降低发酵衍生成分成本的见解与建议：发酵衍生成分技术经济模型的元分析

AuthorsGFILucas Eastham, MSLead Fermentation ScientistAmanda Bess, PhDSenior Analysis Program ManagerAdam Leman, PhD*Principal Fermentation Scientist*Corresponding author: adaml@gfi.orgAcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge and thank Vatshal Bhanushali, Logan Roberts, Kainoa Sastra, andSanya Sehgal of Hawkwood Biotech, for their valuable contributions to the public techno-economic datacollection and analysis, and the development of the case study.Design and copy edit credit: Kelli Cromsigt, Joe Gagyi, Emily Hennegan, Tara FossCover illustration credit: original by Hasan As’ari/Shutterstock.com; modified by The Good Food InstituteSuggested citation:Good Food Institute.Driving down costs: Insights and recommendationsfrom a meta-analysis of techno-economic models of fermentation-derived ingredients.Washington, D.C.: Good Food Institute, 2025. https://doi.org/10.62468/trxj5734.About the Good Food InstituteThe Good Food Institute is a nonprofit think tank working to make the global food system better for the planet,people, and animals. Alongside scientists, businesses, and policymakers, GFI’s teams focus on making plant-based, fermentation-enabled, and cultivated meat delicious, affordable, and accessible. Powered by philan-thropy, GFI is an international network of organizations advancing alternative proteins as an essential solutionneeded to meet the world’s climate, global health, food security, and biodiversity goals.All of GFI’s work is made possible by gifts and grants from our global community of donors. If you are interestedin learning more about giving to GFI, contact philanthropy@gfi .org. To learn more, please visit www.gfi.org. Hawkwood BiotechAdrienne McKee, PhDPartner Driving down costs / June 2025 Executive summaryFermentation-derived (FD) ingredients are gainingmomentum in the alternative protein industryfor their potential to match conventional ingredi-ents in cost and taste. As interest grows amongstakeholders working to feed the world in increas-ingly sustainable ways, companies, researchers,investors, and policymakers must understandthe economic viability of FD products to drivelarge-scale investment and rapid technologicaldevelopment of the industry. This report providesthe most comprehensive analysis to date of thecost competitiveness and cost drivers of FDingredients based on a robust review of publishedtechno-economic models (TEMs). By synthesizingexisting knowledge, this report equips stakeholdersto prioritize research and development needs,assess product targets, and invest in technologicaland process innovations that can improve theeconomic viability of FD ingredients—includingachieving cost parity with conventional ingredients. ScopeTechno-economic modeling is essential for evalu-ating the economic potential of new technologiesand pinpointing innovations that enhance costcompetitiveness. This analysis reviews publishedTEMs for three key classes of FD food products:biomass protein, precision fermentation-derivedprotein, and microbial lipids. The goal was to assesscost competitiveness and identify knowledge gapsand strategies for lowering production costs.This report provides the most comprehensiveanalysis to date of the cost competitivenessand cost drivers of FD ingredients basedon a robust review of published techno-economic models (TEMs). Driving down costs / June 2025 Driving down costs / June 2025•Published and private TEMs suggest that costparity with incumbent proteins, especially beefand pork, is within reach today. Poultry presentsa tighter benchmark, requiring further costreductions. Competing with commodity plantproteins is more challenging on a per-proteinbasis, as average biomass COP is at or above soyand pea prices.•Biomass TEMs were the most prominent amongpublished sources, with 25 models identified,offering broader coverage across fermenta-tion approaches than TEMs for other producttypes. However, these models typically assumesmaller production volumes and lower titersthan commercial processes, resulting in higherestimated COP compared to private models. Key insightsThe following insights reflect the study’s key findingson FD ingredient cost competitiveness, as well as thecritical strategies and knowledge gaps that influenceproduction costs.Biomass proteins are closing the price gapwith several incumbent proteins.•Biomass cost of production (COP) frompublished TEMs converges around $4–$6 per kg(range $1.3–$18.1 per kg) across all biomassprocesses (Figure 1). A private case study,grounded in real-world process parameters,predicts a lower COP of $2.5/kg.1 Driving down costs / June 2025•The four published PF TEMs identified offerlimited coverage of products and fermentationprocesses, as cost estimates and process metricsvary widely. Compared to industry benchmarks,these publishedTEMs underestimate productionvolume and titer.Figure 2. Biomass protein and microbial oil production costs highlight cost competitiveness with select incumbent ingredient mar