Fermentation is at the heart of many alternative protein processes. But with no one-size-fits-all approach to fermentation-based production, several misconceptions persist, particularly around capacity, retrofitting, and the most effective methodologies.
In a presentation at the Hack Summit in Lausanne this June, David Brandes, CEO and co-founder of Planetary Group, discussed myths about the alternative protein sector that often mislead companies, investors, and stakeholders.
Part one of this two-part series addresses common market misconceptions that may be stifling innovation and offers advice for companies looking to overcome such challenges.
Fermentation-based alternative protein products have taken off in the past few years and are slowly moving from niche to becoming available on supermarket shelves. With this inevitably comes discussions on scaling up fermentation capacity, which has become a point of contention for many.
Brandes, who believes there is enough capacity for fermentation-based methods, acknowledged the many differing opinions and stances that the industry has on this topic. He said: “There are many bold claims out there and it's hard to see through the clutter.”
Brandes used the example of Quorn, an established player in the alternative protein space that produces mycoprotein. Brandes explained that the company, which built its facility around 20 to 30 years ago, has around 500,000 litres of capacity, illustrating that large-scale fermentation-based facilities already exist and are operational.
In terms of alternative proteins produced through precision fermentation, new capacity is being financed and built. Brandes noted that the company US-based Liberation Labs, which aims to design, build, and operate a purpose-built precision fermentation platform, is on track to open a new facility in 2025. The new facility is expected to produce between 600 to 1,200 tonnes of protein per year.
While substantial capacity exists, the specifics of food-grade status and usability can be murky, Brandes said. "It's very difficult to say what is food grade, and what can actually be used or not." Despite these complexities, Brandes was certain these new facilities, currently in either the development phase or coming online, promise to meet the growing demand for alternative protein.
Certain aspects of plant construction can be standardised, Brandes noted, such as utilities like wastewater, electricity, steam, and upstream fermentation processing. Standardising downstream processes, however, becomes more difficult.
Downstream processing varies significantly, as it must be tailored to specific production needs to ensure both efficiency and cost-effectiveness in production.
"An intracellular compound and extracellular compound are not extracted, or let's say, purified or isolated, in the same way," Brandes explained, which means, depending on the type of product and its form, a tailored approach and process will be required, and with this comes increased costs.
Brandes explained that there is a perception that fermentation tanks can be easily adapted or repurposed for new uses, such as precision fermentation.
The reality is that the differences in process requirements, make retrofitting fermentation tanks challenging and usually uneconomical.
Traditional fermenters, such as those found in breweries, are designed for anaerobic processes, whereas aerobic processes are needed for precision fermentation. In traditional fermenters, Brandes pointed out the oxygen transfer rate is very low or non-existent, making these tanks unsuitable for precision fermentation, without significant modifications.
There are also structural issues, like wall thickness and cleaning capabilities, that make retrofitting problematic. Brandes compared the wall thickness of a traditional fermenter to that of a soft drink can, which due to the high shear forces generated by the stirrers used in precision fermentation, is insufficient and needs reinforcement.
Retrofitting may seem cost-effective initially but often results in higher production costs and inefficiencies. "Even if you can maybe save 20% CapEx... you will have a system that is not optimised," Brandes said.
Larger, centralised production units, tend to be more cost-effective, economical, and efficient for large-scale production than decentralised units, Brandes explained.
Decentralising production with multiple smaller fermenters can lead to higher overall costs. "You need to have 10 times the downstream equipment and you need to have 10 times the piping," he said. "The total CapEx to get to 100,000 litres is much higher than just to build a 100,000 litre [unit] itself."
According to Brandes, continuous fermentation has not yet been proven effective at scale: "Nobody has cracked it yet at scale, even though it is very promising.” While it can potentially reduce some expenses, such as savings in upstream bioreactor costs, these may be offset by increased downstream processing costs.
The industry still needs more proof points before continuous fermentation can be considered viable, Brandes said. "It hasn't worked yet, so it’s a great concept [and] we should continue to believe in it, but it hasn't been proven."
For quicker market entry, Brandes recommended utilising well-established strains that are already approved and available on the market. “We see a range of funky strains being used. Our opinion is [to] take the ones that are already either GRAS [Generally Recognised as Safe] and approved on the market, either for biomass or precision fermentation. Don't make your life necessarily difficult.”
Innovating with new strains can be done after establishing market presence and revenue: "Go to market quickly, use those strains, and then innovate as you are generating revenue.”
Brandes added that beginning with novel strains could delay market entry and complicate the approval process.
