How much will large-scale production of cell-cultured meat cost?

Abstract

Cell-cultured meat has received favorable press and is being touted as a replacement for the entire livestock industry. The objective of the study was to determine what it will cost to produce cell-cultured meat in a large-scale (60million)productionfacilitythatproduces540,000kgofproductannually.Manyofthefundersbehindthisindustryhopetoreducetheenvironmentalandlandimpactsofourcurrentagriculturalsystem.Althoughtheinitialgoalistousestemcellsthatmustbereplenisheddirectlyfromanimals,manyfirmswanttodevelopcelllinesthatallowthemtobeindependentofanimalsinthefuture.Thetechnologiesusedtoproducecell−culturedmeatarecontinuouslybeingimproved,sothereisstillmuchuncertaintyonwhatthefinalproductwillcost.Previousresearchhasfocusedprimarilyonthecostofthecell−culturemedium—aliquidorgeldesignedtosupportthegrowthofcells—ratherthanotherpotentiallyimportantcosts.Weestimatestartup,production,employment,andtransportationcostsinadditiontoavailablecell−culturemediumcostsandexpectedoutputperbatchtocreateafull−detailedenterprisebudget.Costestimatesarecalculatedusing(1)cell−culturedbioprocessinformationfrompublishedliterature;(2)bioreactorandcoldstorageinfrastructureinformationfromengineers;and(3)pricesandquantitiesofotherrelevantcostsobtainedfrompublicandprivatesources.Resultssuggestthatthecell−culturedmeatindustryhasalongwaytogobeforeitcanoperateandmakeanacceptablereturnoninvestment.Assumingthattechnologywillbedevelopedtoreducethecostofthemediumincludinggrowthhormonesubstitutesandbuyingingredientsinbulk,1kgofcell−culturedmeatisestimatedtocost60 million) production facility that produces 540,000 kg of product annually. Many of the funders behind this industry hope to reduce the environmental and land impacts of our current agricultural system. Although the initial goal is to use stem cells that must be replenished directly from animals, many firms want to develop cell lines that allow them to be independent of animals in the future. The technologies used to produce cell-cultured meat are continuously being improved, so there is still much uncertainty on what the final product will cost. Previous research has focused primarily on the cost of the cell-culture medium—a liquid or gel designed to support the growth of cells—rather than other potentially important costs. We estimate startup, production, employment, and transportation costs in addition to available cell-culture medium costs and expected output per batch to create a full-detailed enterprise budget. Cost estimates are calculated using (1) cell-cultured bioprocess information from published literature; (2) bioreactor and cold storage infrastructure information from engineers; and (3) prices and quantities of other relevant costs obtained from public and private sources. Results suggest that the cell-cultured meat industry has a long way to go before it can operate and make an acceptable return on investment. Assuming that technology will be developed to reduce the cost of the medium including growth hormone substitutes and buying ingredients in bulk, 1 kg of cell-cultured meat is estimated to cost 63/kg to produce in a large-scale facility. The three major costs of production are the cell-culture medium, bioreactors, and labor. These costs make up over 80% of the overall cost of production.

Full text

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 10 (2022) 100358
Available online 18 August 2022
2666-1543/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
How much will large-scale production of cell-cultured meat cost?
Greg L. Garrison, Jon T. Biermacher
*
, B. Wade Brorsen
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, United States
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Cell-cultured meat
Cellular agriculture
Food economics
Livestock GHG emissions
Meat substitute
ABSTRACT
Cell-cultured meat has received favorable press and is being touted as a replacement for the entire livestock
industry. The objective of the study was to determine what it will cost to produce cell-cultured meat in a large-
scale ($60 million) production facility that produces 540,000 kg of product annually. Many of the funders behind
this industry hope to reduce the environmental and land impacts of our current agricultural system. Although the
initial goal is to use stem cells that must be replenished directly from animals, many rms want to develop cell
lines that allow them to be independent of animals in the future. The technologies used to produce cell-cultured
meat are continuously being improved, so there is still much uncertainty on what the nal product will cost.
Previous research has focused primarily on the cost of the cell-culture medium—a liquid or gel designed to
support the growth of cells—rather than other potentially important costs. We estimate startup, production,
employment, and transportation costs in addition to available cell-culture medium costs and expected output per
batch to create a full-detailed enterprise budget. Cost estimates are calculated using (1) cell-cultured bioprocess
information from published literature; (2) bioreactor and cold storage infrastructure information from engineers;
and (3) prices and quantities of other relevant costs obtained from public and private sources. Results suggest
that the cell-cultured meat industry has a long way to go before it can operate and make an acceptable return on
investment. Assuming that technology will be developed to reduce the cost of the medium including growth
hormone substitutes and buying ingredients in bulk, 1 kg of cell-cultured meat is estimated to cost $63/kg to
produce in a large-scale facility. The three major costs of production are the cell-culture medium, bioreactors,
and labor. These costs make up over 80% of the overall cost of production.
Practical application
This research will allow scientists, funders, and other stakeholders
within the cell-cultured meat industry to understand the substantial
economic challenges associated with starting a cell-cultured meat
operation. Producers can pinpoint areas where costs need to be reduced
to become more competitive and scientists can seek the developments
needed for this industry to compete with other protein and protein
substitute industries.
1. Introduction
Large-scale cell-cultured meat production has potential advantages
relative to livestock production. For instance, the expected global
growth in population is expected to create growth in demand for safe
and nutritious sources of meat proteins [1–3]. Fiala [2] argues that
traditional farm-based production of meat proteins will not keep pace
with world population growth, providing the case for cell-cultured meat
production to help ll the additional demand for safe, nutritious meat
proteins. Cell-cultured meat is also projected to produce less anthropo-
genic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than traditional animal agricul-
ture and animal feed crop production [4,5]. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change reports that GHG emissions from the Agri-
culture, Forestry, and Other Land Use sector of the global economy
emitted 24% of global GHG emissions in 2010, most of which was
associated with the cultivation of crops and livestock [6]. Eisen and
Brown [7] argue that a rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has
the potential to stabilize GHG levels for 30 years and offset 68% of
carbon (CO
2
) emissions.
