The interesting part is that current lowest-cost food production is a semi-random walk of various optimization paths to arrive at the status quo. That someone tried a different path, optimizing different parameters doesn't give any guarantees that further attempts could or could not go as low in price, or maybe at get to an overall higher value to a wider set of end consumers even if the price were higher.

We could be creating less waste, or healthier food products, the question is how do we systematically explore new spaces like that, even when there isn't immediate payoff. We shouldn't just rely on lucky whims of individuals - if nothing else our overall system conspires to a smaller ration of fewer individuals financially capable of indulging such exploration.

> Who can afford such prices?

Not sure about $20/lb - I guess this means most don't eat chicken often - but...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/yo...

It may well be that we just have to spend more on food and less on rent (for example). In aggregate it wouldn't be much of an issue if over a period of 10-20 years food prices increased and something else (due to limited individual budgets) decreased.

It’s possible to raise chickens as part of a broader regenerative system where much of the feed is an output from elsewhere in that system. This has been done profitably by folks like Joel Salatin, but it has its own constraints (for example, availability of pasture land).

You kinda really need at least a substantial subset of those