Well the long and short of that is the infrastructure and space usage of livestock etc. aren't ignored, they're part and parcel of what the cost of bringing mea

Well the long and short of that is the infrastructure and space usage of livestock etc. aren't ignored, they're part and parcel of what the cost of bringing meat to your plate is. Can't say what exact breakdowns are, likely the answer is "it depends" on the meat and cut/grade/etc but there will be industry reports and such so I'm sure you can find something. The fundamental point here is that the analysis says that at no point soon does a bioreactor get cheaper than livestock, and will likely remain significantly more expensive for a long time if these promised magical breakthroughs do not occur (and I say promised since they're looking for investment, so if they don't then it's a massive loss on everyone's parts). Humbird estimated $17-$40 for a pound of ground meat by 2030. Future Meat has already reached $18 for cultured ground "chicken" but as the article points out is unlikely to go lower. Currently, ground beef costs about $4 per pound. $4. That's how much everything, from infrastructure to land use to feed to water to labour to delivery costs for the same ground beef you'd get from livestock as you'd get straight out of the bioreactor (which they said was 70% water and 30% basically ground meat). A round steak costs about $6 per pound if you're lucky, and often higher. Going for steak with meat cultures this would drive the price well beyond $17 since you'd need to do a LOT more work in processing it. Livestock has been scaled out very efficiently by ignoring all the environmental damages it causes. Since the whole point of this is to not "cut corners", they're already on the back foot, and the article explains many of the concerning avenues they are considering to even try and get close to dropping the price. Ultimately, livestock has been optimised, and isn't getting cheaper, quite the opposite. Prices are slowly rising for meat. But the "hidden" cost is the environmental damage (a damning cost at that). Scaling out the bioreactors physically with higher capacity is how you'd drop the cost of cultured meat at the same volume, fewer larger reactors being more efficient than many smaller ones, since the pharmaceutical industry has failed to make game changing breakthroughs in the other approaches to making more efficient cultures that would meet this need in recent years (though, as mentioned, Future Meat has done just this, but would still need economy of scale to get competitive). They could scale up tomorrow with ten thousand times as many reactors without making a real dent in their efficiency, simply replicating what they already have, and still be forced to sell at cost like Eat Just or sell at an unjustifiable price. Current cost according to the article is typically between $10k and $22k per pound. That's obscene. Getting down to $17 per pound, or even close such as Future Meat with it's incredible $18 per pound, is still a losing battle. After all, even if we removed subsidies and doubled the price of meat, that's still significantly cheaper than ground meat cultures, let alone being processed. Meanwhile, plant-based alternatives and such are already reaching the point of being cost competitive, with $6 per pound for a Beyond Beef burger, and an average price of $9 per pound for meat alternatives, and some people are already switching. So if there's anything that governments should focus on, it's the one that's clearly successful (and in way more volume) and just about a similar win in terms of soy/grain usage and similar. Is the article perfect? No. Is it correct? Most likely. I don't think the focus is off, though I do think that there's some ground work that could have been done, showing breakdowns of costs and such in a clearer way, though clearly it's prose in the end while the reports speak for themselves. Talking about the story of the analysis and what it actually means for the likely future of meat culture. Hopefully I've collected those points you were looking for a little bit here, though not being an industry expert naturally I've been unable to trivially procure breakdowns for how much is labour costs per pound etc., so mostly it's a denser version of the factoids in the article and what's readily available online.