According to the CDC [8], millions of cases of annual illnesses
associated with foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella, Campylo-
bacter and Escherichia coli are reported that are attributed to traditional
animal agricultural production practices. Kadim et al. [9] argues the
carefully controlled conditions associated with cell-cultured meat
* Corresponding author. 414 Ag Hall, Stillwater, OK, 74078
E-mail address: jon.biermacher@okstate.edu (J.T. Biermacher).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Agriculture and Food Research
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-agriculture-and-food-research
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100358
Received 30 April 2022; Received in revised form 27 July 2022; Accepted 7 August 2022

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 10 (2022) 100358
2
technology provide the potential to signicantly reduce the spread of
animal borne diseases. Animal welfare issues have also sparked con-
troversy associated with traditional methods for producing and har-
vesting animals for meat. For instance, Tonsor and Olynk [10] report a
decrease in consumption of meat products by meat consumers exposed
to awareness campaigns about animal welfare issues in the public
media. Also, some U.S. states have passed legislation that requires strict
minimum standards to ensure humane treatment of farm animals (e.g.,
California’s Prevention and Cruelty to Farm Animals Act) [11]. More-
over, Williamson [12] reports that growing consumer concerns about
food and animal production issues surrounding religion and lifestyle
could be mitigated with the production of cell-cultured meat products.
As an example, Williamson points out that several religions strictly
constrain acceptable food choices, and that these restrictions might be
loosened with cell-cultured meat options.
The idea of producing meat proteins via cell-cultured practices dates
back to 1932 where Winston Churchill offered a prediction in his book
“Thoughts and Adventures” that it would eventually be possible to
produce chicken meat without rearing live chickens [9]. Moving for-
ward 81 years to 2013, Mark Post, Professor of Vascular Physiology at
Maastricht University in the Netherlands, created the rst cell-cultured
hamburger (weighing 141.75 g) in a university laboratory setting for
$325,000 ($2.3 million/kg) [13]. Since this break though, it has been a
worldwide race to see who can be the rst to capitalize economically by
supplying consumers with cell-cultured meat.
Cell-cultured meat, also referred to as in-vitro meat, cell-based meat,
test tube meat, and lab-grown meat refers to the formation of muscular
skeletal tissue that resembles traditional meat in taste, texture, and
nutrition [14]. Cell-cultured meat offers a new protein alternative for
those concerned about the impacts of animal agriculture [15]. In addi-
tion, cell-cultured meat technology has the potential to create meat
proteins that have the tastes that consumers prefer, which might give it
an edge in the marketplace compared to alternative meat substitute
products [16]. Cell-cultured meat is not a substitute for plant-based
meat. Instead, it is an edible biomass grown from animal stem cells in
a factory [17]. Fresh lean trimmings, in both beef (90%) and pork (72%),
would be a comparable product to cell-cultured meat. For reference, the
wholesale price of lean pork was $3.75/kg and lean beef was $6.17/kg
in 2021 [18].
Cell-cultured meat requires technology consistent with pharmaceu-
tical production plants. Scientists rst start with stem cells from a muscle
they would like to replicate, and they induce these cells to grow and
proliferate [19–21]. This is begun by placing the cells in a small biore-
actor. A bioreactor is a manufactured device that can support a biolog-
ically active environment and looks similar to fermentation tanks in
breweries or equipment used in pharmaceutical manufacturing. A crit-
ical component of the process is the cell-culture medium which is a uid
in which the cells are grown. The medium includes growth hormones,
nutrients, and other important components for the cells to replicate.
Without the liquid medium to promote growth, the cells would not
divide and grow. To form muscular bers, a scaffold needs to be pro-
vided [22]. Some conditions in the bioreactor that are vital to the
cell-culturing process are temperature and oxygen levels [23]. As the
cells rapidly divide, they will be moved through a series of larger and
larger bioreactors ranging from 200 L to 20,000 L. Cells could be har-
vested in one of two ways. In the rst harvest scenario, all the cells are
harvested from the bioreactor in a single harvest and therefore requires
the process to restart. In the second scenario, which is the one assumed
here, a percentage of the cells are harvested from the bioreactor, ranging
from 50% to 90%, and the cells continue to grow and increase the total
production for each batch [24]. After harvest, the cells are then prepared
for packaging and the used media is deactivated and then disposed.
Kadim et al. [9] points out that the large-scale facility capable of
producing cell-cultured meat at a level of output and cost comparable to
traditional slaughterhouses has not been widely investigated, and more
work in this space is warranted. This is important because understanding
the cost of output at large-scale is necessary for investors to predict
whether cell-cultured meat will be economical. Companies that have
economies of scale are typically classied as those who invest heavily in
buildings, machinery and other forms of physical capital compared to
smaller rms. For instance, a modern large-scale beef cattle processing
plant in the U.S. can have total investment costs ranging from $125,000
to $150,000 per head/day (G. Tonsor, personal communication, July 22,
2022). So, plants that expect to slaughter between 500 and 1000
head/day will have investments that range between $63 million (on the
low side) and $150 million (on the high side). It is at the large-scale that
economic information is limited because at this time there have been no
large-scale investments of capital (buildings, bioreactors, and cold
storage facilities) made specically to produce cell-cultured meat.
The question addressed in this study is how close in price can cell-
cultured meat get to competing economically with current meat prod-
ucts, both traditional and plant-based? Previous studies focused on
economics of cell-cultured meat examined consumer preference and
behavior (e.g, Refs. [16,25]), growth media costs (e.g. Ref. [24]), and
environmental issues (e.g., Ref. [26]). However, published literature on
the cost of production is limited to papers by Specht [24] and Risner
et al. [27]. Specht considered only the cost of the growth medium.
Risner et al. [27] estimated the cost of production with 2019 technology
to be over $400,000/kg. They also discuss what it would take to bring
the cost down to $1.95/kg. Our model goes beyond theirs by including
additional costs of transportation, packaging, insurance, communica-
tions, and cold storage. We also produce alternative projections for
capital and labor and we include considerable sensitivity analyses. The
specic objectives were (1) to determine the expected operating and
xed costs associated with a large-scale ($60 million) cell-cultured meat
rm designed to produce 560,000 kg of cell-cultured meat per year, and
(2) to determine the sensitivity of total cost to percentage change sce-
narios in key production costs and assumptions about downtime of the
plant and location of the plant.
