Figure 1: Process flow diagram of the cost-focused configuration.

The cost-focused process was designed to prioritise affordability over environmental or operational complexity. It features a straightforward linear production line with minimal system redundancy and no recovery or recycling systems. Media is heat-sterilised in batches and stored in large, jacketed vessels. Cells are thawed, seeded, expanded, and differentiated in parallel single-use bioreactors. Once harvested, the biomass is cooled, packaged, and frozen with no further processing or recovery of media or cells. Cleaning is infrequent and performed manually where possible.

This design mimics the likely setup for early-stage startups with limited funding or technical capacity. Its simplicity keeps capital and operational expenditure low but comes at the cost of high material usage, water consumption, and overall environmental burden [1, 2, 7].

Figure 2: Process flow diagram of the environmentally optimised configuration.

This design introduces major changes aimed at reducing environmental impact, while still maintaining economic viability. Inputs such as growth media are reformulated using plant-based ingredients (e.g., soy hydrolysate and beet sugar) instead of animal-derived or synthetic components [1, 4]. The process replaces high-energy mechanical agitation with air-lift bioreactors, which improve oxygenation with lower shear and energy usage [4].

Significant changes are made in upstream design: batch sizes are optimised to reduce excess, and deep cryostorage is replaced with cold-chain liquid storage, reducing energy demands [1, 5]. Cleaning cycles (CIP/SIP) are integrated into the schedule and simulated in life cycle assessments, revealing a more accurate picture of water use and emissions [1, 5].

Overall, this process reduces CO₂ emissions and water use by over 50%, demonstrating that sustainable design can be achieved without prohibitive cost increases [1, 4, 5].

Figure 3: Process flow diagram of the hybrid configuration (Design C), showing the full system including recovery modules.

The final process adds modular recovery systems to maximise yield and minimise waste. This includes enzymatic digestion of microcarriers to recover residual cells [6], filtration and reverse osmosis to recycle process water, and automated cleaning cycles with recovery tanks [1, 4, 5]. While the base layout resembles the environmentally optimised system, additional holding tanks, enzyme steps, and product sorting modules are included.

This design increases capital cost and system complexity but recovers otherwise lost materials. It also introduces a secondary product stream: recovered cells that may be repurposed as high-value biotech or cosmetic ingredients [1, 5, 6].

Across the three designs, the strategies evolve progressively. Design A is linear and simple, aimed at cost minimisation. Design B introduces sustainable inputs and reactor design choices. Design C layers on complexity to close resource loops and extract value from waste along the process.

Each process reflects a different set of priorities. Design A is suited to rapid deployment or low-tech environments. Design B demonstrates that smart substitutions and modular design can drastically cut environmental impact without large added cost. Design C showcases that circular processing and recovery systems are feasible and offer long-term efficiency gains — but require upfront investment and tighter system integration.

Key considerations across designs include: sterilisation method (batch vs. continuous), storage strategy (deep freeze vs. cold liquid chain), reactor type (stirred-tank vs. air-lift), and the inclusion of water/cell recovery in the final system. Incorporating CIP/SIP reveals significant effects on both water use and CO₂ emissions.

The hybrid process in Design C contributes a key improvement: it combines environmental and economic goals within a single, modular layout [5]. It offers a template that balances material cost, operational complexity, and sustainability — crucial for industries like cultivated meat, where margins are tight and scale-up is essential.

This staged comparison provides a roadmap for early-stage cultivated meat companies: start lean, optimise inputs, then close the loop [1, 4, 5]. It also highlights where future bioprocessing efforts — such as smarter microcarriers or lower-impact cleaning methods — could deliver the greatest gains [1, 5].

This represents a unique contribution within iGEM as it addresses both environmental and techno-economic gaps by modelling complete process boundaries, including water and chemical recovery systems.

Analysis confirms that the current production reality is dominated by raw material costs, which account for approximately 98% of total operating expenditure (OPEX). Raw materials — particularly microcarriers and recombinant proteins — remain the persistent cost bottleneck.

While recombinant Growth Factors (GFs) constitute a significant proportional expense (67.48% of material costs in the traditional seed-train scenario, Section B), sensitivity analysis indicates that GF pricing is presently the least elastic part of the operating cost structure. Conversely, highly utilised process chemicals such as buffers are conventional industrial compounds, meaning that facilities to scale and produce these inputs already exist within traditional chemical engineering frameworks.

Despite the operational improvements and cost-cutting measures implemented in Section C, the current cost structure renders large-scale cultured meat production economically unfeasible. Approximate calculations show that annual operational costs reach about $855 million. If muscle fibres sell at a competitive beef parity price ($13.4/kg) and the co-product (immortalised cells) is sold at an optimistic $5,000/kg, total annual revenue would only reach around $195 million.

This means revenue covers only about 5% of annual cost, requiring the cell co-product to be sold for approximately $22,100/kg just to break even. This gap underscores the urgent need for cost-reducing innovations in growth factor manufacturing, microcarrier recycling, and media efficiency.

Fundamentally, this analysis concludes that cultivated meat faces no insurmountable technological barriers — rather, the challenge lies in input supply chains and process scaling. Addressing these areas, particularly through growth factor production and recycling strategies, is where our contribution becomes most critical.