New techno-economic analysis finds cell density and accurate biomass modeling key to cutting cultivated meat costs

A recent technical report examining the economics of cultivated meat production authored by Bert Frohlich, BioFarm Designs, and Faraz Harsini and Elliot Swartz, both from the Good Food Institute, has identified cell density, media costs, and facility utilization as the most decisive levers in reducing cost per kilogram, while warning that inaccurate biomass assumptions may have skewed prior techno-economic and life-cycle analyses.

The report, Optimizing Cultivated Meat Techno-economics (v1.1), provides a detailed techno-economic analysis modeling the impact of bioreactor performance, growth media costs, capital expenditure, and downstream processing on overall production costs. Rather than presenting new experimental data, the document focuses on scenario modeling and sensitivity analysis to determine which variables most strongly influence commercial viability.

• A new techno-economic analysis identifies cell density, media costs, and facility utilization as the dominant drivers of cultivated meat cost reduction.

• Sensitivity modeling suggests increasing viable cell density delivers larger cost gains than marginal media price reductions.

• Researchers warn that inaccurate cell mass assumptions may have led previous TEA and LCA models to overestimate biomass by up to threefold.

Across multiple modeled scenarios, the analysis shows that increasing viable cell density inside bioreactors materially reduces cost per kilogram. Higher densities improve productivity per cubic meter, spreading capital and operational costs across more output.

While growth media costs remain significant, particularly recombinant growth factors, the modeling suggests that density improvements may deliver larger cost gains than incremental media price reductions in certain scenarios. Media cost declines remain necessary for long-term competitiveness, but the report frames bioreactor productivity as the more powerful near-term lever.

The modeling assumes large stirred-tank systems and highlights that underutilized facilities significantly worsen economics. High capital intensity means that facility utilization rates and depreciation timelines materially affect cost outcomes.

Downstream processing also appears as a potential bottleneck depending on product format. Simplified harvest assumptions and minimal purification steps reduce modeled costs, while more complex tissue structuring introduces additional expense.

Beyond scale and media optimization, the report also points to a more fundamental issue in cultivated meat modeling: the measurement of cell mass.

Swartz, Senior Principal Scientist for Cultivated Meat at The Good Food Institute, recently highlighted potential inaccuracies in prevailing assumptions.

“The dry mass of cells needs to be measured. Relying on proxies from cell diameter or volume is inaccurate, and most cultivated meat LCA/TEA models have likely overestimated the mass of cells by a factor of ~3 when compared to actual measurements of single cell mass,” Swartz wrote.

If biomass has been systematically overestimated, cost projections based on yield per batch could require recalibration. Overestimating cell mass would artificially lower projected cost per kilogram, potentially distorting techno-economic comparisons.

Swartz also emphasized that cell composition itself is variable.

“Additionally, the biomass composition of cells, which will be important for optimizing end product nutrition, can vary across cell types, cell cycle phases, and culture-level phases. Cell volume and mass can also fluctuate by a factor of ~two throughout typical growth rate ranges.”

Such variability complicates modeling assumptions around both yield and nutritional output. The report underscores that precise biomass measurement is essential for accurate techno-economic and life-cycle analyses, as well as for determining optimal harvest timing.

“Measuring and understanding these phenomena will be critical factors in developing accurate models of cultivated meat production and determining optimal harvest timepoints,” Swartz added.

The report’s sensitivity analyses show that small shifts in biological assumptions can have disproportionate effects on modeled outcomes. Viable cell density, growth rate, and biomass yield feed directly into cost-per-kg projections.

If cell mass or composition fluctuates by factors of two or three depending on growth phase or cell type, static assumptions may obscure real-world production variability.

For companies developing commercial-scale facilities, the findings reinforce the importance of integrating precise biological data into process modeling. Accurate dry mass measurement, growth kinetics, and composition analysis become foundational inputs rather than peripheral details.

Despite the emphasis on density and measurement accuracy, media remains a substantial cost component. Recombinant growth factors continue to dominate expense profiles in many models, though economies of scale and improved expression systems are projected to lower costs over time.

The report suggests that media reformulation, alternative growth factor production methods, and improved recycling strategies will remain necessary to approach price parity with conventional meat.

However, without concurrent gains in cell density and facility efficiency, media improvements alone may not close the gap.

Capital expenditure modeling within the report highlights the impact of scale. Large stirred-tank bioreactors and high-throughput facilities distribute fixed costs more efficiently, but underutilization quickly erodes economic performance.

Depreciation schedules, construction costs, and uptime assumptions all materially influence modeled cost trajectories. The analysis suggests that operational execution, not just biological optimization, will determine commercial competitiveness.

The report does not claim immediate price parity, nor does it present new commercial milestones. Instead, it outlines the biological and engineering parameters that must align for cost reduction to occur.

By combining sensitivity analysis with updated measurement scrutiny, the document shifts part of the cultivated meat conversation from speculative price targets toward methodological rigor.

If biomass assumptions have indeed been inflated in prior analyses, recalibration could reshape industry expectations around timelines and scale requirements.

At the same time, the modeling reinforces that cost reduction remains technically plausible under optimized conditions. High cell density, accurate biomass accounting, efficient bioreactor performance, and streamlined downstream processing collectively form the pathway outlined.

As cultivated meat developers move from pilot to commercial facilities, the report suggests that precision in biological measurement may prove as important as engineering scale.