2. Materials and methods
For this exercise, the large-scale cell-cultured meat rm was assumed
to be located in a commercial warehouse district near San Francisco,
California because of its proximity to funding, competitors, ideal logis-
tical needs and potential consumers. This is not an unrealistic assump-
tion as a number of alternative meat-oriented plants have located in this
region of the United States (e.g., Impossible Foods, Perfect Day, Mem-
phis Meats, and Beyond Meat). This location exhibits a tradeoff between
a higher cost of labor and a lower cost of transportation to consumers as
compared to other possible locations. It was also assumed that a ware-
house and property would be rented and converted to include infra-
structure needed by a large-scale plant.
The budget for producing cell-cultured meat includes an estimate for
each of several specic costs expected to be incurred to produce cell-
cultured meat on a large scale [28]. The full-detailed enterprise
budget, which seeks to include all costs for the enterprise of producing
cell-cultured meat, is separated into two categories: annual operating
expenses and xed costs [29]. The following sections present the
methods for calculating operating expenses for the cell-culture medium,
labor, water, transportation, repairs and maintenance, electricity,
packaging, and operating interest. We then present our methods for
calculating xed costs associated with capital recovery expenses (i.e.
depreciation and interest) for the bioreactor and cold storage facility,
plus insurance, building/property lease, and computer and communi-
cations infrastructure.
2.1. Operating costs
2.2.1. Cell-culture medium
The medium currently being used in small scale laboratories includes
fetal bovine serum (made from the blood of fetuses obtained when
G.L. Garrison et al.

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 10 (2022) 100358
3
pregnant females are slaughtered). Fetal bovine serum is expensive and
will not provide a long-term solution. In fact, the long-term goal of the
industry is to eventually be independent of needing to obtain any in-
gredients directly from animals. All of the chemical/biological compo-
nents of the medium and costs used in the cost analysis for this study are
taken from Specht (2020). Specht [24] calculated the costs for eight
alternative variations (scenarios) of the medium known as Essential 8
(since it includes the eight essential ingredients needed to grow stem
cells) that is currently used for stem cell reproduction in the pharma-
ceutical industry. The Essential 8 medium includes a basal medium plus
seven other critical chemical components [30]. The basal medium has
52 components. Although the Essential 8 medium has not been proven
to be functional at the large-scale food manufacturing level, it is the most
complete medium that can be purchased for this purpose. Most, if not all,
of the large cell-cultured meat startups will have created their own
medium protected by intellectual property rights. Major components
(chemical ingredients) of the basal medium by weight are salt,
D-Glucose, and HEPES (4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic
acid) [24]. HEPES is a major cost and is used to control the pH of the
solution. As cells grow, they produce lactic acid and so there is a limit to
how long the medium can be used without being replenished.
The eight different medium cost scenarios calculated by Specht,
ranged in cost from $376,80/L (scenario 1) to $0.24/L (scenario 8).
Specht’s base-case scenario (scenario 1) assumes 2020 production ca-
pabilities while using the Essential 8 basal medium and includes growth
hormones FGF-2 and TGF-β. These two hormones make up a majority of
the cost, so Specht considers other production options. Specht’s scenario
5 uses hypothetical substitutes for the growth hormones FGF-2 and TGF-
β. As did Risner et al. [27]; this study uses scenario 5 since it provides a
realistic lower bound approach for production consistent with the
technology and innovation possible to compete with traditional meat.
Scenario 5 assumes a cost of $3.74/L according to Specht [24]. Note that
Specht has additional scenarios (6–8) that reduce the cost even further
with the cost of scenario 8 equal to $0.24/L. Specht argues that reducing
the cost of the basal medium and Vitamin C are realistic possibilities.
There is uncertainty about how much growth medium will be
needed. This analysis uses Specht’s below-average media use, which
means a 50% harvesting scenario with 10 harvests for each batch and
yields of 19,250 kg from each bioreactor every 51 days. The 50% har-
vesting scenario reduces media use since it keeps the same media in each
bioreactor for up to two times as long as a 100% harvesting scenario.
This scenario also provides for more cell replications and a larger output.
The hypothetical rm utilizes four bioreactor lines staggered for
constant output which will produce 548,400 kg of cell-cultured protein
each year. Initially, it is assumed that the plant will operate 24-h per day
for 365 days a year and all equipment is fully operational. Other pro-
duction possibilities (i.e. downtime for maintenance, cleaning, and
equipment malfunctions) are addressed in the sensitivity analysis.
Harvesting a portion of the cells from the nal bioreactor increases
output per batch without taking the time to restart from the beginning of
the process. This can be done for up to ten iterations [24]. Each batch,
including the ten harvests, was estimated to use 100 kl of cell-culture
medium. The medium is assumed to be transferred between bio-
reactors without draining and replacing it. New medium is added to ll
the bioreactors to the desired volume. The medium is assumed to be
ushed and replaced four times throughout the production process. Note
that this analysis of the medium was conducted under optimistic me-
dium conditions, and we assumed the top level of efciency specied by
Specht [24]. Also note that cell structure may not be able to withstand
these conditions, but technological advancements are expected in this
area. These medium conditions do not currently exist as the medium
would most likely need to be replaced somewhere between every 2–6
days, but it is cost prohibitive to assume this for production.
The cost of the cell-culture medium is calculated in this study
assuming that growth hormones can be replaced with cost effective
substitutes that do not currently exist. The medium is expected to cost
just under $75,000 per 20 kl used [24]. This cost is calculated assuming
seven total harvests each year. The partial harvest only occurs in the
nal largest bioreactor.
2.2.2. Labor and benets
This industry will use pharmaceutical- and medical-grade equipment
[31], which will require a highly qualied team of operations engineers,
microbiologists, product development scientists, managers and admin-
istrators, accountants, computer and communications technologists,
board of directors, input procurement specialists, janitorial staff, pack-
aging and shipping specialists, safety specialists, and legal and human
resources staff. The production facility is expected to run 24 h a day
year-round and will require one laborer, lower-level operations staff
supervised by an operations engineer, per bioreactor as well as a full
labor force during business hours.
Positions, salaries, and number of employees for the large-scale rm
are described in Table 1. Average salaries obtained from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) are utilized for each employee classication
assuming all employees are full time [32]. Estimates are based on
pharmaceutical industry averages for each of the specic positions
above ranging from a low of $32,000 to a high of $245,000. Employees
will earn an average annual salary of $75,868 [32]. In addition to each
average salary, benets, including healthcare insurance, sick leave,
retirement contributions, and vacation time, have been estimated at
30% of each total salary. Including benets, the average total amount
paid per employee is just under $103,000.
