|
|
|
|
|
by gamblor956
1183 days ago
|
|
No, it fundamentally boiled down to two things: bovine serum costs, and hygiene costs. GOOD claims that it already produces cultured meat without using bovine serum, in their Singapore facility. As we have no details on what they use instead of bovine serum, it's hard to assess the economic viability of what they're doing. But it also means that the entire counterargument focused on bovine serum costs is no longer relevant. And many required nutrients today are industrially grown in bacteria or algae (for example, most of the vitamins in a daily multivitamin). And the hygiene portion was premised on using Class 8 clean rooms for production, i.e., the most hygienic clean rooms currently recognized. The difference in cost between a Class 5 clean room (the lowest level of recognized "clean room", and the one used by pharmaceutical production, nanotech production, medical device production, etc.) and a Class 8 clean room is like the difference between an integrated GPU and a 6090 TI Founder's Edition. The problem with assuming the absolute top-of-the-line equipment would be required is that this was the assumption that drove this entire portion of the counterargument, down to facility size, equipment requirements, etc., ignoring entirely how production actually occurs in the real world. |
|
Though, complete sterilization of even a sealed closed environment is hard, and if using heat can require a lot of energy. Then I guess you'd need to pasteurize all nutrients as well.
Makes me wonder if a form of fermentation could be made to work with meet growth? It'd screw with cell density of the meet, but perhaps you could create an artificial symbiosis. The fermentation bacteria inhibit growth of bad bacteria, but wouldn't take too much of the overall energy from the meat cells.
Wow, that's a tricky problem.