchor your judgement. Once we've gathered this round of independent forecasts, we'll circulate the combined picture and the main points of disagreement, and invite you to revisit and update your estimate. For now, please answer from your own knowledge and reasoning. Naturally, we encourage you to consult your own notes, do a background web search, run calculations, etc.

Thank-you for your time

We're offering $100 (Tremendous voucher, or a donation to a charity of your choice) for each of the first four reasonably complete and detailed responses from invited forecasters and expertsIf you were promised an incentive for responding by a particular date, we will hold to that promise. If you have any questions, email contact@unjournal.org. — plus a further $50 reserved for those who also return for the follow-up/update round. Provide your email below so we can arrange it.

Sharing policy: Response content will be shared as part of an aggregated analysis, and may be 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.

▸ 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)

The focal cost question is live on Metaculus: 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 →, which we co-launched with Metaculus and Sentient Futures: $3,400 in prizes and only about 25 forecasters as of late June 2026. It includes some cultivated-meat questions (though not the specific cost questions here), alongside other animal-welfare-relevant questions you may find interesting.

How to respond

Please estimate independently. Please give your own knowledge and judgement, rather than looking up what any cost model assumes. Your own knowledge, judgment, and calibrated uncertainty is what's informative. [if you do use it]If you do consult a cost 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 a cost 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.

Definitions & basis (shared across all questions)

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 2036 (as of December 31, 2036), 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. "Edible kg before mixture," "wet-weight cell biomass at harvest," and "pure cell mass" all refer to the same accounting object at the factory gate.

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. We ask for your median estimate (50th percentile) across the range of plausible 2036 technology scenarios.

▸ 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 more than 2 kt/yr (2,000 metric tons per year). We exclude smaller experimental/R&D facilities. Cost questions are conditional on large-scale commercial production being achieved — i.e. they ask about unit cost, not whether scale-up happens.

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

Target years: Very-short-run: end of 2026 · Short-run: December 31, 2031 · Medium-run: December 31, 2036 (focal year) · Longer-run: December 31, 2051.

Why these years? They match Rethink Priorities' forecasting horizons, allowing harmonized comparison; 2051 represents a ~30-year terminal horizon at an efficient optimum.

▸ 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.

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. Please estimate from your own knowledge and expertise, rather than by looking up what any cost model currently assumes. We strongly encourage completing the Technical/Process questions below — they help us understand why experts disagree and where consensus exists.

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.

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.

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 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 any cost model currently assumes for these parameters. Your independent assessment is what's most informative. If you do use a cost 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. 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 specific cost-driver parameters — but please estimate from your own background knowledge, rather than looking up what any cost model currently assumes for each one. Your independent assessment is what's most informative. [if you use a cost model]If you do consult a cost model's sliders as a reference, that's fine — but please note it in your reasoning and explain your own independent view.

▸ 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.

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).

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.

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 help us characterise expert-elicited distributions for each parameter.

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 as part of an aggregated analysis in either case. A pseudonym (see below) lets us match any later update you send to this response 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 our analysis.

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

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

No revisions yet — this form has not changed since it was first published; any future changes will be logged here. Changes to the related cultivated-meat workshop beliefs form are reported separately, on that form.

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

CM_01 on Metaculus →