2.2.3. Repairs and maintenance
The cost of annual repairs and maintenance associated with the
production facility (bioreactor lines and cold storage) was calculated at
Table 1
Employee positions and average salaries.
Position Employees Base
Salary
a
Position
Total
Benets
Paid
Chief Executive
Ofcer
1 $ 245,300 $ 245,300 $ 73,590
Chief Financial Ofcer 1 $ 245,300 $ 245,300 $ 73,590
Chief Operations
Ofcer
1 $ 245,300 $ 245,300 $ 73,590
Operations Manager 2 $ 165,140 $ 330,280 $ 99,084
Assistant Manager 6 $ 136,280 $ 817,680 $ 245,304
Operations Engineers 5 $ 97,670 $ 488,350 $ 146,505
Operations Lower
Level
30 $ 52,640 $ 1,579,200 $ 473,760
Accounting Team 5 $ 86,140 $ 430,700 $ 129,210
Packaging/Shipping
Team
5 $ 36,340 $ 181,700 $ 54,510
Product Development 10 $ 98,610 $ 986,100 $ 295,830
Custodial Staff 5 $ 32,740 $ 163,700 $ 49,110
Marketing/PR Team 5 $ 74,350 $ 371,750 $ 111,525
Microbiologists/
Scientists
3 $ 82,670 $ 248,010 $ 74,403
Procurement 3 $ 74,200 $ 222,600 $ 66,780
Maintenance
Engineers
4 $ 55,590 $ 222,360 $ 66,708
Human Resources 4 $ 78,970 $ 315,880 $ 94,764
Information
Technology
4 $ 88,320 $ 353,280 $ 105,984
Total by category 94 $ 7,447,490 $ 2,234,247
Average $ 79,229 $ 23,769
Salary paid per
employee
$ 102,998
a
All positions and salaries were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
[32] industry averages for pharmaceutical manufacturing. Benets are assumed
to be 30% of the total salaries paid for each position.
G.L. Garrison et al.

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 10 (2022) 100358
4
5% of the total initial investment for the bioreactor lines and cold
storage, or 5% times $60 million. It is noteworthy to point out that this is
an average cost and it is expected that cost of repairs will be smaller in
the rst years of the investment, gradually increasing over the latter
years.
2.2.4. Water and electricity
Similar to other food-processing industries, a major concern of the
cell-cultured meat industry is its expected annual use of clean water.
Using a 50% harvesting scenario and a production cycle of 51 days on all
16 bioreactors, it was calculated this rm will use 226,619 L of water
weekly, or 11.78 million liters per year [24]. We estimated the total cost
for California using a four-inch water meter and converted the number
to hundreds of cubic feet, or CCF [33]. In the base case, water was priced
at $2.46/CCF.
For this analysis, the cell-cultured meat plant was assumed to utilize
the average monthly individual industry quantity of electricity in Cali-
fornia (i.e., 26,981 kWh) and pay the average price of $0.16/kWh [34].
2.2.5. Transportation and packaging
In the San Francisco area, transportation was estimated to the
nearest large retail distribution center from the warehouse district using
Google Maps. The product will need to be kept refrigerated, so it will
need to be hauled in a refrigerated semi-trailer. Refrigerated trucking
rates are assumed to be $2.49/km, and the nearest big-box distribution
center is approximately 322 km from San Francisco. This rm will be
able to ll 36 trailers each year with annual production of 548,400 kg
and an average trailer weight of 18,140 kg, lling trailers close to full
capacity.
Similar protein substitutes, i.e. plant based meat, have been pack-
aged in the form of ground meat in vacuum-sealed bags in 0.45 kg al-
lotments, or 20 ×25 cm bags. According to bulk industry pricing for 20
×25cm (estimated with imperial 8 ×10 inch bags at 1 pound each)
vacuum sealable bags will range from 15 to 18 cents per unit.
2.2.6. Operating interest
The large-scale rm is assumed to utilize operating loans to pay for
operating inputs throughout the production year. Interest on total
operating capital was calculated with an interest rate of 6% and assumes
the operating loan will be paid out in two installments across the year.
2.3. Fixed costs
2.3.1. Bioreactor lines
A major cost of production is associated with owning and operating
the bioreactors. It is assumed that the plant will have four bioreactor
lines. These lines will include equipment for media preparation, up-
stream process, and deactivation. One bioreactor line has multiple steps.
The cell culture medium will need to be prepared, so this model includes
a 1,000 L vitamin preparation tank, a 2,000 L preparation tank for the
smaller bioreactors, and a 30,000 L preparation tank for the large bio-
reactors. The individual ingredients will be combined with the basal
media and water in the smaller preparation tanks and diluted to the
proper ratio in the larger tank. To minimize downtime between batches,
this model also includes two 30,000 L media storage tanks at the
beginning of the line. After it is mixed, the medium will be fed through a
series of seed bioreactors with volumes of 200 L, 1,000 L, and 5,000 L.
Seed bioreactors are used to gradually increase the batch size before it
reaches the nal bioreactor to minimize time spent in the nal biore-
actor and have a constant output of cell-cultured meat. The cells will
then move to a 20,000 L nal-stage bioreactor where the harvesting will
take place. There will be two 30,000 L harvest tanks at the end of the
production line where the meat can begin the scaffolding process.
The manufacturing plant will have to abide by the rules and regu-
lations provided by the agencies that oversee production [e.g., the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (OSHA)]. The plant will have water mixed with active
ingredients of the cell-culture medium that will go through a series of
deactivation steps before it can be disposed of in a sewer system. In
addition to media deactivation for environmental concerns, we assume
the plant will also need separate cleaning in place (CIP) units to meet
sanitary standards likely to be required by regulatory agencies and
reduce cross-contamination. Cleaning in place units will require addi-
tional down time for each production cycle; however, at this time we do
not have an estimate for how much time this will require so it has not
been included as a cost. This will follow suit to common standards in the
pharmaceutical industry. Finally, the bioreactor line will need two
20,000 L cell waste inactivation tanks and three CIP units equipped with
two tanks each.
Current technology obtains sera from live animals (i.e., adult ani-
mals, newborns, or from fetal sources) to create the initial cell culture
[35]. These cells have to be replenished. Due to reasons surrounding
animal ethics, high costs, and the possibility of disease-producing or-
ganisms in serum-free media presented by Merten [36]; the goal for
future sustainability is to be completely free of animal-based serum for
culturing cells. Froud [37] has made the case for using commercial
serum replacements and serum-free culture media as an alternative for
culturing cells. For instance, amino acid-rich mushroom extracts have
been shown to be comparable substitutes for serum as a growth medium
in promoting surface area expansion of biomass (Benjamison e al. 2002).
The Essential 8 Basal Media is optimized for human growth components
and is a serum-free media, meaning fetal bovine serum would not be
needed for production, while instead using insulin and transferrin [24].
Similarly, the goal is to develop a stem cell line that would be inde-
pendent of live animals. No cost for maintaining this line is included
since it is assumed that the cost would be negligible.
The media preparation and post-harvest equipment assumed can
support a second line of bioreactors with staggered production, hence
the extra media preparation tanks and harvest tanks. To meet the goal of
utilizing 4 bioreactor lines, this equipment spec has been doubled to give
two media preparation lines, four bioreactor lines, and two harvest and
deactivation lines. A quote for the cost of equipment was obtained from
an industry leader in food-grade processing equipment. The total in-
vestment required was estimated to be $60,000,000 with all equipment
and setup included. Depending on equipment specications, input pri-
ces, and post-order changes, the manufacturer warns consumers the
total cost could increase or decrease by up to 30%. The bioreactors were
amortized over a 10-year useful life and a 10% cost of capital assuming
no salvage value.
2.3.2. Cold storage
The nal product will be composed of cells similar to traditional
animal tissue; therefore, it will need to be kept in cold storage prior to
shipping. The product is assumed to be refrigerated upon packaging. An
annual output of 548,400 kg can ll an estimated 36 refrigerated trailers
each year, or approximately 18,140 kg every 10 days. According to an
industry leader in cold-storage construction, this will require 457.2
square meters of cold storage at the rm at a construction cost equal to
$722/square meter, or $330,000 in total investment. This quote was
estimated to meet staggered batch requirements to keep up with pro-
duction. Given the large xed-cost requirement of this construction, it
was amortized over ten years assuming no salvage value and a 10% cost
of capital.
2.3.3. Building lease, information technology, and insurance
It was assumed that it would be more economical to rent a warehouse
and equip it with all the required equipment and machinery, including
the four bioreactor lines and cold storage facility necessary for the
desired scale of operation. To this end, a 2787 m
2
warehouse and cor-
responding property was rented at a price $129 m
2
year
−1
under a 20-
year lease arrangement, which according to Zillow.com was the com-
mon average rate for this type of property in the warehouse district in
G.L. Garrison et al.

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 10 (2022) 100358
5
San Francisco, California in January of 2022.
It was assumed that 100 computer information and technology sta-
tions would be required to operate the plant at a cost of $2000 each. This
cost includes purchase price for computers, monitors, printers, phones,
photocopiers, software, and internet access per station.
It was also assumed that in order to safeguard the cell-cultured meat
rm’s investment from unforeseeable losses, an insurance policy equal
to $80 million annually would be required. The price for such a policy is
$1000 per million dollars insured, or $80,000 per year.
2.4. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis was conducted to gain an understanding of how
total cost of cell-cultured meat ($/kg) would vary depending on percent
change scenarios for the specic costs of production calculated in the
base-case enterprise budget and the assumption of the plant having zero
downtime. The rst scenario assumes the base-case assumption for plant
downtime (i.e., zero annual downtime), and plus or minus 30% changes
in specic input costs analyzed in the study (operating cost: growth
medium, average salaries and benets for labor, repairs and general
maintenance, water, electricity, transportation, packaging and interest
on borrowed operating capital; xed costs: bioreactors and processing
equipment, cold storage, building and property lease, computer infra-
structure, and insurance). The second scenario included a 10% change in
the base-case assumption for downtime (i.e., moving from 365 to 329
days of production/year) and zero percent change in individual input
costs. Scenario three assumes a 10% change in the base-case assumption
in downtime and a plus or minus 30% change in the specic production
costs.
The sensitivity analysis also includes a section that has additional
discussion about the potential for large-scale cell-cultured meat and
large scale production of cell-cultured media in India and China. The
procedure used is to compare relative cost of labor in these countries to
cost in the United States.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Enterprise budget
Detailed operating and xed costs per year, costs per day, and costs
per kilogram of cell-cultured meat for each production category for the
large-scale cell-cultured meat plant are reported in Table 2. Overall,
total expected cost of production was $34.9 million per year, $95,685
per day. This cost translates to $63.69/kg of cell-cultured meat pro-
duced. This is considered to reect a cost oor at the wholesale level for
the next few years as the assumed efcient use of the medium does not
yet exist. The two largest operating costs are those associated with the
growth medium and labor, both combined accounting for 84% of total
operating costs, and 59% of total cost. These costs accounted for $19.7/
kg and $17.7/kg of output, respectively. The next largest operating cost,
on average, are the costs expected for repairs and maintenance of the
cell-cultured meat plant, accounting for 8.6% of the total cost of pro-
duction, or $5.47/kg of output. Although important, the costs for water,
electricity, transportation, packaging, and interest on borrowed oper-
ating capital are small compared to the growth medium, labor and re-
pairs, altogether accounting for 2.88% of total cost, or $1.83/kg of cell-
cultured meat production.
In terms of xed costs, the bioreactors have an expected annual cost
of $9.8 million, or a cost of $17.8/kg of cell-cultured meat, and account
for 93% of total xed costs and 28% of total cost. Total costs for cold
storage, building and property lease, computer information and tech-
nology infrastructure, and insurance is expected to be approximately
$693,564 annually, and altogether accounts for less than 2% of total cost
and $1.26/kg of cell-cultured meat output.
Table 2
Expected Operating and Fixed Costs Associated with a Cell-Based Meat Production Plant with a Production Capacity of 548,400 kg yr
−1
Input description Units Quantity (unit/
year)
Price ($/unit) Cost ($/year) Cost
($/day)
Cost
($/kg)
Share of total cost
(%)
Operating: – – – – – – –
Growth medium
a
kl 2880.00 3743.00 10,779,840.00 29,533.81 19.66 30.87
Labor and benets
b
employees 94.00 102,997.00 9,681,718.00 26,525.25 17.65 27.72
Repairs and general maintenance % of total
investment
– 5.00 3,000,000.00 8219.18 5.47 8.59
Water
a
kl 11,780.00 2.46 28,978.80 79.39 0.05 0.08
Electricity kwh 323,772.00 0.16 53,292.87 146.01 0.10 0.15
Transportation km 11,584.80 2.49 28,800.00 78.90 0.05 0.08
Packaging kg 548,400.45 0.33 181,383.45 496.94 0.33 0.52
Total operating costs minus interest $ – – 23,754,013.12 65,079.49 43.32 –
Interest on operating capital total $ at risk 23,754,013.12 0.06 712,620.39 1952.38 1.30 2.04
Total operating costs $ – – 24,466,633.51 67,031.87 44.61 70.05
Fixed:
Bioreactors and processing equipment
c
kl 80.00 – 9,764,723.69 26,752.67 17.81 27.96
Cold storage construction
d
m2 457.20 721.79 53,706.37 147.14 0.10 0.15
Building and property lease m2 2787.00 129.12 359,857.44 985.91 0.66 1.03
Computer and information
infrastructure
computer stations 100.00 2000.00 200,000.00 547.95 0.36 0.57
Insurance million $ 80.00 1000.00 80,000.00 219.18 0.15 0.23
Total xed costs $ – – 10,458,287.50 28,652.84 19.07 29.95
Total variable plus xed costs $ – – 34,924,921.02 95,684.72 63.69 100.00
a
Water, output, and growth medium assume a 50% harvesting scenario with 10 harvests in each 51-day production cycle.
b
Labor and benets assume a 0.3 multiplier to estimate benets.
c
Equipment cost includes four 20 kl bioreactors at the nal stage and a series of smaller bioreactors, transfer piping, seed tanks, deactivation tanks, shipping, and
installation costs.
d
Cold storage is estimated to be 457.2 square meters to accommodate a weekly output of 10,546 kg.
G.L. Garrison et al.

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 10 (2022) 100358
6
3.2. Sensitivity analysis
Percent changes in total cost of production ($/kg) associated with
alternative percentage changes in the assumptions about plant down-
time and the base-case specic costs (operating and xed) of production
are reported in Table 3. The rst scenario (SC1) reects 30% ceteris
paribus changes in individual production expenses and assumes the base-
case assumption of zero plant downtime throughout the production year
(i.e., the plant will run 365 days per year). The results for this scenario
suggest for a 30% change in the cost of the growth medium, total cost
would be expected to either rise or fall by $5.88/kg. So, for a cell-
cultured medium that costs 30% less than the base-case cost of $374/
L, the total cost of production would decrease from $63.69 to $57.8/kg,
holding all other variables constant. As expected, the change in total cost
($/kg) in SC1 is most sensitive to the costs for cell-cultured media, labor,
and the bioreactors and processing equipment.
The second sensitivity scenario provides an estimate of how much
total cost ($/kg) would increase if the plant needed 10% of the total days
of the year (i.e., 36.5 days) for downtime to address activities such as
planned and unplanned maintenance and repairs as well as stand in
place cleaning. In case of a 10% increase in downtime, holding all other
costs constant, the total cost of production would increase by $4.22/kg
of product, or increase from $63.69 to $67.91/kg. Notice, that the in-
dividual costs for labor, interest on operating capital, and xed costs for
the bioreactors and processing equipment, cold storage, building lease,
computer infrastructure, and insurance all increase in this scenario
because those costs are being spread across fewer days of the production
per year. For instance, the cost of labor and benets increased by $1.96/
kg to $19.62/kg compared to the base-case cost of $17.65/kg.
Scenario three (SC3) reports the expected change in total cost ($/kg)
for a 10% increase in the total days of downtime throughout the year (i.
e., 36.5 days), and a 30% change (plus or minus) in individual pro-
duction costs. Notice that in this scenario, the additional costs associated
with an increase in shutdown days is the same as in the second scenario,
but then there is an additional change in total cost ($/kg) for each of the
specic production costs. The change in total cost depends on the
interpretation of the change in each specic cost. For instance, maybe
the favorable assumption we used about the technology and subsequent
cost for the medium is unreasonably high. In that case, the 30% change
in the cost of the medium ($5.90/kg) should be considered an increase in
total cost ($/kg) to reect a more reasonable estimate of the cost of the
medium. Conversely, say that the average salary and benets in our
base-case analysis is excessively high because we have too many upper-
level managers. In that case, the $5.89 change in total cost associated
with a 30% change in the cost of labor should be viewed as a reduction in
total cost ($/kg).
3.2.1. Cost under alternative scenarios
What would the nal cost ($/kg) be using Specht’s [24] lowest cost
scenario of $0.28/L (scenario 8) instead of the $374/L used in the
base-case analysis? Based on this lower cost assumption, the results
indicate that it would reduce the total cost of cell-cultured meat from
$63/kg to $44.09/kg. This cost still assumes the same operating and
xed costs in our original analysis. Note that reducing these costs also
reduces the interest paid on operating capital. The other two major
costs, labor and bioreactors, are also ways to reduce the overall cost.
Assuming Specht’s lowest cost scenario for the growth medium and
reducing the cost of both the bioreactors and labor by 25%, 50%, and
75% will result in a total cost of $35.09/kg, $26.10/kg, and $17.10/kg.
With Specht’s lowest cost and driving bioreactor and labor cost to zero,
the total cost would still be $8.10/kg. Reducing only one of the three
major costs will not make a sufcient difference on its own, so signi-
cant reductions in all three costs of production are needed to be cost
competitive. Even then cell-cultured meat would need to be sold at a
premium to beef, pork, and chicken.
3.2.2. Alternative locations for production and consumption
The base-case total cost of $63/kg found in this study is based on
assuming that both production and consumption would take place in the
United States in California. Areas of the world that have a well-
developed pharmaceutical industry, such as China and India may have
lower cost than the United States. Sixty-one percent of the global pop-
ulation lives in Asia (4.7 billion) with China and India having 2.83
billion of those in Asia in 2019 [28]. Countries that have a relative cost
advantage of labor might also have signicant portions of their pop-
ulations with below average incomes that are rising and, thus, have an
increased demand for meat proteins to add to their diets. In addition,
these countries might also produce the growth medium at a lower cost
than it could be produced in the San Francisco area. The bioreactors
would need to be imported and would likely have a similar cost to what
is used in this analysis.
Curran [38] reports that China is estimated to have 4% lower
manufacturing labor cost than the United States. While wages are lower
in China, labor productivity is also lower. As labor costs in China have
approached those in the United States, rms have looked to other
countries such as India where wage rates are lower. According to India
Brieng [39], India’s minimum wage for contract workers is 37% lower
than in China. India has laws that make it more costly for rms with over
100 workers [40] and transportation is more costly in India. With rms
shifting manufacturing to India, it suggests that costs must be a little
cheaper there. Producing cell-cultured meat is going to require highly
skilled labor. While producing cell-cultured meat might be cheaper to
produce in India or China, it may not reach the 30% cost reductions
considered in Table 3.
4. Conclusion
Using biological, engineering, and economic information gathered
from published reports and industry leaders, our economic analysis
suggests that cell-cultured meat produced in a large-scale plant can be
produced at a cost $63/kg if technology can be developed to produce the
hormones at low cost and efciencies in use of the medium can be
reached. This cost estimate may not ever be reached since it will require
multiple technological advances to be achieved. In practical terms, for
this large-scale production, a kilogram of cell-cultured hamburger meat
would cost well over $100/kg at the supermarket and restaurants.
The three largest costs of production are the cell-culture media,
Table 3
Change in total cost ($/kg) for alternative sensitivity scenarios for percent
changes plant downtime and specic individual production costs.
Sensitivity Scenario
a
Cost category Base-Case
($/kg)
SC1 SC2 SC3
Downtime (Zero days/year) 63.69 – 4.22 4.22
Growth medium 19.66 5.88 0.00 5.90
Labor and benets 17.65 5.28 1.96 5.89
Repairs and general maintenance 5.47 1.62 0.00 1.64
Water 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.02
Electricity 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.04
Transportation 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02
Packaging 0.33 0.07 0.00 0.09
Interest on operating capital (APR) 1.30 0.37 0.14 0.42
Bioreactors and processing equipment 17.81 5.33 1.98 5.91
Cold storage construction 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01
Building and property space lease 0.66 0.18 0.07 0.20
Computer and information
infrastructure
0.36 0.09 0.04 0.13
Insurance 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.03
a
SC1 assumes zero days downtime, 30% changes in individual costs ($/kg);
SC2 assumes downtime of 10% of total year (35.5 days/year), zero percent
reduction in individual costs ($/kg); SC3 assumes downtime of 10% of total year
(35.5 days/year), 30% change in individual costs ($/kg).
G.L. Garrison et al.

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 10 (2022) 100358
7
bioreactors and processing equipment, and labor, resulting in a cost of
over $55/kg for just those three categories. The cell-cultured meat in-
dustry requires innovation in reducing the cost of the media before it can
reach the costs estimated here. Cell-cultured meat has not been
approved for consumption in most countries, and when it does get
approved, it will be much more expensive than other meat and protein
products.
Increased mechanization could reduce labor costs. Using used
equipment from the medical and pharmaceutical industries could
reduce costs in startups but has a limited supply. A new lower-cost cell
culture medium could greatly reduce costs.
It is not likely that many consumers are willing to pay $100 for a
kilogram of lean meat at the supermarket. However, history has shown
that as technologies improve, the cost of production can decrease to a
point that encourages large-scale production. Our projection is that
producing at large-scale, assuming projected innovations in media
materialize, the cost of producing cell-cultured meat can be reduced
from a lab-based cost of $2.3 million per kilogram in 2013 to just $63/kg
at a large-scale. If such a cost is reached, cell-cultured meat could
conceivably compete, especially in developed economies such as the
United States and Western Europe as a niche product that can command
a premium price. Our results show that this industry will need to focus
on reducing capital and labor costs as well as the media cost if it wants to
compete on price with meats such as beef, pork, and chicken.
As more information becomes available, future estimates can
potentially be more accurate than the estimates produced here. For
example, a limitation of the study is the lack of information about how
much downtime will be necessary for planned and unplanned mainte-
nance, repairs, and cleaning in place of bioreactors and processing
equipment after the production of a nal batch. In addition, the study
did not provide a detailed budget of what total production costs would
be if a cell-based meat plant was located in a country with a comparative
advantage in production in terms of cost of labor in both cell-culture
medium and cell-cultured meat, such as India or China. The risk of
contamination and any possible liability for damages to consumers was
not considered. Each of these limitations provides the opportunity for
further economic research efforts.
Funding
This research was primarily funded by the Noble Research Institute,
LLC, Ardmore, Oklahoma. Brorsen receives funding from the Oklahoma
Agricultural Experiment Station and National Institute of Food and
Agriculture Hatch Project OKL03170 as well as the A.J. and Susan
Jacques chair.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors have no conicts of interest to report.
Acknowledgements
Cold storage construction costs were provided by Cold Storage
Construction Services, Inc, Montgomery, TX.
References
[1] WWI (World Watch Institute), State of the World 2006: China and India Hold
World in Balance, 2006, pp. 3–15, 2014, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3893.
[2] N. Fiala, Meeting the demand: an estimation of potential future greenhouse gas
emissions from meat production, Ecol. Econ. 67 (2008) 412–419.
[3] N.P. Springer, F. Duchin, Feeding nine billion people sustainably: conserving land
and water through shifting diets and changes in technologies, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 48 (2014) 4444–4451.
[4] H. Steinfeld, P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, C. Dee Haan,
Livestock’s Long Shadow. Enviro. Iss. Opt. FAO 978, Information Division, Rome,
Italy, 2006. -92-5-195571-7.
[5] I. Datar, M. Betti, Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system, Innovat.
Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 11 (2010) 13–22.
[6] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), in: R.K. Pachauri, L.A. Meyer
(Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Group III
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
[Core Writing Team, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014, p. 151. https://www.ipcc.
ch/report/ar5/syr.
[7] M.B. Eisen, P.O. Brown, Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the
potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of
CO
2
emissions this century, PLOS Clim 1 (2022), e0000010, https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010.
[8] CDC (Center for Disease Control), CDC Estimates of Foodborne Illness in the United
States. 2014-5-13, 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodbo
rne-estimates.html.
[9] I.T. Kadim, O. Mahgoub, S. Baqir, B. Faye, R. Purchas, Cultured meat from muscle
stem cells: a review of challenges and prospects, J. Integr. Agric. 14 (2015)
222–233, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60881-9.
[10] G.T. Tonsor, N.J. Olynk, Impacts of animal well-being and welfare media on meat
demand, J. Agric. Econ. 62 (2022) (2011) 13.
[11] CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture), Animal Care Program:
Proposition 12, Farm Animal Connement. Found at: cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/Prop12.
html (accessed, July 20, 2022).
[12] M. Williamson, Space ethics and the protection of the space environment, Scipolicy
19 (2003) 47–52.
[13] K. Kupferschmidt, Here it comes…the $375,000 lab-grown beef burger, Science.
org, Retrieved July 20, 2022, from, https://www.science.org/content/article/here
-it-comes-375000-lab-grown-beef-burger, 2013.
[14] A.D. Bach, J. Stem-Straeter, J.P. Beier, H. Bannasch, G. B Stark, Engineering of
muscle tissue, Clin. Plast. Surg. 30 (2003) 589–599.
[15] N. Stephens, I. Dunsford, L. Silvio, D. Ellis, A. Glencross, A. Sexton, Bringing
cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in
cellular agriculture, J. Food Sci. Technol. 78 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tifs.2018.04.010.
[16] B. Ellison, B.R. McFadden, B.J. Rickard, N. L Wilson, Examining food purchase
behavior and food values during the COVID-19 pandemic, Appl. Econ. Perspect.
Pol. 43 (1) (2021) 58–72.
[17] C.S. Mattick, A.E. Landis, B.R. Allenby, N.J. Genovese, Anticipatory life cycle
analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United
States, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2015) 11941–11949, https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.5b01614.
[18] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural marketing service (USDA-AMS), daily
beef reports (n.d.), Retrieved March 6, 2022, from, https://www.ams.usda.gov/m
arket-news/daily-beef-reports.
[19] D.R. Campion, The muscle satellite cell: a review, Int. Rev. Cytol. 87 (1984)
225–251.
[20] M.A. Benjaminson, J.A. Gilchrest, M. Lorenz, In vitro edible muscle protein
production system (MPPS): stage 1, sh, Acta Astronom. 51 (2002) 879–889.
[21] S. Kuang, M.A. Rudnicki, The emerging biology of satellite cells and their
therapeutic potential, Trends Mol. Med. 14 (2008) 82–91.
[22] P.D. Edelman, D.C. McFarland, V.A. Mironov, J.G. Matheny, Commentary: in vitro-
cultured meat production, Tissue Eng. 11 (2005) 659–662.
[23] Z. Xing, B.M. Kenty, Z. Jian, Z.J. Li, Scale-up analysis for a CHO cell culture process
in large-scale bioreactors, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 103 (4) (2009) 733–746.
[24] L. Specht, An analysis of culture medium costs and production volumes for
cultivated meat, Rep. Publ. by Good Food Inst. (2020) 1–30. https://g.org/resour
ce/analyzing-cell-culture-medium-costs/.
[25] E.J. Van Loo, V. Caputo, J.L. Lusk, Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-
grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: does information or brand matter?
Food Pol. 95 (2020), 101931 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101931.
[26] B.R. McFadden, P.J. Ferraro, K.D. Messer, Private costs of carbon emissions
abatement by limiting beef consumption and vehicle use in the United States, PLoS
One 17 (1) (2022) e0261372, 2022.
[27] D. Risner, F. Li, J.S. Fell, S.A. Pace, J.B. Siegel, I. Tagkopoulos, E.S. Spang,
Preliminary techno-economic assessment of animal cell-based meat, Foods 10
(2021) 1–28, https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010003.
[28] UN, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
division, World population prospects 2022: Summary of results, UN DESA/POP/
2022/TR/NO.3, 2022.
[29] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National resource conservation service (USDA-
NRCS), commodity costs and returns estimation handbook, Retrieved November
12, 2021, from, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/tech
nical/econ/references/?cid=nrcs143_009751, 2000.
[30] A. Parkinson, Breaking down the Good Food Institute’s essential 8 culture medium
analysis (n.d.). Retrieved March 6, 2022, from: https://www.proteinreport.org/bre
aking-down-good-food-institutes-essential-8-culture-medium-analysis.
[31] M.J. Post, Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food, J. Sci. Food Agric. 94
(2014) 1039–1041, https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6474.
[32] BLS, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing,
Industry-Specic Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 2020 n.d.).
Retrieved March 6, 2022, from, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/naics4_3
25400.htm.
[33] California Water Service, Rates and tariffs (n.d.). Retrieved March 6, 2022, from,
https://www.calwater.com/rates-and-tariffs/.
[34] EIA, Energy information administration, electric power monthly (n.d.). Retrieved
May 4, 2021, from, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.
php.
G.L. Garrison et al.

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 10 (2022) 100358
8
[35] S. Coecke, M. Balls, G. Bowe, J. Davis, G. Gstraunthaler, T. Hartung, Guidance on
good cell culture practice: a report of the second ECVAM Task Force on good cell
culture practice, Alt. Lab. Anim. 33 (2005) 261–287.
[36] O.W. Merten, Safety issues of animal products used in serum-free media, Dev. Biol.
Stand. 99 (1999) 22–36.
[37] S.J. Froud, The development of benets and disadvantages of serum-free media,
Dev. Biol. Stand. 99 (1999) 157–166.
[38] E. Curran, Made in China not as cheap as you think, Bloomberg, Business
Economics, March 16, 2016. https://www.bloomberg.
com/news/articles/2016-03-16/made-in-china-not-as-cheap-as-you-th
ink#xj4y7vzkg.
[39] India Brieng, The Labor Market in India: Structure and Costs, January 17, 2019.
[40] M. Bertrand, C.T. Hsieh, N. Tsivanidis, Contract Labor and Firm Growth in India,
University of Chicago, August 2021. Working Paper No. 2021-96, https://b.uchi
cago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/BFI_WP_2021-96.pdf.
G.L. Garrison et al.